pe eeresoeewee er steesr ert cert e sit erties 2b pesca le *. ross ees reste ee sree et ts pate eee eee ree! cs apnscecgensbeeevemntese espitscerss ster etertrss 2 reer erer toed 33 peeee eset er eett ae ee eee tesr ores eee Srlra ocala lee lessonsscteecscpeecaescse sesesesee esipsssssstesstesssgtis peesrerrerrar seeetee ent beteteiee elpeesseatte ttt ete tlsleesee ee eeetesee sete sos 3323352325 rereretesy sue halate tate Stabatar ate feteisin voles pibibasaritied THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 21 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, 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1964 (All rights reserved) TABLE OF CONTENTS Secretary’s Note International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report 1962 Opinion 687. Sigara atomaria Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Suppressed under the plenary powers oti - — Opinion 688. Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Paagenies Sr cone of a type-species under the plenary powers : Opinion 689. Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] bia oaks eacebane Validated under the plenary powers ! Opinion 690. Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 (Crustacea, oo Added to the Official List of Generic Names a : Opinion 691. Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (Insecta, gs cia of a type-species under the plenary powers é ; “a Opinion 692. Quinqueloculina d’ suai 1826 slipeaahiaiee Valida- ted under the plenary powers ... : : Opinion 693. Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 (Crustacea, Decapoda): — tion of a type-species under the plenary powers : Opinion 694. Cynips caricae Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, tse 25 Validated under the plenary powers os: ; : Opinion 695. Pnoepyga Ca dee 1844 tas Validation under the plenary powers ‘ een a Proposed use of the plenary powers to grant precedence to the family- group name CUTHONIDAE Over TERGIPEDIDAE and to stabilize some specific names in the genus known as Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 (Gastropoda). By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) : wee a oe 32 Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 (Gastropoda): Proposed designation under the plenary powers of a type-species with suppression of several nomina dubia. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) xs Lk iil = 16 20 22 24 26 28 31 33 35 IV Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791 (Gastropoda): Proposed emendation under the plenary powers to Cavolinia. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ... Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to the Official List. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) : ne a am e Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name Cratena Bergh, 1864, in order to validate the generic name Rizzolia Trinchese, 1866 (Gastropoda). By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ... 12 sh Ri: Proposed stabilization of the generic name Trinchesia Ihering, 1879, and suppression under the plenary powers of Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923 (Gastropoda). By Henning Lemche (Uni- versitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) = Godiva Macnae, 1954 (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to the Official List as a replacement for Hervia auctt. (nec Bergh, 1871). By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) a “ae ; eg Application for the rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the pamphlet by J. Hiibner entitled Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmet- terlinge printed in 1808. By EW:.B: ae ee Museum ars History), London) Election of Officers and Council Death of Canon L. W. Grensted Addendum to Opinion 643 Opinion 696. Parthenope Weber, 1795, and Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Placed on the Official List of Generic Names Opinion 697. Doto Oken, 1815 (Gastropoda): Validated under the plenary powers sie abe ae <3) a. ay ie Opinion 698. Lystrophis ae 1885 a oe Validated under the plenary powers 5 Opinion 699. Gryllus campestris Linnaeus, 1758 sree a ae Designation of a neotype under the plenary powers . ; Page 45 48 50 52 56 58 81 81 92 94 97 101 104 Opinion 700. Dasiops alveofrons Moffitt & Yaruss, 1961 (Insecta, Diptera): Suppressed under the plenary powers un hs Opinion 701. Pisidia Leach, 1820: Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers; and Cancer istrianus Scropoli, 1763: Suppressed under the plenary powers (Crustacea, Decapoda) Opinion 702. Stereomastis Bate, 1888 Spanien meagre oa Validated under the plenary powers Opinion 703. Pterophorus Schiffer, 1766 (Insecta, r ApInapera): Addi- tion to the Official List of Generic Names : Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797 (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to the Official List. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ' Sz) na sa Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867, and Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Gastropoda): Two generic names proposed for protection under theplenary powers. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, mie) Bea Denmark) sf. se sh ae aX a iF it Flabellina Voigt, 1834 (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoolo- giske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (Gastropoda): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) .. Names of Nudibranch Gastropod genera proposed for the Official List. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ai : 23 ff oe ; Yoldia Moller, 1842, and Portlandia Mérch, 1857: Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers with rejection of Yoldia arctica Moller, 1842. BY T. Soot- oe eerteet A Museum, Oslo, Norway) . zi Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 (Brachiopoda): Proposed addition to the Official List with Terebratula schlotheimii von Buch, [1834], as type-species. By Herta Schmidt (Natur-Museum und fnsheee ay Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) : ks 108 111 113 116 118 120 123 125 127 130 VI Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838 (Aves): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.), J. T. Marshall, Jr. (University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.) and Robert K. Sahiba of Texas, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.) x us aS a Proposed use of the plenary powers (a) to designate a type-species for the genera Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, and Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827, and (b) for the suppression of the generic name Smerdis Leach, 1817, (Crustacea, Stomatopoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) and Raymond B. Manning (Division of Marine Invertebrates, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Nicholas S. Obraztsov (Department of noi The American Museum of Natural His- tory, New York) ws : te sn se oa eee Baetis [Leach, 1815] (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) dei és aot amg Megalopta Smith, 1853 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Charles D. Michener (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and J. S. Moure, C.M.F. (University of Paranda, Curitiba, Brazil) me es Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837, and Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 (Arachnida, Araneae): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard Uni- versity, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and Otto Kraus (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) TIBICENIDAE Van Duzee, 1916 (Insecta, Cicadoidea): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of PLATYPLEURIDAE Schmidt, 1918. By W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the XVIth International Congress of Zoology, Washington, 1963. Opinion 704. Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846 peg bea Added to the Official List of Generic Names Opinion 705. Blissus Burmeister, 1835 (Insecta, oe aaa Added to the Official List of Generic Names . Page 133 137 144 146 148 150 154 162 196 198 Opinion 706. Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (Foraminifera): Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers f 2h Opinion 707. Asterias nodosa Linnaeus, 1758 Stanpatonies Added to the Official List of Specific Names : Opinion 708. Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 pilin kiki iia oer pressed under the plenary powers Opinion 709. Dendraspis oe 1843 Micra sd ag under the plenary powers ter Gender of generic names ending in -ops. By Afranio do Amaral (Director, Instituto Butantan, S. Paulo, Brazil); C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington D.C., U.S.A.); Jasper Griffin (Balliol College, Oxford) Lingula Bruguiére, [1797] (Brachiopoda): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By A. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) ... + ee ¥.. ae Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, 1850 (Hydrozoa): Proposed valida- tion under the plenary powers. By H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Purpura, Ocenebra, and Muricanthus (Gastropoda): Request for clarifica- tion of status. By A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, California, Certhia chrysotis Latham, 1801 (Aves): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Submitted by the Standing Committee on Orni- thological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. Chairman: Finn Salomonsen Opinion 710. Enhydrus Laporte, 1834 ae me sie Validated under the plenary powers =e Opinion 711. Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, mat Validated and interpreted under the plenary powers On the homonymy of the family name mirIDAE Hahn, 1833 (Insecta, Heteroptera) and the tribal name mirin1 Ashmead, 1900 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). By I. M. Kerzhner and V. A. Trjapitzin (Zoolo- gical Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) VII Page 202 206 208 210 212 222 225 235 240 242 246 263 Vill Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 (Cephalopoda, Belemnitida): Pro- posed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. By J. A. Jeletzky (Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Canada) On the identity of C/ypeaster rosaceus (Linnaeus) and some other irregular echinoids. By Ailsa Clark (British Museum (Natural History), London) sie a as eee ae mar 360 aes Nana Schumacher, 1817 (Gastropoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, California, Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865 (Reptilia): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By Eugen Kramer (Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland) = Asthraeus Laporte and Gory, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed emendation to Astraeus. By S. Barker (Department of es University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia) An appeal to reject the generic name Psomeles in favour of Rhyncogonus (Insecta, Coleoptera). By Elwood C. Zimmermann (Bishop Museum, Honolulu) i, sh be. vig ot Ht Ambalodus Branson and Mehl, 1933, or Ambolodus Branson and Mehl, 1934 (Conodonts): Proposed rejection of Ambolodus under the plenary powers. By Michael C. Mound and Raymond L. Ethington (California Research Corporation, La Habra, California, and University of Missouri, Columbia) ... = 5 ar 8 Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854 (Brachiopoda): Designa- tion of a neotype and proposed addition to the Official List. By R. D. Hoare ( PANE of ia “Nadal Bow hihces Green State iden Ohio, U.S.A.) Procyon brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, and Procyon obscurus Wiegmann, 1837: Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Mammalia). By Charles A. Long (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) . Opinion 712. Forty-seven genera of Decapod Crustacea: Placed on the Official List us Opinion 713. Rana fasciata Smith, 1849 (Amphibia): Added to the Official List with suppression of Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824, under the plenary powers : oe Se os ads bays Page 268 297 303 305 306 308 310 315 318 336 352 Opinion 714. Mérch, 1852-53, Catalogus Conchyliorum: Validated under the plenary powers with designation of a type-species for Pseuda- mussium Morch, 1853 (Pelecypoda) Eo Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1798 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. By G. G. E. Scudder (Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Van- couver 8, B.C., Canada) and E. ie ay ais hae, .; Moorreye 103, Germany) . Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792): Proposed preservation as the name for the European Sardine (Pisces). By Alwyne Wheeler (British Museum (Natural History), London) Log oa 4% ei CIMOLESTIDAE Marsh, 1889 (Mammalia): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By William Clemens (Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence), Malcolm C. McKenna (Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York), Donald E. Russell (Institut de Paléontologie, Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris), Robert E. Sloan (Geology Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis) and Leigh Van Valen (Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York) ie ee a ee Cnemidophorus septemvittatus Cope or Cnemidophorus scalaris Cope, 1892 (Reptilia): An appeal for the use of the plenary powers to set aside the rule of the first reviser. By Ralph W. Axtell ee e Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Alton, Illinois) Ornithologia Britannica, 1771: Proposed validation of four specific names. By the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. Chairman: Fin Salomonsen Moehring, 1758, Geslachten der Vogelen: Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. Chairman: Finn Salomonsen : Meles montanus Richardson, 1829, and Meles jeffersonii Harlan, 1825: Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Mammalia). By Charles A. Long (Department of Zoology and Museum Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.) , de IX Page 355 357 360 363 364 366 368 370 X The name Cacatua Brisson, 1760 (Aves): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass.), Allen Keast (Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario) and D. L. Serventy (C.S.J.R.O., Nedlands, W. Australia) ... Laemophloeus immundus Reitter, 1874 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By L. P. Lefkovitch (Agricultural Research Council, Pest Infestation Laboratory, London Road, Slough, Bucks., U.K.) a dt NaS a PAMPHAGIDAE Burmeister, 1840, and PYRGOMORPHIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1874: Proposed addition to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology, and further proposals arising therefrom (Insecta, Orthoptera). By D. Keith McE. Kevan (Department of Entomology, McGill University, Macdonald College, Province of Quebec, Canada) a a a ai bo jac sot Anthus roseatus Blyth, 1847, (Aves): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Finn Salomonsen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) and Charles Vaurie (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) B Gobius orca Collett, 1874 (Pisces): Proposed use of the plenary powers to set aside a first reviser selection. By P. J. Miller (Department of Zoology, The University, Glasgow W.2, Scotland)... oe ie Coluber doliatus Linnaeus, 1766 (Reptilia): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Hobart M. Smith, John D. Lynch and B. Gail Puckette (Department of Zoology and University of Natura History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) pee me: Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894 (Coccolithophorida): Proposed validation under the plenary powers and designation of a lectotype for Coccolithus oceanicus Schwarz, 1894. By Trygve Braarud (Uni- versitet I Oslo, Blindern, Norway), M. N. Bramlette (Scripps Institu- tion of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.), Georges Deflandre (Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, France), Erwin Kamptner (Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien, Austria), Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr. (California Research Corporation, La Habra, California, U.S.A.), Erlend Martini (Johan Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Frank- furt a.M., Germany) and Helen Tappan (University of California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) ..- pe Bee es ae 7 An appreciation of the late Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., for many years Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By N. D. Riley Page 372 375 377 386 388 392 397 402 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report 1963 Opinion 715. XENOPHORIDAE Phillippi, 1853 (Gastropoda): Added to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology a ia Opinion 716. PHASMATIDAE Gray, 1835 (Insecta, Phasmatodea): Added to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology Six misidentified type-species in the superfamily MURICACEA (Gastropoda). By A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, California) ... co eee Cotinis Burmeister, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed conservation under the plenary powers. By Michael A. Goodrich (The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa., U.S.A.) Mytilus (now Anodonta) anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia): Proposed designation of a neotype in conformity with the intentions of its entry on the Official List. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ... Ja ue i Martinia inflata (Schnur, 1854) (Brachiopoda): Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names. By U. Jux and F. Strauch ee ment of Geology, University of Cologne, Germany) . in a Stringocephalus Defrance, 1825 (Brachiopoda): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By Raymond C. Moore erie a Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) ; Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed inter- pretation under the plenary powers. By D. G. Kissinger ee Union College, South Lancaster, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) Thunnus South, 1845 (Pisces): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Bruce B. Collette (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Ichthyological Laboratory, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Robert H. Gibbs, Jr. (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792: Application to validate this nomen oblitum for the Indian Ocean Sailfish (Genus Jstiophorus). By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Natural History), London) ... Turritella kanieriensis G. F. Harris, 1897 (Mollusca): Proposed designa- tion of a type-specimen under the plenary powers. By J. Marwick, A. W. B. Powell, R. K. Dell, C. A. Fleming (New Zealand)... XI Page 405 417 420 422 429 432 436 438 442 447 XII Page Index to Authors eR =e As ree est $2: ze. euur PAs List of Decisions in this volume .... ee i xt fi t odes Index of Key Names ... ee ss eae ie ie Bats ca), Ce Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in decisions published in Volume 21 at = iss > re ae ate .. 469 Corrigenda_.... oe _ sat uate aie ae ae ... 474 ~ Y @” NAT. HIST = 6 JANI969 « PURCHASED > a Volume 21. Part 1. 25th March, 1964 pp. 1—80 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE = 1MAR1964 P IRCHASED. The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on Lina Pp in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : 1 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 1 International Trust for spikes Bis umes Fy agua and Accounts for 1962 ... y os ive 3 (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 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1. 1964 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Office vacant Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Acting Secretary: Dr. W. E. CHina (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico TorRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per BrINcK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur.-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Osrucuev (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) Se aes Tohru Ucuia (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March nee eee ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) 1 May 19 Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. BorcusEntus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) As W. =a CuIna (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting ecretary Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President ) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. Stout (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. L. B. Hoxtuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Dr. Alden H. MILter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (23 August 1963) Dr. Carl L. Huss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Mr. C. W. SAsrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) \ e/ oP by Pe Fa Aare io BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 21, Part 1 (pp. 1-80) 25th March 1964 Secretary’s Note The Acting Secretary regrets to announce the death of Mr. Francis Hem- ming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Commission from 1935 to 1958, who died from a heart attack on Saturday night, February 22nd, 1964. An appreciation of his services to the Commission will be published in due course. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary to the International Commission on 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 anycase in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin:— (1) Suppression of Doris lacinulata Miiller, 1776, Doris fasciculata Miiller, 1776 and Limax minimus Forskal, 1775; grant of precedence to CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934, over TERGIPEDIDAE Bergh, 1889 (Gastro- poda). Z.N.(S.) 1044 (2) Designation of a type-species for Eubranchus Forbes, 1838; suppression of the generic names Ethalion Risso, 1826, Amphorina Quatrefages, 1844, Galvina Alder & Hancock, 1855, and several dubious specific names (Gastropoda), Z.N.(S.) 1102 (3) Suppression of Cavolina Bruguiére, 1791, and emendation to Cavolinia of the generic name Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1103 (4) Suppression of Cratena Bergh, 1864 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1105 (5) Suppression of Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923 and Doris pennata Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1106 (6) Designation of a type-species for Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1611 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF EULACHNUS DEL GUERCIO, 1909. Z.N.(S.) 1541 (see volume 20, pages 236-237) By D. Hille Ris Lambers (Bennekom, The Netherlands) I should like to make an objection against the proposed suppression of Eulachnus Del Guercio, 1909, in Bull. Zool. Nomenclature 20 (3) : 236. Dr. Eastop states that Del Guercio defined Eulachnus in such a way, that the species agilis Kltb.—which by Wilson, 1911, was indicated as the type of Eulachnus—was excluded. Borner, 1952, and Eastop in the mentioned paper believe that Del Guercio did not have Eulachnus agilis at all and that his description refers to something totally different. However, a careful study of Del Guercio’s paper and its figures shows that this author certainly dealt either with Lachnus agilis K\tb. or with a species very nearly related to it. Tav. XVIII shows very distinctly and unmistakably morphological details of Lachnus agilis Kltb. of which an alate female (fig. 226), and the antennae (fig. 223), tarsus (fig. 223), and siphunculus (fig. 225) of the aptera are figured under the name Eulachnus agilis. From these figures it is certain that Del Guercio knew Eulachnus agilis quite well and this is also shown by the description published on page 317-321 where a very narrow greyish-green aphid is described. As other related species are not greyish-green it is certain that Del Guercio dealt with the true Lachnus agilis Kltb. under the name Eulachnus agilis (Kaltenbach) Del Guercio. Reading of the generic diagnosis of Eulanchus reveals that the primary character proposed by Del Guercio is the great length of the first tarsal joint which should be nearly half as long as the second joint. But, as customary in Del Guercio’s later papers, one encounters the most incredible confusion of mind, and this must be responsible for the introduction of the character that the last rostral segment should be styletto-shaped. Only in this respect does Lachnus agilis K\tb. differ from the generic diagnosis given by Del Guercio. I should therefore like to state (a) that Del Guercio certainly knew Lachnus agilis Kltb. and described that species as Eulachnus agilis (Kaltenbach) Del Guercio, (b) that Wilson’s designation of Lachnus agilis Kitb. as the type of Eulachnus Del Guercio, 1909, is valid in as much as Lachnus agilis Kaltenbach, 1843, was, both in name and in description, among the species included when Eulachnus was erected, (c) and that there is no need to replace the name Eulachnus Del Guercio by that of Protolachnus Theobald, 1915. Until Borner, 1952, used Protolachnus to replace Eulachnus Del Guercio in its until then accepted sense, no confusion about this genus had occurred in the literature. By F. C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) I wish to comment on, and propose another alternative to the proposed suppression of the generic name Eulachnus Del Guercio, 1909, as applied for by V. F. Eastop. It is true that in the original description of the genus Eulachnus the rostrum of the species Del Guercio called Eulachnus agilis (Kalt.) does not fit. It should be noted that the species Del Guercio called agilis consisted of two species, as already noted by Borner (1952 : 241). One an alate to which Bo6rner gave the name Protolachnus martellii and an immature apterous specimen belonging to another genus. The figures of the rostrum on pages 193 and 195 indicate that Del Guercio was aware that the rostrum of the genus Eulachnus had two types of apices, and his description of the alate and apterous forms of the species he called agilis indicate that he was aware of this. Thus, while Del Guercio’s description of the genus Eulachnus does exclude the species to which all other authors have applied the name agilis Kalt., he did include within his genus a species since named martellii, which he had misidentified as agilis Kalt. and which is congeneric with it. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 mingazzinii Del Guercio as type of Eulachnus invalid there would be no confusion between Eulachnus and Cinarella. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FINANCIAL REPORT 1962 The Income and Expenditure Account for 1962 shows a balance on the year’s working of £3,580, of which some £2,687 is due to sales of the Code. A more nearly comparable balance for 1962 is £950 to be compared with £1,473, the balance in 1961. Receipts from sales of the Bulletin are almost the same as in 1961, at £5,201, compared with £5,462. Expenditure for 1962 is approximately the same as that for the proceeding year, but the much lower expenditure on the International Code during the year is matched by an increase in administrative expenses. Continuing their review of the finances of the Trust, the Committee of Management, who last year were able to restore the Reserve to its original figure, have now found it possible to reduce the subscription price of the Bulletin to £15 from Ist January, 1964. 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR Incorporated under the Companies 1961 £ Revenue Reserves— — General Reserve Sie oe a Se as .. 10,000 0 0 2,858 “Official List’? Suspense Account (per separate account) 2,979 17 7 10,366 Income and Expenditure Account (per separate account) 3,945 19 7 13,224 16,925 17 2 1,200 Special Donation unappropriated — me a5 oe 1,200 0 0 Current Liabilities— 1,255 Sundry Creditors .. x Ans He is cbs 809 6 3 £15,679 £18,935 3 5 We have obtained the information and explanations which we considered necessary, and in our opinion (1) The above balance sheet and annexed income and expenditure account give a true and fair view of th ended on that date. (2) Proper books have been kept and the accounts are in agreement therewith and give, in the prescri Frnssury Circus House, BLOMFIELD STREET, Lonpbon, E.C.2. 25th April, 1963 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 OLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) 1st December, 1962 1961 Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— 838 Book value at Ist July, 1948 and Additions since at cost 837 18 413 Less Depreciation and amount written off ote ars 455 18 —— —————_—_—_———. 382 0 O Investments at cost— 2,078 £2,500 24:°% Savings Bonds 1964/67 ue ee e 2,078 10 6 2,249 £2,500 3°% Savings Bonds 1955/65. . a aL ar 2,248 16 9 —. (Market Value at date £4,719) —_————_. ( Ditto £4,387) som A ts No N Cm Ww rs) ~ Se) Ww 3,000 County Borough of Preston S27 ae of Ae —_—— — Temporary Loan .. af 5% 3,000 0 —— —————.__ 7,327 7 3 Current Assets— ae Ss. d: Amounts due for Publications at 1,570 valuation .. a 1,100 0 O — Sundry Amounts prepaid . she 38 0 0 32 Income Tax Recoverable .. oF a7 Se 7 1,602 ——— ————— 1,175 15 6,325 Balances at Bank and Cash in Hand +. 10050) 50 — ——— 11,225 16 2 (Note—The Stock of Publications has not been valued) ol sim FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN Members of the Committee N. D. RILEY of Management £18,935" 35 AUDITORS te of the Trust’s affairs at 31st December, 1962 and of the excess of income over expenditure for the year er, the information required by the Companies Act, 1948. sd W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. 1961 3,301 47 10,366 £10,366 — 2,713 585 53 3,351 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Income and Expenditure Account for EXPENDITURE z s. d & -S:. ¢ Administration Expenses— Salaries and National Insurance .. he at oi 3172.1 O Office Expenses bi g a fh a0 723 17 8 Audit Fee... na oe a ae ot = 52 10 0 3,948 8 8 Less: Proportion allocated to “Official List” Le ne 50 0 0 ———— 3,898 8 8 Depreciation of Office Equipment .. c. sis 313 4 00 Printing Publications— ' International Code .. a) i se S95. 9 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature oe & 43 1,883 9 4 ————— 1,891 15 1 53833 3) 79 Balance, being Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year, carried down .. = ae ux te x 3,580 5 4 £9,413 9 1 ——= Transfer to General Reserve .. bs oa Ps ms 10,000 0 0 Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet .. Je a 3,945 19 7 £13,945 19 7 ‘*Official List’ for the year end Proportion of Administration Expenses 2S os a 50 0 ¢ 2,979 17 £3,029 17 7 Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 the year ended 31st December, 1962 1961 INCOME se £ £ s. d. o stird. Sales of Publications— 784 International Code .. - ing Bho 62 5 2,687 19 1 581 Opinions and Declarations . a a sp 616 18 2 5,462 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a 5,201 11 3 9 Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature .. 3 13411 6,836 —— ————_ 8,510 2 5 Donations at I 7. ieee wae te) 303 Interest received on Investments (gross) oP a es 317 10 O 192 Interest on Bank Deposit + Me ie m3 . 214 16 0 Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. per International Union of 357 Biological Sciences oe 357 , 2510 7,702 £9,413 9 1 8,893 Balance brought forward from 1961 .. see a of 10,365 14 3 1,473 Balance brought down.. ie ne 2 oe Ss 3,580 5 4 £10,366 £13,945 19 7 Suspense Account 31st December, 1962 1961 £ £ s. d. 2,731 Balance brought forward from 1961 .. ae << oe 2,858 0 9 177 Sale of Publications .. a ive bls F ee 171 16 10 2,908 £3,029 17 7 —_—_—_—— ee 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PSYLLA GEOFFROY, 1762 AND SUPPRESSION OF CHERMES LINNAEUS, 1758, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) Z.N.(S.) 1515 (see volume 20, pages 139-144) By W. R. Richards (Entomology Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) It is felt that Dr. Eastop’s proposal should be opposed on the grounds that when Geoffroy, 1762 was rejected for nomenclatorial purposes (Opinion 228) the confusion that once surrounded the use of Psy//a and Chermes was effectively dispelled. 1. As long as Geoffroy, 1762 is not available then Psylla Geoffroy cannot be con- sidered a replacement for Chermes Linnaeus and the fixation of Chermes alni Linnaeus as the type of Psylla Geoffroy by Latreille in 1810 did not also fix the type of Chermes Linnaeus as indicated under Dr. Eastop’s points 8, 31 and 36. Chermes Linnaeus therefore remains available for the conifer lice with Chermes abietis Linnaeus as type species (fixed by Passerini, 1860) and with Sacciphantes Curtis as an objective synonym. Chermes Linnaeus (Chermidae) does not have to be replaced by Adelges Vallot (Adelgidae) as would be the case if the rules relating to types of replacement genera were applicable. It would seem essential that Chermes Linnaeus be retained for the conifer lice since 75 references were counted in Zoo. Rec. (1864-1961) in which Chermes Linnaeus had been used for the conifer lice as against 11 for Adelges Vallot. It is true that Adelges Vallot (Adelgidae) has won rather wide acceptance among recent biol- ogists and one would hasten to support a view that considerable confusion would result if Chermes Linnaeus were not suppressed, but confusion from this source would seem unlikely since both the Review of Applied Entomology and the Common Names of Insects Approved by the Entomological Society of America reject Adelges (Adelgidae) in favour of Chermes (Chermidae). Also, it should be noted that Chermes (Chermidae) has been used for conifer lice for over 100 years whereas Adelges (Adelgidae) was practically unused until 1928. 2. Since Psylla Geoffroy is not available the history of Psylla (Psyllidae) seems uncomplicated as follows: (a) In 1796, Latreille described Psylla Geoffroy, included no species and did not expressly propose the genus as a replacement for Chermes Linnaeus and therefore a subsequent type designation for Psylla Latreille, 1796 does not also automatically fix the type of Chermes Linnaeus. (b) In 1802-1803, Latreille used Psyl/a without reference to Geoffroy or Linnaeus and placed two species in the genus (Chermes alni Linnaeus and Chermes ficus Linnaeus). (c) In 1810, Latreille fixed Chermes alni Linnaeus as type of Psyl/a Latreille again without reference to Geoffroy or Linnaeus. As Chermes alni Linnaeus is considered to be a jumping plant louse Latreille there- fore established Psylla (Psyllidae, Latreille, 1807) for the jumping plant lice. This is essentially the highly desirable result requested in Dr. Eastop’s proposal except that the authorship of Psy//a must be changed from Geoffroy to Latreille. It is true that at a later date Latreille plainly stated that his Psy//a was an alternative name for Chermes Linnaeus, but since this was not expressly done when the genus was first used by Latreille, rules relating to types of replacement genera do not seem to apply [Article 67(i)]. It therefore does not seem necessary to suppress Chermes Linnaeus in order to validate Psylla. 3. Under point 38, Dr. Eastop listed five ways in which Chermes Linnaeus has been used. As long as Geoffroy, 1762 is not available only the third of these alternatives would appear to be valid, ‘‘ Chermes L. to replace Sacciphantes Curtis, 1844 (type Chermes abietis Linnaeus) and Chermidae to replace Adelgidae ’’. This would seem to be desirable since as indicated in 1 above Chermes (Chermidae) has been more fre- quently used for the conifer lice than Adelges (Adelgidae). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 It seems doubtful that a special ruling on Psylla Latreille and Chermes Linnaeus is necessary at this time. With the rejection of Geoffroy, 1762, the existing rules would seem to have the very positive effect of establishing Chermes (Chermidae) for the conifer lice and Psylla (Psyllidae) for the jumping plant lice. The confusion that once surrounded the use of Psy/la and Chermes does not seem to exist as long as Geoffroy’s names are not available and this seems more than adequately illustrated by Dr. Eastop’s proposal. It would therefore seem advisable to take the following simple action. (1) to place the following genus names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Psylla Latreille, 1796 (gender: feminine), type-species, designated by Latreille, Chermes alni Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Chermes Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine) type-species, designated by Passerini, 1860, Chermes abietis Linnaeus, 1758; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Family Group Names: (a) PSYLLIDAE Latreille, 1807 (type genus Psy/la Latreille, 1896); (b) CHERMIDAE Koch, 1857 (type genus Chermes, Linnaeus, 1858); (3) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected Family Group Names: (a) CHERMIDES Fallén, 1814 (type genus Chermes Linnaeus, 1758). By A. W. Steffan (Entomology Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) I recommend that the Commission approve the proposal of Dr. V. F. Eastop as by this action the nomenclature of the Psylloidea : Psyllidae as well as that of the Aphidoidea : Adelgidae will be stabilized. In addition, I would like to offer some further comments on this proposal from the standpoint of a specialist in Adelgidae. No worker in this family of Aphidoidea has recently used the names Chermes and Chermidae. On the contrary, the generic name Adelges Vallot, 1836, and the family name Adelgidae (Herrich-Schaeffer in Koch, 1857) Annand, 1928, have been commonly adopted not by specialists only, but also in almost every reference work and text book of general and applied entomology. The abandonment of Adelges and Adelgidae at this date would cause the greatest confusion. It should be noted that many species of this group are known as dangerous pest insects in forestry. At least among experts in this field of economic entomology, any new alteration of names would give rise to strong opposition. There may be the same situation in Psylloidea, and specialists of this group would, I expect, think likewise. I therefore support Dr. Eastop’s application in full. The solution proposed by him would be satisfactory to both specialists in Adelgidae and specialists in Psyllidae. It would preserve two family names and two generic names which are in common use now. By Frej Ossiannilsson Unstitute of Plant Pathology and Entomology, Uppsala, Sweden) I wish to recommend that the Commission approve the proposal of Dr. Eastop. By this action much confusion both in the Psylloidea and in the Aphidoidea will be avoided. I believe that practically all active specialists in the Psylloidea nowadays do agree that the generic name Psy/la should be preferred to Chermes, since the former name has been far more generally used in our century for the generic concept in question than 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Psyllidae. For this reason, the names Chermes and Chermidae should not be available in the Aphidoidea nor in any other group of animals, or much confusion will be inevitable. The names Sacchiphantes, Adelges and Adelgidae are now well established among specialists and in literature in the field of forest entomology, and therefore I unreservedly support Dr. Eastop’s application. By Leonard D. Tuthill (University of Hawaii, Honolulu) As one who has been actively studying the Psyllidae for 26 years, I wish to register my strongest support for the recommendations for action by the International Com- mission made in the proposal. The considerable confusion which has existed for many years in the family names of two large and important groups of insects certainly should be resolved. The proposals made would validate the usages of almost all specialists in these groups over the last fifty years. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF TRITURUS LUTESCENS RAFINESQUE, 1832. Z.N.(S.) 1516 (see volume 20, pages 210-211) By Frank J. Kramer and Joseph T. Collins (Ohio Valley Herpetological Laboratory, 6242 Day Road, Cincinnati 39, Ohio, U.S.A.) The purpose of these comments is to ask the Commission to consider the specific name /utescens, as published in the combination Triturus lutescens Rafinesque 1832, a nomen dubium; and not, as suggested in Z.N.(S.) 1516, a senior synonym of the form currently known as Gyrinophilus porphyriticus duryi (Weller) 1930. We agree with Z.N.(S.) 1516 when it requests that the name /utescens, as published in the afore- mentioned combination, be suppressed and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, and there is nothing in these comments that might stand in the way of validating the name duryi, as published in the combination Pseudotriton duryi Weller 1930. As we understand it, Article 49 of the present code invalidates the stated purpose of Z.N.(S.) 1516 and thereby renders action on that petition by the Commission unneces- sary. Nevertheless, since it is the purpose of these comments to request a different treatment by the Commission of the name /utescens, as published in the combination Triturus lutescens Rafinesque 1832, we retain here as prefatory, points 2, 5, 6, and 7Tb-c (sensu lato) of Z.N.(S.) 1516, but take complete exception to points 3 and 7a, and partial exception to point 4 of said petition. Point 3 of Z.N.(S.) 1516 is the paragraph with which we are most concerned since it is the purpose of these comments to bring to the attention of the Commission the original description of the species Jutescens, as published in the combination Triturus lutescens Rafinesque 1832, so that it may deliberate on our request to consider the name /utescens, as published in the aforementioned combination, a nomen dubium and place the name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Rafinesque’s original description of Triturus lutescens (1832, Atlantic Journal 1 (3) : p.121) reads in toto: ** S. or Tr. lutescens R. Entirely of a dirty pale yellow, without spots, tail equal to body. In West Kentucky in rocky limestone springs in the barrens or glades, 5 to 6 inches long.” The above description is a valid one and the name Jutescens available. However, the description will simply not approach an identification of any of the presently known taxa of the Order Caudata which occur in the state of Kentucky. This is so even if the most liberal and widest possible latitude is allowed in applying the conditions of the original description of the species /utescens (supra cit.) to the known taxa in Kentucky. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 Thus, we consider point 3 of Z.N.(S.) 1516 to be in errore and request that the name lutescens, as published in the combination Triturus lutescens Rafinesque 1832, be considered a nomen dubium and that it be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. For the reasons stated below, and in refutation of point 3 of Z.N.(S.) 1516, we request that this action be taken rather than placing the name in the synonymy of a form which it might closely approach under the conditions of its description: (1) There are no known types of Rafinesque’s species /utescens. (2) As a result of Mittleman’s action as first revisor (vide Z.N.(S.) 1516, point 4) the name /utescens became, technically, a nomenclatural synonym of the form currently known as Gyrinophilus porphyriticus duryi (Weller). However, because Mittleman’s revision incorrectly applied the name /utescens to an already clearly described taxon, the name /utescens, as published in the com- bination Triturus lutescens Rafinesque 1832, was not rendered a zoological synonym of the form currently known as G. p. duryi (Weller), and was in no way clarified by the first revisor, Mittleman. We here invoke Article 49 of the present code. (3) The name /utescens cannot apply to the form currently known as Gyrinophilus porphyriticus duryi (Weller) for: (a) Rafinesque’s original description of the species /Jutescens (supra cit) characterizes the species as ‘“‘ without spots ”’, and ‘‘5 to 6 inches long”. A survey of the literature shows that there are no known examples of the form currently known as G. p. duryi (Weller) of a size ““5 to 6 inches long” that are ‘‘ without spots”’. Indeed, the form currently known as G. p. duryi (Weller) has as one of the conditions of its original description, as published in the combination Pseudotriton duryi Weller 1930(Proc. Jr. Soc. Nat. Sci. Cincinnati, 1 (S—6 : p. 6-7) “afew small black spots sparsely and irregularly scattered over the dorsal surface . . . an irregular double row of these spots on the sides ”’ Personal experience with this form indicates that, while individuals may be sometimes very sparsely spotted, in no case was an entirely unspotted specimen of any size observed from any part of the range. (b) The original description of the species lutescens (supra cit.) characterizes it as ‘ ‘ entirely of a dirty pale yellow’. Again, at the size of “5 to 6 inches long ” there are no known examples of the form currently known as G. p. duryi (Weller) that fit this condition of the description. The known range of variation in color of G. p. duryi (Weller) does not include examples approaching the above mentioned color. (Though bran- chiate specimens of G. p. duryi (Weller) are of a different color than adults, it cannot be argued that Rafinesque applied the name /utescens to larval specimens since a “5 to 6” inch long individual of duryi would not only be an adult, but would approach the maximum size for the subspecies). (c) The geographic range of the species /utescens, as published in the com- bination Triturus lutescens Rafinesque 1832, is stated in the original description (op. cit.) as “‘In West Kentucky in rocky limestone springs in the barrens or glades’’. The key phrases here are ‘‘ West Kentucky” and, most importantly, “the barrens”. The phrase “the barrens ’’ is not an obscure one. There are definitely delimited ecological and botanical areas known as the barrens which are confined entirely to western Kentucky and they have been precisely defined and mapped by Transeau (1935, Ecology 16 (3) :423-437). Both the barrens and western Kentucky lie entirely outside the known range of G. p. duryi (Weller), and therefore Rafinesque’s geographical range, as stated in the original description of /utescens, cannot apply to the form currently known as G. p. duryi (Weller). 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) Another condition of the description of the species /utescens (supra cit.) is “tail equal to the body”. The original description of the form currently known as G. p. duryi (Weller) (supra cit.) states, in reference to duryi, that “‘ the tail is... considerably less in length than the distance from head to groin ”’. Since the name /utescens has been confused thus far with only one taxon, we do not feel it necessary critically to eliminate any other taxon with which the name Jutescens might be compared and confused since, as we have already stated, it is our opinion that the original description of Rafinesque’s species /utescens cannot apply with any cer- tainty to any presently known taxon of the Order Caudata in the state of Kentucky. (Indeed, even if there is an undiscovered form in the barrens of western Kentucky which fits the conditions of Rafinesque’s species /utescens, the nomen oblitum rule would preclude applying the name /utescens to it). Additionally, we feel it is un- necessary to consider the name /utescens a species inquirendum, and feel it should not remain incertae sedis. By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) No useful purpose would be served in rejecting the proposal for suppression of lutescens. Iam convinced that the name is based upon examples of a population that cannot be distinguished nomenclaturally from the population that included the holo- type of duryi. It is clearly desirable to prevent substitution of a long forgotten, little- used and very briefly characterized name for a clearly-understood and almost univer- sally adopted name. Furthermore if in the future the populations now referred to duryi are indeed found to be taxonomically separable, at least in part, the description of lutescens is so brief as to render application of the name highly controversial; it could well be considered a nomen dubium even now, and almost certainly would if more obscure criteria of distinction were to be utilized. The most expedient procedure is clearly to rid the premises of an already useless and troublesome name that could become even more vexatious in the future. As long as the name continues to be avail- able, systematic studies on the involved populations will to a certain degree be perverted into channels pertaining to application of that name rather than the more basic con- siderations of what taxonomic populations really exist. ~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO SUBSTITUTE THE GENERIC NAME DRYADOPHIS STUART, 1939, FOR MASTIGODRYAS AMARAL, 1934. Z.N.AS.) 1533 - (see volume 20, page 230) By Afranio do Amaral (/nstitute Butantan, S. Paulo, Brazil) Hobart M. Smith has just requested the Commission to suppress the generic name Mastigodryas Amaral, 1934, in favour of Dryadophis Stuart, 1939 on the assumption that the type (danieli) of the former is a specimen of Coluber boddaertii Sentzen. Unfortunately, I cannot entirely agree with my honourable colleague’s proposal, for the following reasons: 1. From a bibliographic standpoint, Mastigodryas, to define a tree-snake or whip- dryad (from Gr. péoné,-yos, whip + dpvas, a dryad or wood-nymph), was described in 1934 and it is not yet 50 years old. It was published in a respectable and widely circulated journal (Mem. Inst. Butantan 1934, VIII : 157-159), in strict conformity with every requirement for validity as set forth in Articles 8, 11 and 13 of the Code. The article in which it appeared bears not only an abstract in English but also is classified according to Dewey’s system so as to make it easier for foreigners not versed in Portuguese to comprehend at least its meaning. 2. From a herpetological point of view, the type (danieli), being easily distinguish- able from C. boddaertii in having a rather short tail (C. 70 p. vs. 101-112 p.) and dorsal scales without apical pits, cannot be included in the genus Dryadophis Stuart, 1939 (a substitute name for Eudryas Fitzinger, 1843, as revived by Stuart in 1932) in all the species of which the dorsal scales bear 2 apical pits and the number of abdominal scutes (ventrals + subcaudals) is much higher (285-311) than that in danieli (257). Among the various groups of Colubrines formerly included by Boulenger (1894) in the genus Drymobius, those bearing smooth dorsal scales may be easily told apart from a generic standpoint, thus: ImemAGAN SINGICIS2 Lecrdoe otrenieys sees Seite odor bes Drymoluber Amaral, 1929 DRM ATIAIIVIGOM 3.600 ors eic,cucie siala ave a:dio c oeieasn ee cok Shock Eee eee ce ete 3 3a. Dorsals without apical pits; tail not long (C. 70 p.).. .. Mastigodryas Amaral, 1934 3b. Dorsals with apical pits; tail long (C. 79-136).......... Dryadophis Stuart, 1939 By keeping apart the genus Mastigodryas Amaral, 1934, from Dryadophis Stuart, 1939, as we must on taxonomic grounds, we can better serve science. At the same time, by upholding but the main idea lying behind Prof. H. M. Smith’s proposal, can we do justice to the merit of our colleague L. C. Stuart in devoting himself for so long a time to the revisionary study of such an important group of Neotropical ophidians. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 687 SIGARA ATOMARIA ILLIGER, 1807 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name atomaria Iiger, 1807, as published in the binomen Sigara atomaria, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homony- my. (2) The specific name affinis Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Corixa affinis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1945. (3) The specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, as published in the binomen Sigara atomaria (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 781. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1482) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. T. Jaczewski in May 1961. An application was sent to the printer on 13 July 1961 and was published on 2 February 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 48-50. 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. The pro- posals were supported by Dr. E. Wagner. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 18 January 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)7 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 50. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 18 April 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24); received in the following order: China, Hering, Holthuis, Jaczewski, Bonnet, Vokes, Obruchev, Key, Riley, Mayr, Uchida, Lemche, Alvarado, Bradley, Stoll, do Amaral, Hemming, Binder, Brinck, Boschma, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Evans. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Prantl. Commissioners Munroe, Borchsenius and Miller returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for specific names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: affinis, Corixa, Leach, 1817, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 12 (1) : 18 atomaria, Sigara, Ulliger, 1807, Fauna Etrusca 2 : 354 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained 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. 687. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 April 1963 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 688 DROMIA WEBER, 1795 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Dromia Weber, 1795, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Dorippe Weber, 1795 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Latreille, 1810, Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793 (Name No. 1567); (b) Dromia Weber, 1795 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1568); (c) Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Dromia australiensis Haswell, 1882 (Name No. 1569); (d) Notopus De Haan, [1841] (gender : masculine), type-species, by mono- typy, Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1570). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) australiensis Haswell, 1882, as published in the binomen Dromia australi- ensis (type-species of Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900) (Name No. 1946); (b) dormia Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the binomen Cancer dormia (Name No. 1947); (c) dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer dorsipes (type-species of Notopus De Haan, [1841]) (Name No. 1948); (d) frascone Herbst, 1785,as published in the binomen Cancer frascone (Name No. 1949); (e) Janatus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Cancer l/anatus (Name No. 1950); (f) personatus Linnaeus, 1758,as published in the binomen Cancer personatus, as defined by the neotype designated by Holthuis, 1962 (type-species of Dromia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1951). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) DORIPPIDAE (correction of DORIPPIDEA) De Haan, [1841] (type-genus Dorippe Weber, 1795) (Name No. 355); (b) DROMIIDAE (correction of DROMIACEA) De Haan, [1833] (type-genus Dromia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 356). (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Dorippe Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym and a junior objective synonym of Dorippe Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1666); Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 (b) Dromia Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Dromia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1667); (c) Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763 (a name published in a non-binominal work) (Name No. 1668); (d) Noto-gastropus Vosmaer, 1765 (a name published in a non-binominal work) (Name No. 1669). (6) 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) caputmortuum H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Dromia caputmortuum (a junior secondary homonym of caputmortuum, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 782); (b) dromia Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Cancer dromia (an incorrect spelling for dormia, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1763) (Name No. 783). (7) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) DORIPPIDEA De Haan, [1841] (type-genus Dorippe Weber, 1795) (an in- correct original spelling for DORIPPIDAE) (Name No. 391); (b) DoripPIENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (type-genus Dorippe Weber, 1795) (a vernacular name) (Name No. 392); (c) DROMIACEA De Haan, [1833] (type-genus Dromia Weber, 1795) (an in- correct original spelling for DROMIIDAE) (Name No. 393); (d) DROMIENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (type-genus Dromia Weber, 1795) (a vernacular name) (Name No. 394). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1488) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in June 1961. Dr. Holthuis’ application was sent to the printer on 13 July 1961 and was published on 2 February 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 48-57. 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 18 January 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)8 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 55-57. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 18 April 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Hering, Holthuis, Bonnet, Jaczewski, Vokes, Obruchev, Key, Riley, Mayr, Uchida, Lemche, Alvarado, Bradley, Stoll, do Amaral, Hemming, Binder, Brinck, Boschma, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Evans. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Prantl. Commissioners Munroe, Borchsenius and Miller returned late affirmative 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature votes. Three Commissioners made the following exceptions and comments in returning their affirmative votes: Dr. T. Jaczewski (4.11.63): I vote for, with the exception of points (5) (a), (c) and (d), and (7) (d). (5) (a)—In my opinion it is superfluous to place on the Official Index junior homonyms which are at the same time junior objective synonyms. They are clearly invalid under the Code. (5) (c) and (d)—It would be simpler, in my opinion to place the two publications of Vosmaer, 1763 and 1765, on the Official Index of Rejected Works. (7) (d)—I consider it superfluous to place on the Official Index a vernacular name which is a junior objective synonym of an earlier valid name (even with an incorrect original spelling). Prof. J. Chester Bradley (4.11.63): If Dorippe Fabricius is a junior objective synonym of Dorippe Weber, it is not to be rejected as a homonym, but is merely a later correct usage of Weber’s name, without cause for rejection. Dr. E. Tortonese (8.iv.63): Laccept Holthuis’ proposal, but I think that to change the specific name of a common Mediterranean crab, known as Dromia vulgaris, is somewhat regrettable. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: australiensis, Dromia, Haswell, 1882, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S. Wales 6 (4) : 755 caputmortuum, Dromia, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Roret’s Suite 4 Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 178 Dorippe Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 322, 361 Dorippe Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr. : 93 DORIPPIDAE De Haan, [1841], in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Crust.) (5) : 120 DORIPPIDEA De Haan, [1841], an incorrect original spelling for DORIPPIDAE q.v. DORIPPIENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Roret’s Suite 4 Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust.2 : 151 dormia, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. Acad. 6 : 431 dorsipes, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 630 Dromia Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 320, 359 Dromia Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr. : 92 dromia, Cancer, Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 501 DROMIACEA De Haan, 1833, an incorrect original spelling for DROMIIDAE q.v. Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1900 : 572 DROMIENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Roret’s Suite 4 Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust. 2: 168 DROMIIDAE De Haan, [1833], in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Crust.) (1): ix frascone, Cancer, Herbst, 1785, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1 (6) : 192 lanatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1044 Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763, Mém. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris 4 : 635 Noto-gastropus Vosmaer, 1765, Uitgez. Verh. Werken Soc. Weetensch. Europ. 10 : 119 Notopus De Haan, [1841], in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Crust.) (5) : 137, 138, 139 personatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 628 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Dorippe Weber, 1795: Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins.: 96, 442 The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a nominal species concerned in the present Ruling: For Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758 : Holthuis, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 53, pl. 3 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)8 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 688. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 May 1963 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR CTENOPHTHALMUS KOLENATI, 1856 Z.N.(S.) 1523 (see volume 20, pages 217-223) By Robert Traub (Department of Microbiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) Please regard this letter as an expression of complete and whole-hearted agreement with the recommendations of G. H. E. Hopkins regarding Ctenophthalmus Kolenati and its proposed retention under the plenary powers and related matters. If the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature takes the action requested by Mr. Hopkins, the results would be a tremendous boon to systematists studying Siphonaptera. I should like to take advantage of this occasion to express my gratitude to Mr. Hopkins for having clarified a series of extremely involved issues, and to the authorities of the Commission for making it possible to take remedial and preventive action in cases such as this. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 689 CORYSTES LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Euryala Weber, 1795, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793 (a junior objective synonym of Cancer cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1571. (3) The specific name cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Cancer cassivelaunus (type-species of Corystes Latreille, [1802—1803}) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1952. (4) The family name CORYSTIDAE Samouelle, 1819 (type-genus Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 357. (5) The generic name Euryala Weber, 1795, (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1670. (6) The specific name dentata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Hippa dentata (a junior objective synonym of cassivelaunus, Cancer, Pennant, 1777) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 784. (7) The family name EURYALIDAE Rathbun, 1910 (type-genus Euryala Weber, 1795) (invalid because the name of the type-genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 395. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1486) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in June 1961. Dr. Holthuis’ application was sent to the printer on 13 July 1961 and was published on 2 February 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 61-62. 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 5 March 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)9 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 62. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 June 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Mayr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, Vokes, Munroe, Lemche, Binder, Stoll, Brinck, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Uchida, Boschma, do Amaral, Riley, Mertens, Borchsenius, Tortonese, Bonnet, Kiihnelt. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—two (2): Bradley, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Evans. Commissioner Miller 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: cassivelaunus, Cancer, Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4 : 6 Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 27 CORYSTIDAE Samouelle, 1819, Entom. useful Compendium : 82 dentata, Hippa, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 475 Euryala Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr. : 94 EURYALIDAE Rathbun, 1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 38 : 576 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)9 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 Inter- national Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 689. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 June 1963 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 690 CERATIOCARIS M’COY, 1849 (CRUSTACEA, ARCHAEOSTRACA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES RULING.—(1) The generic name Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Miller, 1889, Ceratiocaris solenoides M’Coy, 1849, (to be given precedence over Leptocheles M’Coy, 1849, by the action of Barrande, 1853, acting as first reviser) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1572. (2) The specific name solenoides M’Coy, 1849, as published in the binomen Ceratiocaris solenoides (type-species of Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1953. (3) The family name CERATIOCARIDIDAE (correction of CERATIOCARIDAE) Salter, 1860 (type-genus Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 358. (4) The family name CERATIOCARIDAE Salter, 1860 (type-genus Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849) (an incorrect original spelling for CERATIOCARIDIDAE) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 396. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1489) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. W. D. Ian Rolfe in June 1961. Dr. Rolfe’s application was sent to the printer on 13 July 1961 and was published on 2 February 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 63-64. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 March 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)10 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 63. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 June 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Mayr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, Vokes, Munroe, Lemche, Binder, Stoll, Brinck, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Uchida, Boschma, do Amaral, Riley, Mertens, Borchsenius, Tortonese, Bonnet, Kiihnelt. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—two (2): Bradley, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Evans. Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: CERATIOCARIDAE Salter, 1860, an invalid original spelling for CERATIOCARIDIDAE q.v. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 CERATIOCARIDIDAE Salter, 1860, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 5 : 162 Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 4 : 412 solenoides, Ceratiocaris, M’Coy, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 4: 413 The following is the original reference to the first reviser for a genus con- cerned in the present Ruling: For Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 : Barrande, 1853, Neue Jahrb. Min., Geol. Palaont. 1853 : 341-342 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)10 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 690. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 June 1963 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 691 CYRNUS STEPHENS, 1836 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under theplenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Cyrnus Stephens, 1836, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cyrnus unipunctatus Stephens, 1836, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (gender : masculine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cyrnus unipunc- tatus Stephens, 1836, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1573. (3) The specific name trimaculatus Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Philopotamus trimaculatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1954. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1491) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in July 1961 by Dr. F. C. J. Fischer. Dr. Fischer’s application was sent to the printer on 22 August 1961 and was published on 23 March 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 117. 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. The proposals were supported by Prof. L. W. Grensted, Mr. D. E. Kimmins and Dr. Glen B. Wiggins. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 March 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)12 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 117. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 June 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Mayr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, Vokes, Munroe, Lemche, Binder, Stoll, Brinck, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Uchida, Boschma, do Amaral, Riley, Mertens, Borchsenius, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Bonnet, Kiihnelt. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—two (2): Bradley, Prantl. Voting Paper not returned—one (1): Evans. Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. In returning his vote Commissioner Obruchev made the following comment: “‘Isn’t it a little strange that as a type-species is designated Cyrnus unipunctatus, but on the Official List is placed another species, trimaculatus, ‘the oldest available name for the type- species of Cyrnus’, of which nothing has been said previously? I vote against para. 3.” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Cyrnus Stephens, 1836, J//. Brit. Ent. Mand. 6 : 174 trimaculatus, Philopotamus, Curtis, 1834, Lond. Edinb. phil. Mag. (3) 4 (21) : 213 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)12 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the Inter- national Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 691. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 June 1963 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 692 QUINQUELOCULINA D’ORBIGNY, 1826 (FORAMINIFERA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) Frumentarium Fichtel & Moll, 1798; (b) Pollontes Monfort, 1808. (2) The generic name Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender : feminine), type-species by designation by W. K. Parker and T. R. Jones, 1859, Serpula seminulum Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1574. (3) The specific name seminulum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Serpula seminulum, as defined by the neotype designated by A. R. Loeblich and H. Tappan, 1962 (type-species of Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1955. (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) Frumentarium Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1671); (b) Pollontes Montfort, 1808 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1672). (5) The family-group name QUINQUELOCULININAE Cushman, 1817 (type-genus Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 359. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1494) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Alfred R. Loeblich and Dr. Helen Tappan in July 1961. The application was sent to the printer on 22 August 1961 and was published on 23 March 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 118-124. 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 5 March 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)13 either for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 123-124. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 June 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Mayr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, Vokes, Munroe, Lemche, Binder, Stoll, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 Brinck, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Uchida, Boschma, do Amaral, Riley, Mertens, Borchsenius, Tortonese, Bonnet, Kihnelt. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—two (2): Bradley, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Evans. Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Frumentarium Fichtel & Moll, 1798, Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus [1803 reprint : 16] Pollontes Montfort, 1808, Conch. syst. Class. méth. Coquilles 1 : 246 Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris 7 (27) : 301 QUINQUELOCULININAE Cushman, 1817, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 71 (6) : 41 seminulum, Serpula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 786 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826: W. K. Parker & T. R. Jones, 1859, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 3 : 480 The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a species concerned in the present Ruling: For Serpula seminulum Linnaeus, 1758 : A. R. Leoblich & H. Tappan, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 123 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)13 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 Inter- national Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 692. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 June 1963 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 693 LEPIDOPA STIMPSON, 1858 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): 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 Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Lepidopa venusta Stimpson, 1859, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Lepidopa venusta Stimpson, 1859 (Name No. 1575); (b) Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Lepidophthalmus servatus Fage, 1924 (Name No. 1576); (c) Thia Leach, 1815 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Thia polita Leach, 1815 (Name No. 1577). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) scutellata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Hippa scutellata, as defined by the neotype designated by L. B. Holthuis, 1962 (Name No. 1956); (b) servatus Fage, 1924, as published in the binomen Lepidophthalmus servatus (type-species of Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961) (Name No. 1957); (c) venusta Stimpson, 1859, as published in the binomen Lepidopa venusta (type-species of Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858) (Name No. 1958). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) LEPIDOMYSIDAE Clarke, 1961 (type-genus Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961) (Name No. 360); (b) THUDAE Dana, 1862 (type-genus Thia Leach, 1815) (Name No. 361). (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Lepidophthalmus Fage, 1924 (a junior homonym of Lepidophthalmus Holmes, 1904) (Name No. 1673); (b) Lepidops Stimpson, 1860 (an incorrect spelling for Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858) (Name No. 1674); (c) Lepidops Miers, 1878 (an unjustified emendation of Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858) (Name No. 1675); (d) Lepidops Zimmer, 1927 (a junior homonym of Lepidops Miers, 1878) (Name No. 1676). (6) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 (a) LEPIDOPHTHALMIDAE Fage, 1924 (type-genus Lepidophthalmus Fage, 1924) (a name based on a junior homonym) (Name No. 397); (b) LEPIDOPIDAE Stammer, 1936 (type-genus Lepidops Zimmer, 1927) (a name based on a junior homonym) (Name No. 398). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1495) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in August 1961. Dr. Holthuis’ application was sent to the printer on 22 August 1961 and was published on 23 March 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 125-128. 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). The proposals were supported by Dr. Fenner A. Chace and Dr. Janet Haig (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 ; 344). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 March 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)14 either for or against the pro- posals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 127-128. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 5 June 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Mayr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, Vokes, Munroe, Lemche, Binder, Sotll, Brinck, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Uchida, Boschma, do Amaral, Riley, Mertens, Borchsenius, Tortonese, Bonnet, Kiihnelt. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—two (2): Bradley, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Evans. Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: LEPIDOMYSIDAE Clarke, 1961, Crustaceana 2 (3) : 252 Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961, Crustaceana 2 (3) : 251, 252 Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 230 LEPIDOPHTHALMIDAE Fage, 1924, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 178 : 2129 Lepidophthalmus Fage, 1924, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 178 : 2128 LEPIDOPIDAE Stammer, 1936, Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.) 68 : 54 Lepidops Miers, 1878, J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 14 : 331 Lepidops Stimpson, 1860, Ann. Lyc. nat. Hist. New York 7 : 113 Lepidops Zimmer, 1927, in. Kiikenthal & Krumbach, Handb. Zool. 3 (1) : 644 scutellata, Hippa, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 474 servatus, Lepidophthalmus, Fage, 1924, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 178 : 2128 Thia Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 (2) : 213 THIDAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 86 venusta, Lepidopa, Stimpson, 1859, Ann. Lyc. nat. Hist. New York 7 : 79 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a nominal species concerned in the present Ruling: For Hippa scutellata Fabricius, 1793 : L. B. Holthuis, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 126, pl. 4 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)14 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the Inter- national Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 693. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 June 1963 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 OPINION 694 CYNIPS CARICAE LINNAEUS, 1762 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name caricae Linnaeus in Hasselquist, 1762, as published in the binomen Cynips caricae, is hereby validated. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Philotrypesis Forster, 1878 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Philotrypesis longicauda Forster, 1878 (Name No. 1578); (b) Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Blastophaga grossorum Gravenhorst, 1829(Name No. 1579). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) caricae Linnaeus, 1762, as published in the binomen Cynips caricae (Name No. 1959); (b) psenes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cynips psenes (Name No. 1960). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1047) The present case was published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 160-163 in the form of a Report prepared by Dr. W. E. China, Assistant Secretary to the Commission. A full history of the case prior to publication is given in that Report. 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. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 March 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)15 either for or against the pro- posals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 163. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 June 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Mayr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, Munroe, Lemche, Vokes, Binder, Stoll, Brinck, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Uchida, Boschma, do Amaral, Riley, Mertens, Borchsenius, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Bonnet, Kiihnelt. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—two (2): Bradley, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Evans. Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829, Beitr. Entom., Schlesische Fauna 1 : 27 caricae, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1762, in Hasselquist, Reise nach Paldstina : 426 Philotrypesis Forster, 1878, Ver. naturh. Ver. preus. Rheinl. 35 : 59-60 psenes, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 554 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)15 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the Inter- national Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 694. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 June 1963 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 OPINION 695 PNOEPYGA HODGSON, 1844 (AVES): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Microura Gould, 1837, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Pnoepyga Ho&¥son, 1844 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation by Sharpe, 1881, Tesia albiventer Hodgson, 1844, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1580. (3) The specific name albiventer Hodgson, 1837, as published in the binomen Tesia albiventer (type-species of Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1961. (4) The generic name Microura Gould, 1837 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1677. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N((S.) 1457) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Ernst Mayr in April 1960. Professor Mayr’s application was sent to the printer on 8 December 1960 and was published on 16 June 1961 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 209-210. 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 twelve ornithological serials. The proposals were supported by Miss B. P. Hall, Dr. B. Biswas (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 68) and Dr. C. Vaurie. Objections were received from Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Dr. Salim Ali (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 2), Dr. K. C. Parkes (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 68) and Dr. A. L. Rand (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 131). Professor Mayr’s reply to these objections was circulated to Commissioners with Voting Paper (63)16 and was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 16. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 March 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)16 either for or against the pro- posals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 :210. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 June 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China, Mayr, Hering, Hemming, Vokes, Munroe, Lemche, Binder, Stoll, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Brinck, Boschma, do Amaral, Riley, Borchsenius, Tortonese, Bonnet, Kihnelt. Negative votes—two (2): Holthuis, Mertens. On Leave of Absence—two (2): Bradley, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Evans, Jaczewski. Commissioner Miller returned a late negative vote and Commissioner Uchida Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature abstained from voting. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their Voting Papers: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (11.ii1.63): Considering that the name Microura (1) was not a nomen oblitum in the sense of the Code (it had been used but not accepted in the fifty years before the publication of the application), (2) is the nomenclaturally correct name for the genus in question, (3) is used in several modern standard works, the use of the plenary powers to suppress it seems to be unjustified in my opinion, the more so as the species of this genus have no importance in applied biology and are practically known only to systematists. Mr. Francis Hemming (12.iii.63): I find Professor Mayr’s rejoinder extremely cogent. The argument in his para. (6) is of particular importance for, as he says, the disregard of it would land us back in the pre-revised Code era of nomenclatural instability. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: albiventer, Tesia, Hodgson, 1837, J. asiat. Soc. Bengal 6 : 102 Microura Gould, 1837, Icones Avium (1) : expl. to pl. 5 Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844, Zool. Misc. : 82. The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a nominal genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844 : Sharpe, 1881, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 6 : 31 “4 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)16 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the Inter- national Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 695. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 12 June 1963 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO GRANT PRECE- DENCE TO THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME CUTHONIDAE OVER TERGIPEDIDAE AND TO STABILIZE SOME SPECIFIC NAMES IN THE GENUS KNOWN AS EUBRANCHUS FORBES, 1838 (CLASS GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1044 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The purpose of the present application is to ask the use of the plenary powers to grant precedence to the family name CUTHONIDAE over its senior synonym TERGIPEDIDAE which is based on an atypical genus. The Commission is also asked to use its plenary Powers to suppress several nomina dubia in order to stabilize a number of specific names in the genus Eubranchus. 2. In 1775, Forskal (Descr. Anim. : 99) mentioned a new species of marine slugs, Limax tergipes, giving as its habitat “ in fundo maris ad fretum Oeresund inter fucos”. The description and the accompanying figure show beyond doubt that among the relatively few species of Aeolids found in the sound (Oeresund) between Denmark and Sweden, only one comes into consideration as the basis for Forskal’s species, viz. the one now generally known as Tergipes despectus (Eolidia despecta Johnston, 1835, Mag. nat. Hist. (Lond.) 8 : 378; erroneously written Aeolis neglecta by Lovén, 1846, Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.- Akad. Férhandl. 1846 : 7). 3. The generic name 7 ergipes was introduced by Cuvier, 1805 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 6 : 433) based solely on the description given by Forskal, the type being by monotypy Limax tergipes Forskal. However, Sherborn and Neave give Risso (1818, J. Phys. 87 : 372) as the author. Sherborn states further that, according to Herrmannsen the nudibranch described under the name T, ergipes by Cuvier is not the same as 7; ergipes Risso, and Cuvier’s name is held not to have been properly published. Verifying these statements I found that in the first edition of his Régne Animal (1817) Cuvier uses the name in the vernacular form—or at least it is not possible to see whether it is more than the vernacular form. But, in 1805, Cuvier states about Limax tergipes Forskal “ il faudroit un nouvel examen pour assigner la place de ce singuliér et trés petite mollusque qui doit probablement faire encore un genre a part, et qu’on pourrait nommer tergipes”. Further (: 436) he enumerates the valid genera as follows “ Les doris, les tritonies, les glaucus, les éolides, les tergipes, les cavolines”’ this time using the names in their vernacular forms by adding the article “ les ”. The latter citation shows that Cuvier regards the “ tergipes” as a genus, and the lack of the determinate article in the former place shows that he is giving the latin form of the name. As to Risso, he refers his genus to Cuvier, then adding (: 373) two new species. Such action however cannot be taken as constituting a new genus with only the cited species included. Thus, there is no Tergipes Risso, 1818, but only Tergipes Cuvier, 1805. 4. No doubt, the type-species—by tautonomy—of Cuvier’s genus Tergipes is Limax tergipes Forskal. This specific name has almost never been used since its original publication (with the exception of Thiele, 1931), the name (Eolidia) Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature despecta Johnston, 1835 being used instead. It is a matter of opinion whether it is better to ask for the use of the plenary powers in order to preserve the specific name despecta—disregarding the tautonomy—or to accept the name Tergipes tergipes strictly under the Rules. As, however, the species is rather unimportant, and the tautonomy immediately leads any student on the right track, I am of the personal opinion that the change is harmless and the rules should be allowed to govern the case. 5. The genus Tergipes Fleming, 1828, is described with only one included species and with a generic diagnosis that does not conform to that of Cuvier’s genus, to which no reference is made. Thus, Tergipes Fleming is to be taken as a nominal genus with type by monotypy, Doris maculata Montagu, 1804. This is the same nominal species as is the type of Doto Oken, 1815.1 Tergipes Fleming is therefore invalid both as a junior objective synonym of Doto Oken, 1815, and as a junior homonym of Tergipes Cuvier, 1805. The name should now be placed on the Official Index. 6. Bergh (in Carus, 1889—Prodr. Faun. Medit. 2 : 209) established two sub- families of aeolids under the names CRATENINAE and TERGIPEDINAE. Thiele (1931—Handb. Syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 454), uniting these two family groups, fol- lowed the rule of using the oldest generic name as the basis for the family name, thus accepting TERGIPEDIDAE. This action, however, meant that the most aberrant and specialized genus in the whole family was made the type of the group. The viewpoint behind this action has never been accepted by the Commission nor by any Congress. Macnae (1954, Ann. Natal Mus. 13:3) protested directly against using the family name based on Tergipes because this genus “ does not, from a taxonomic point of view, occupy a central position in the family’. He refers to Odhner, the leading specialist at present in this group, who has con- tinued consistently to call the family CUTHONIDAE because the genus Cuthona Alder and Hancock, 1855 (Mon. brit. Nud. Moll. App. : xxii) is a typical and centrally placed form. I am myself of the same opinion and, when the name CRATENIDAE is—as I hope—definitely rejected (see application Z.N.(S.) 1105 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 50-51)) I am strongly in favour of placing the name CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934 (Brit. Antarct. (Terra Nova) Exp., Nat. Hist. Rept., Zool. 7 : 278) on the Official List with an endorsement that this name is to be given precedence over the family name TERGIPEDIDAE. The family CUTHONIDAE is at present regarded as comprising two subfamilies, the typical CUTHONINAE and the atypical TERGIPEDINAE. Both these names should be allowed to stand. The type-species, by monotypy, of Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855, is Eolis nana Alder & Hancock, 1842 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9 : 36). 7. In 1776, Miiller (Zool. dan. Prodr. : 229) gave the following diagnosis of his species no. 2279 Doris lacinulata, ‘“‘ oblonga alba, lobis dorsi ampullaceis ”’. Miiller’s diagnosis may cover either the species now generally called Tergipes despectus (Johnston) or the species Eolis pallida Alder & Hancock, 1842, now referred to the genus Eubranchus. Miiller’s diagnosis “‘ lobis dorsi ampullaceis ” fits with pallida better than with Tergipes despectus. 1 An application to validate the generic name Doto Oken, 1815, was approved by the Com- mission. The decision will be published as Opinion 697. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 8. Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1: 3105) gives the name (Doris) lacinulata with the reference “‘ Forsk. Fn.Arab. p. 99 n. 4 Anim. t. 26 f. 4 Limax tergipes. Habitat in fundo maris ad fretum Oeresund inter fucos —— ” thus repeating the faunistical remarks of Forskal for his Limax tergipes. There can be no doubt, therefore, that Gmelin’s Jacinulata is a junior synonym of fergipes Forskal, and a junior homonym of Doris lacinulata Miiller. Again, “ Tergipes lacinulatus Delle Chiaje ”’ is said by Verany 1854 (J. Conchyl. 4: 385) to be Doto coronata Gmelin, 1791, and Tergipes lacinulatus Lovén, 1846 (Ofvers K.svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 1846 : 7) is a composite of Tergipes tergipes Forskal and one of the brown species of Eubranchus, as shown by the drawing published by Odhner (1907 K.svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 41 (4) : pl. 3, fig. 21). 9. These examples of the confusion attached to the use of the name /acinulata in the genera Tergipes and Eubranchus may suffice to show that it would be most undesirable to revive this name. As, however, it has clear priority over most of the names in common use, it is a potential threat to these and is hereby proposed for suppression under the plenary powers. 10. At the same time, the opportunity should be taken to place on the Official List of Specific Names the oldest names of two of the species to which the name Jacinulata has been attributed—the small Eolis exigua Alder & Hancock, 1848 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 1: 192) and Eolis pallida Alder & Hancock, 1842 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.9 : 35) which latter name was changed by the same authors to picta in 1847 (Mon. brit. Nud. Moll. (3), fam. 3, pl. 33) because of its normal colour being brighter reddish than in the specimens used for their first description. The name picta, being a junior objective synonym of pallida and rejected by most modern authors, should now be placed on the Official Index. 11. Doris fasciculata Miiller, 1776 (Zool. dan. Prodr. : 229) with the diag- nosis “ oblonga, alba fasciculis marginalibus, fuscis ” is a name which must refer to some species of one or other of the genera treated in the present pro- posals, probably of Eubranchus, but which is entirely unrecognizable on the specific level. It appears suitable to suppress this name in order to prevent any confusion arising from the possible application of this name to any of the later described and more well known Aeolidacea from Northern Atlantic seas. The species fasciculata Miiller is not the same as Doris fasciculata Gmelin, 1791 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3105) which is identical with Limax marinus Forskal, 1775 and falls into the synonymy of this older species. 12. Limax minimus Forskal, 1775 (Descr. Anim. : 100) is a Mediterranean species, the diagnosis and figure of which tell us that its anterior corners of the foot are rounded, the row of the ovate-oblong cerata evenly distributed over the back, with a rather wide open space in the middle of the back, with simple rhinophores, and with well developed anterior tentacles. This description fits in with the genus Eubranchus, but the species is unrecognizable, and it seems better to suppress the name in order to avoid the confusion arising if that name should be applied to now one and now another of the well known species of Eubranchus. 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to grant precedence to the family name CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934 over the family name TERGIPEDIDAE Bergh, in Carus, 1889; (b) to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) Jacinulata Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Doris lacinulata; (ii) fasciculata Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Doris fasciculata; (iii) minimus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Limax minimus; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Tergipes Cuvier, 1805 (gender: masculine), type-species, by mono- typy, Limax tergipes Forskal, 1775; (b) Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Eolis nana Alder & Hancock, 1842; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) tergipes Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Limax tergipes (type-species of Tergipes Cuvier, 1805); (b) nana Alder & Hancock, 1842, as published in the binomen Eolis nana (type-species of Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855); (c) pallida Alder & Hancock, 1842, as published in the binomen Eolis pallida; (d) exigua Alder & Hancock, 1848, as published in the binomen Eolis exigua; (4) to place the generic name Tergipes Fleming, 1828, a junior homonym of Tergipes Cuvier, 1805, 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) the following names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above: (i) lacinulata Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Doris lacinulata; (ii) fasciculata Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Doris fasciculata; (iii) minimus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Limax minimus ; (b) neglecta Lovén, 1846, as published in the binomen Aeolis neglecta (an error for Eolidia despecta Johnston, 1835); (c) lacinulata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris lacinulata (a junior homonym of Doris lacinulata Miiller, 1776); (d) picta Alder & Hancock, 1847, as published in the binomen Eolis picta (a junior objective synonym of Eolis pallida Alder & Hancock 1842): Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 (e) fasciculata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris Sasciculata (a junior homonym of Doris Sasciculata Miiller, 1776); (6) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology: (a) CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934 (type-genus Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855) (by direction under the plenary powers in ( 1) (a) above to be given precedence over the name TERGIPEDIDAE Bergh, in Carus, 1889, by any Zoologist who considers Cuthona and Tergipes to belong to the same family-group taxon); (b) TERGIPEDINAE Bergh, in Carus, 1889 (type-genus Tergipes Cuvier, 1805). 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature EUBRANCHUS FORBES, 1838 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED DESIG- NATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE-SPECIES, WITH SUPPRESSION OF SEVERAL NOMINA DUBIA. Z.N.(S.) 1102 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The purpose of the present application is to secure the continuation of the currently stable use of the generic name Eubranchus Forbes, 1838, by the suppression under the plenary powers of several nomina dubia and the designa- tion of a new type-species for the genus. 2. In 1838 Forbes (Malac. Mon.: 5) introduced the new generic name Eubranchus for the new species Eubranchus tricolor Forbes, 1838, which is therefore the type-species by monotypy. 3. In 1855 Alder & Hancock (Mon. Brit. Nud. Moll. (7) app.: XXID) in revising their classification of the nudibranchs, proposed the generic name Galvina for a genus including two groups of species. One group had the type indicated as tricolor Forbes, 1838, and the other as Eolis cingulata Alder & Hancock, 1847 (Mon. Brit. Nud. Moll.: fam. 3, pl. 28). The authors, however, gave no indication of whether they considered one or other of these species as the type of Galvina. The first designation of a type-species for Galvina was by Iredale & O’Donoghue (1923, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 208) who chose Eubranchus tricolor Forbes, thus making Galvina a junior objective synonym of Eubranchus. Three years later (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 17 : 127) O’Donoghue tried to establish Eolis farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 13 : 164) as the type of Galvina, erroneously citing farrani instead of cingulata as the other species originally included by Alder & Hancock in their genus Galvina. 4. Bergh in 1874 (Verh. zool. -bot. Ges. Wien 1873 : 26) described a new species which he named Galvina viridula. Odhner (1929, Tromsé Museums Arshefter 50 (1927) nr. 1 : 11) made this species the type of a separate genus Egalvina. Egalvina, which is still a monotypic genus, is easily recognised by its densely placed, outwards branching rows of cerata, and by the very strange shape of the anterior corners of the foot. Recent field investigations have given me the opportunity to see this species alive near Bergen in Norway, at the Gullmarfiord in Western Sweden, and at Elsinore in Denmark. Each time my first idea was that I had met Eubranchus tricolor Forbes, and each time the specimens were afterwards found to correspond in all details to the description of Egalvina viridula. As the latter has never been recorded from Great Britain, and the true Eubranchus tricolor never from Scandinavian waters, the suspicion arose that the two species were identical. The type of Eubranchus tricolor being lost, there was no other possibility of checking the question than by borrowing some authentic material from the British Museum (Natural History) in order to see whether British scientists used the name in the manner supposed. Thanks to the courtesy of the staff of the British Museum, I have now been able to obtain on loan the only two specimens safely identified as Eubranchus tricolor Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 from Britain in their collections. The specimens immediately proved to be the same species as Egalvina viridula. 5. The effect on the nomenclature of the genera involved is disastrous. Up to 1923, the name Galvina had come into general use for a genus containing quite a number of species, but a change was made through the publication by Iredale & O’Donoghue (1923) of a List of British Nudibranchiate Mollusca (vide para. 2 above), and since then the name Eubranchus has been universally accepted instead, Galvina having been made a junior objective synonym of that name. If we now permit Eubranchus to be transferred to the genus now known as Egalvina, the name Galvina will become similarly transferred, and we will have a large genus left without a name, and another smaller genus with three names, of which the generally used one is a junior synonym of each of the other names. This confusion must be avoided. 6. On the specific level, the name tricolor Forbes has been attached to a species which has always stood as one of the best defined within the genus, and for many years it has covered the type. When now the species tricolor has to be removed from its old generic concept, a retention of the name, although per- fectly correct under the rules, will unavoidably cause much trouble. In the eyes of the experienced specialists, the name will replace Egalvina viridula (correctly but most inconveniently), but to all those relying for information on older literature it will for a long time remain as standing for the type-species of Eubranchus. In my opinion we must suppress that name as being compromised when making the adjustment now proposed. Even when tricolor is suppressed, it is not quite certain that viridula Bergh will stand as the oldest name available. In 1847, Alder & Hancock (Mon. Brit. Nud. Moll. (3) fam. 3, pl. 31) described a species Eolis arenicola which has never been found again, the single type speci- men is lost, and the species thus remains dubious. It may or may not cover the species Egalvina viridula, and the name arenicola has priority. Therefore, as a potential threat to stability it should be suppressed under the plenary powers. 7. Looking around to find a suitable species on which to fix the name Eubranchus under the plenary powers so that it can continue to cover the taxon with which it is generally associated, I find that (a) the name cingulata Alder & Hancock was published in 1847 as a nomen nov. pro Eolis hystrix Alder & Hancock, 1842 non Otto (1821, Consp. Anim. quor. marit. non edit. 1:8). At present this species is not too well-known, and its possible identity with the older species Eolis vittatus Alder & Hancock, 1842 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9 : 35) is still debatable. It would be dangerous, therefore, to base the future position of the genus hitherto known as Eubranchus on such an uncertain type-species. (b) There are quite a number of species referred to the genus, but their number and their differences, as well as even their names are not sufficiently well in- vestigated with one exception. (c) Eolis farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844, is the only species which is not involved in this trouble. Although it has hitherto, on quite insufficient reasons, been regarded as a colour variety of Eubranchus tricolor, it is definitely a true Eubranchus with its rounded anterior foot corners and its simple transverse rows of cerata etc. It is easily recognizable from any of the other species included in the genus and thus for all purposes a very suitable choice as a type for the genus. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. Two possible solutions, therefore, seem to be open, both based on the proposal of using farrani Alder & Hancock as the type of the genus: (a) to vary the type of Eubranchus, disregarding the fact that the genus was monotypic when established; (b) to suppress Eubranchus, and also the type selection by Iredale and O’Donoghue (1923) of tricolor as the type of Galvina, and to accept the latter name as the valid one for the genus, with the 1926 selection by O’Donoghue of farrani as type to stand. The general use of the name Eubranchus favours the first solution, and I propose that solution as being the one leading to least com- plication. 9. There are, however, two older names which may possibly be attributed to the genus now known as Eubranchus. In the case of one of these the definition is too bad to be of any use and the type specimen is lost. The nomen dubium is Ethalion Risso, 1826 (Hist. nat. Europe 4 : 36), the type-species of which is, by monotypy, the species Eolidia histrix Otto, 1821, redescribed by the same author as Eolidia hystrix, 1823 (Nov. Act. Leop. 11 :277). The identity of this species is uncertain, but many authors have been inclined to identify it with Spurilla neapolitana (Chiaje, 1844). Pruvot-Fol (1954, Faune Fr. 58 : 442) cannot accept this view but places the species amongst the “ incertae sedis.” The generic name Ethalion Risso was invalidly emended to Aethalion by Herrmann- sen, 1846 (Indicis Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 22) (non Aethalion Lepeletier & Serville, 1828, emend. pro Aetalion Latreille, 1809). 10. Alder & Hancock, 1842 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9 : 35) gave the name Eolis hystrix to a new species but, in 1847 changed the name to cingulata. The pictures given by Otto and by Alder & Hancock, however, correspond in so many details that it would not be impossible to imagine them to cover one and the same species, but the identity of hystrix Otto will always remain doubtful. It appears therefore that the old name Aystrix of Otto, and the generic name Ethalion based thereon, will remain a potential threat to stability in the names of the genus and some of the species here treated. To avoid this danger, it seems wise to ask for suppression under the plenary powers of these old and doubtful names. 11. When such action is taken it will be well to add the name of still another species, Eolidia ceratentoma Otto, 1821 (ibid. 1:9) and a misspelling of that name, Eolidia cerentatoma Pruvot-Fol, 1954 (ibid. 58 : 442) to the Official Index. This species is as indeterminable as the former one and as the name is older than those of most nudibranchs, it constitutes another potential threat to stability. 12. In 1844, Quatrefages (Ann. Sci. Nat. Paris (3) 1 : 145) established the genus Amphorina, type-species by monotypy, Amphorina alberti Quatrefages, 1844. The figure given by that author definitely shows his species to be the same as that named Eolis farrani by Alder & Hancock in that very same month (March, 1844). The name farrani has never been misinterpreted, whereas the name given by Quatrefages has been involved in some of the worst confusions that have ever appeared in the names of nudibranchs. The confusion was initiated by Trinchese who referred some specimens belonging to species of Trinchesia to the genus Amphorina (see Z.N.(S.) 1106 Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 52-55). One of these species is a close relative of Trinchesia foliata (Forbes & Goodsir) but was identified with Amphorina alberti Quatrefages. I therefore Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 propose that the International Commission suppress the generic name Am- Phorina and the specific name alberti. 13. The International Commission is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Eubranchus Forbes, 1838, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Eolis farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844, to be the type-species of that genus; (b) to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) Ethalion Risso, 1826; (ii) Amphorina Quatrefages, 1844; (iii) Galvina Alder & Hancock, 1855; (c) to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) histrix Otto, 1821, as published in the binomen £olidia histrix; (ii) hystrix Otto, 1823, as published in the binomen £olidia hystrix; (iii) ceratentoma Otto, 1821, as published in the binomen Eolidia ceratentoma,; (iv) alberti Quatrefages, 1844, as published in the binomen Amphorina alberti: (v) tricolor Forbes, 1838, as published in the binomen Eubranchus tricolor; (vi) arenicola Alder & Hancock, 1847, as published in the binomen Eolis arenicola; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Eubranchus Forbes, 1838, (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Eolis farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844; (b) Egalvina Odhner, 1929 (gender: feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Galvina viridula Bergh, 1874; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844, as published in the binomen Eolis Sarrani (type-species of Eubranchus F orbes, 1838); (b) viridula Bergh, 1874, as published in the binomen Galvina viridula (type-species of Egalvina Odhner, 1929); (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ethalion Risso, 1826; (b) Amphorina Quatrefages, 1844; (c) Galvina Alder & Hancock, 1855 (all suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above); (d) Aethalion Herrmannsen, 1846 (an invalid emendation of Ethalion Risso); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (5) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) the six specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above; (b) Aystrix Alder & Hancock, as published in the binomen Eolis (sic) hystrix (a junior primary homonym of Eolidia hystrix Otto, 1823); (c) cerentatoma Pruvot-Fol, 1954, as published in the binomen Eolidia cerentatoma (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Eolidia ceratentoma Otto, 1821); (6) to place the family-group name EUBRANCHIDAE Odhner, 1934 (Brit. Antarct. (Terra Nova) Exp. Nat. Hist. Rept., Zool. 7 : 278) (type- genus Eubranchus Forbes, 1838) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 CAVOLINA ABILDGAARD, 1791 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED EMEN- DATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO CAVOLINIA. Z.N.(S.) 1103 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) In 1791 Abildgaard (Skr. nat. Selsk. 1 (2) : 175) described and figured a species of pteropod under the name Cavolina natans n.g., n.sp. He compared this species to Anomia tridentata Forskal, 1775 (Descr. Anim.: 124) and con- sidered that “ the close resemblance between the figures and description of Forskal and the shell as above described would leave no doubt that it is the same thing, if Forskal had not described his shell as being a bivalve .. . ” (translation from Danish by the present author). Later authors have never been in doubt that tridentata Forskal is the valid older name for Cavolina natans Abildgaard. 2. In the same year, 1791, Bruguiére introduced the name Cavolina for a genus of nudibranchs. Winckworth (1941, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 24: 146) makes the following comment thereon: “ Cavolina Bruguiére, 1791 is a heading on plate 85 of the Tableau Encyclopédique et Methodique to two unnamed figures which represent Doris peregrina Gmelin and Doris affinis Gmelin... As the name Cavolina is without description, reference, or named species, it has no standing (Intern. rules zool. nomencl. art. 25, opinion 1). “ Cavolina Cuvier (1817) is adopted from Bruguiére. “ Cavolina Alder & Hancock (1855) has two sections, of which the types are C. aurantiaca (Adler & Hancock) and C. viridis (F orbes) ”’. 3. The information given by Winckworth, however, needs some correction. It was decided at the XIIIth International Congress of Zoology (Paris, 1948) that the publication of a generic name on the legend to an illustration, even without mention of species, constituted an indication (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 255. para. 19—see 1961 Code, Art. 16a (vii)). This decision makes Cavolina Brugiére an available name. Cuvier, 1817 (Régne Anim. 2: 393) cited Cavolina as from Bruguiére and included both of the originally figured species, Doris pere- grina and Doris affinis. The first designation of a type-species for the genus was by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.: 166) who so designated Doris peregrina. Cavolina Bruguiére, however, has never been in general use, since most authors considered it unavailable. It is moreover a senior objective synonym of Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877, (see application Z.N.(S.) 1105, Bull. zool. Nomenci. 21 : 50-51) and the Commission is therefore asked to suppress it under the plenary powers. 4. The “‘ Cavolina Alder & Hancock ” mentioned by Winckworth should tread Forbes & Hanley, 1851 (Hist. Brit. Moll. 3: 597) from whom the former authors took over the name. Forbes & Hanley used it for quite a number of Aeolid nudibranchs, of which Alder & Hancock selected two as types for their two sections of that genus. Thus it seems reasonable to treat the name Cavolina Forbes & Hanley as a separate name, being a junior homonym of Cavolina Bruguiére, 1791, and of Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. Abildgaard’s name Cavolina was clearly given in honour of a Dr. Cavolini in Naples from whom he had received the information and the drawings of that animal. The name was consistently spelled as Cavolina, which is thus an incorrect though valid spelling. Most authors after 1850 have used the spelling Cavolinia, first published by Gray (1840, Syn. Cont. Brit. Mus. (ed. 42): 148). The Commission is asked therefore to validate this currently used spelling of the name and to place it on the Official List. 6. Menke, 1845 (Z. f. Malakzool. 1844 : 73) emended Bruguiére’s name Cavolina to Cavolinia. Neave’s Nomenclator indicates that there are several other generic names of this spelling. Cavolinia Schweigger, 1819 (Beob. naturh. Reisen: 99) was proposed for a coelenterate and, it seems, has never come into use. I have made a search through several handbooks etc. on Coelen- terates, but without finding this name. Cavolinia Nardo, 1833 (Jsis (Oken) 1833 : 523) was given to a sponge which has never been identified. In Delage & Herouard (1899, Traité de Zoologie II, 1 : 201) this name is placed in the list of “ Spongiaires incertains”’, the description of which does not allow their proper identification. All these names should be placed on the Official Index if the proposed emendation of Cavolina Abildgaard is accepted. 7. There are family names based on both genera called Cavolina. The CAVOLINIDAE of d’Orbigny, 1842 (Paléont. franc., Terr. crét. 2 : 21) is based on the nudibranch genus of Bruguiére, whereas the CAVOLINIDAE of Gray, 1850 (Catal. Moll. Coll. B.M. (2), Pteropoda: 3, 4) is based on the pteropod genus. The latter name should now be placed on the Official List in the corrected form CAVOLINIDAE (emend. by Locard, 1886, Cat. Gén. Moll. viv. France: 21), whereas the former should go on the Official Index. 8. The International Commission is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to validate the emendation to Cavolinia of the generic name Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791; (b) to suppress the generic name Cavolina Bruguiére, 1791, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Cayolinia (emend. of Cavolina) Abildgaard, 1791 (gender: feminine) type-species, by monotypy, Cavolina natans Abildgaard, 1791, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name tridentata Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Anomia tridentata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the name CAVOLINIIDAE Gray, 1850 (correction of CAVOLINIDAE) (type-genus Cavolinia (emend. of Cavolina) Abildgaard, 1791) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Cavolina Bruguiére, 1791 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above); (b) Cavolina Forbes & Hanley, 1851 (a junior homonym of Cavolina Bruguiére, 1791); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 (c) Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791 (Ruled under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above to be an incorrect original spelling for Cavolinia) ; (d) Cavolinia Schweigger, 1819 (a junior homonym of Cavolinia Abildgaard, 1791); (e) Cavolinia Nardo, 1833 (a junior homonym of Cavolinia Abildgaard, 1791); (f) Cavolinia Menke, 1845 (a junior homonym of Cavolinia Abildgaard, 1791); (6) to place the name CAVOLINIDAE d’Orbigny, 1842 (type-genus Cavolina Bruguiére, 1791, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FACELINA ALDER & HANCOCK, 1855 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1104 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The generic name Montagua was introduced for a genus of nudibranchs by Fleming (1822, Encycl. Brit. (Suppl. ed. 4-6) 5 : 575, (May) and Phil. Zool. 2 :470 (June)) without regard to the earlier name Montagua Leach, 1814 (Edinb. Encycl. (Brewster) 7 : 436) for a Crustacean. Fleming included two species in his genus—Doris longicornis Montagu, 1808 (Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 9 : 107, pl. 7, fig. 1), which he designated as the type-species in June 1822, and Doris caerulea Montagu, 1804 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 7 : 78, pl. 7, fig. 4, 5). Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 166) selected Doris caerulea as type, apparently ignoring Fleming’s designation, and thereby involving the name Montagua Fleming in the problems dealt with in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 50-51 Z.N.(S.) 1105. 2. It seems that the name Montagua Leach, 1814, has never been accepted in the Crustacean Anomura in the sense intended by that author, probably because it is an objective synonym of Callianassa Leach, published in the same work, on the same day. The name Montagua Spence Bate, 1856 (Rep. Brit. Ass. Adv. Sci. 25 (1855) : 57) for a genus of Amphipods has been used to some extent but was changed to Montaguana by Chilton, 1883 (Trans. N.Z. Inst. 15:78). The type of Montagua Spence Bate, and therefore of Montaguana Chilton, is Cancer (Gammarus) monoculoides Montagu, 1813 (Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 5), by monotypy. It seems that whatever the position of Montagua in the Crustacea, the name cannot be made valid for any molluscan genus without action under the plenary powers. 3. The species Doris longicornis Montagu, which is the valid type-species of Montagua Fleming (non Leach), is generally identified as being the same as Eolida coronata Forbes & Goodsir, 1839 (Athenaeum (618) : 647) which was made the type by original designation of the genus Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Mon. Brit. Nud. Moll. (7) : app. xxii), and both of these specific names are now considered to be junior synonyms of Doris auriculata Miiller, 1776 (Zool. dan. Prodr. : 229). Miiller’s name was forgotten for a long time but was reintroduced by Odhner, 1939, and has since been adopted. Swennen (1961, Netherl. J. Sea Res. 1 : 222) maintains that Miiller’s species is indeter- minable, but his figure as given by Abildgaard, 1807 (Zool. dan. 4: tab. 38, fig. 1) distinctly shows the gills placed in clusters, and lamellate rhinophores, which definitely prove the animal to have been a Facelina, a genus of which only one species is known from Scandinavia. The generic name Facelina has come into universal use and should now be placed on the Official List. 4. The subfamily name FACELININAE, also in general use, was first published by Bergh, in Carus, 1889 (Prodr. Faun. Med. 2 : 213) and should be added to the Official List. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 5. The International Commission is therefore asked: (1) to place the generic name Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Eolidia coronata Forbes & Goodsir, 1839, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) to place the specific name auriculata Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Doris auriculata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Montagua Spence Bate, 1856 (a junior homonym of Montagua Leach, 1814); (b) Montagua Fleming, 1822 (a junior homonym of Montagua Leach, 1814); (4) to place the family-group name FACELININAE Bergh, in Carus, 1889 (type- genus Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME CRATENA BERGH, 1864, IN ORDER TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME RIZZOLIA TRINCHESE, 1877 (CLASS GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1105 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) Bergh, 1864 (K. Danske Vid. Selsk. Skr. Math.-nat. Afd. (5) 7 : 213) des- cribed a new genus Cratena. In a rather lengthy discussion in Danish, he pointed out the confusion already existing in the use of the name Montagua. To clarify some of the problems involved he introduced Cratena, giving as the type-species “* Ae. peregrina” which is Doris peregrina Gmelin, 1791 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3105). 2. Later authors, amongst them Iredale and O’Donoghue (1923, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 104) interpreted Bergh’s explanations to mean that the name Cratena was to be regarded as a substitute name for Montagua Fleming, 18221, with the result that they regarded Doris caerulea Montagu, 1804 as the type. Winckworth (1941, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 24 : 146) gave a translation into English of the main parts of Bergh’s discussion and concluded correctly that the type-species of Cratena is Doris peregrina Gmelin. 3. In 1877, Trinchese (Rend. Acc. Sci. Inst. Bologna, 1876-77 : 147) pub- lished the name Rizzolia, the type-species of which, by monotypy, is also Doris peregrina Gmelin, 1791. Thus Cratena and Rizzolia are objective synonyms?. The misunderstandings as to the real nature of the genus Cratena, however, were furthered by Bergh himself, who in his later papers had entirely forgotten what was his original intention in erecting the genus. Thus in Malac. Unters. 3 in Semper, Reisen Arch. Philip. 3 (18) : 1031, he placed the species Rizzolia pere- grina under the “ subfamily V, Favorinidae ” far distant from his “* subfamily II, Cratenidae ” (: 1021). 4. There has never been any confusion between the genera Rizzolia Trinchese, and Cratena Auctt. non Bergh, so that the enormous confusion in which this latter name has been involved did not spread to Rizzo/ia—until, in 1954, Macnae (Amn. Natal Mus. 13:28) accepted the name Cratena in its original sense, placing Rizzolia as a synonym. However correct this procedure may be, it is certain to cause even more confusion than ever. More than half of the large group Aeolidacea has become involved in such entangled nomen- clatorial problems and changes that a break-down of the whole taxonomy is threatened. It isof the utmost importance that this confusion be stopped assoonas ever possible. Therefore, as regards the name Cratena, one of the centres of this confusion, there is no other possibility than to have it suppressed altogether. 5. At the same time the family-group name CRATENINAE Bergh, in Carus, 1889 (Prodr. Fauna Med. 2 : 209) should be placed on the Official Index. This name is based upon a misidentified type-genus and was used in the same sense 1 See application Z.N.(S.) 1104, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 48-49 2 See application Z.N.(S.) 1103, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 45-47 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 by Bergh, 1892 (see para. 3 above). The family name CRATENIDAE is a senior synonym of TERGIPEDIDAE and of CUTHONIDAE—names which have been dealt with in another application (see application Z.N.(S.) 1044, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 21 : 35-39). Odhner, 1939 (K. Nor. Vid. Selsk. Skr., 1939, 1:77) set up the subfamily RIZZOLIINAE with type-genus Rizzolia Trinchese. This name, how- ever, is not in common use as it is not considered to be systematically distinct from FAVORININAE Bergh, in Carus, 1889. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cratena Bergh, 1864, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877 (gender: feminine) type-species, by monotypy, Doris peregrina Gmelin, 1791, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name peregrina Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris peregrina (type-species of Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Cratena Bergh, 1864, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the subfamily name CRATENINAE Bergh, in Carus, 1889 (type- genus Cratena Bergh, 1864) invalid because the name of the type-genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED STABILISATION OF THE GENERIC NAME TRINCHESIA IHERING, 1879, AND SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF DIAPHOREOLIS IREDALE & O’ DONOGHUE, 1923 (CLASS GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1106 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) In 1844 (Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (3) 1: 145) Quatrefages established a new genus Amphorina with the new species Amphorina alberti, clearly based on the same species which was described by Alder & Hancock, 1844 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 13 : 164) as Eolis farrani (see also application Z.N.(S.) 1102, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 40-44). 2. Trinchese (1879, Aeolid. fam. aff. Porto Genova: 83, 87) figured two nudi- branchs (tab. 30) the first of which he identified with “‘ Amphorina alberti” of Quatrefages and the second, correctly, with “ Amphorina”’ caerulea Montagu. This identification of Amphorina alberti as being a species with an uniseriate radula, links the concept of the genus Amphorina with the problems here dis- cussed. O’Donoghue (1926, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 17: 128) has clearly demonstrated that the species thus mentioned by Trinchese cannot even be congeneric with the true Amphorina alberti Quatrefages. I have myself studied the drawing given and am of the opinion that it represents a species closely related to, if not the same as, Eolida foliata Forbes & Goodsir, 1839. 3. Bergh, 1882 (Verh. zool.- bot. Ges. Wien: 39) accepted Trinchese’s view and thus helped in introducing the name Amphorina into the literature on nudibranchs in an erroneous sense, covering the same group of species with uniseriate radula as those often erroneously referred to the genera Cratena Bergh, 1864, Montagua Fleming, 1822, and Cavolina Bruguiére, 1791 (see appli- cation Z.N.(S.) 1103, 1104, 1105, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 45-51). 4. Thering (1879, Zool. Anz. 2 : 137) when discussing a number of anatomical details added a footnote explaining that, at Naples, he had found a group of Aeolid species which “ abgesehen von der Penisbewaffnung, nur daduch von den Galvinen sich unterscheiden dass ihre Radula einreihig ist”. No doubt this description covers species belonging to the Cuthonidae, but no species were mentioned although Ihering gave the generic name Trinchesia to the group. This generic name thus having been published without included nominal species, the first subsequent author to use the generic name has the right to define the genus by placing one or more species in it. This action was performed by Carus (1889, Prodr. Fauna Medit. 2 : 210) who cited Trinchesia as a synonym under Amphorina, in which genus he included the two species A alberti and A. caerulea. As explained above, these are exactly the species which Trinchese had figured in 1879 and misidentified as belonging to the genus Amphorina, in spite of their uniseriate radula. 5. Macnae (1954, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 31 : 53) argued that the genus Trinchesia as intended by Ihering cannot include those species which have a central radular cusp less prominent than the lateral denticles. The radula of the two species included by Carus is, however, of this type. Ihering expressly asi hea Sel PEN RATS RR SPENT AE PY ETE EE ROY Se LI I PE ABDI Ss = ETRE Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1. March 1964. es Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature §3 stated that the radula is similar to that in the genus Galvina except that it is uniseriate, but the central cusps in Galvina are always prominent. Such species are now commonly referred to the genus Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855. Thus, Macnae rejects the definition of the genus as established by Carus. How- ever sound the reasoning as to the intentions of Ihering may be, it cannot be conclusive, because Carus did not act in conformity with that view. 6. The two species mentioned by Carus were, however, not taken directly from their original authors but from Trinchese who as explained above, mis- identified one of them as being the Amphorina alberti of Quatrefages, 1844. The danger that still more confusion would arise through any type selection of the misidentified species was met with when Pruvot-Fol, 1954 (Faune France 58 : 380) selected ‘“‘ Amphorina caerulea” of Trinchese to be the type. This is certainly the same species as the true Doris coerulea Montagu, 1804. ‘Recent, still unpublished, studies of mine, have convinced me that Doris caerulea Montagu, 1804 (Trans. Linn. Soc. London 7 : 78) is not only a perfectly good and valid species, but that it is even identical with the later described species Montagua viridis Forbes, 1840, one of the best known species of the group of Cuthonidae for which the present proposals are intended to fix a name. 7. The name Trinchesia thering was totally forgotten until Pruvot-Fol, 1948 (Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (2) 20: 277) drew attention to it. Winckworth (1951, J. Conch, 23 : 133) accepted this solution of the problem of finding a good name for this genus, preferring the name Trinchesia to his own name Catriona established for the same group of species (but with another type-species) a few years earlier. 8. The name Cratena Bergh, 1864, was originally intended for a genus with the type-species Doris peregrina Gmelin but has since been used almost exclusively for the group of Cuthonidae here discussed. There might have been a possibility that this relatively general usage could be established under the plenary powers, but this solution has now been prevented by the action of Macnae (1954, Ann. Natal Mus. 13:28) who as the first modern author transferred the name back to its original genus, generally known as Rizzolia. The confusion arising if Cratena should now be retained in any sense whatsoever, would be too great to be tolerated. 9. The present state is as follows. Macnae (1954, Ann. Natal Mus. 13 : 3) and after him Baba (1955, Opisth. Sagami Bay Suppl.: 56) accept Catriona. Pruvot-Fol (1951, Arch. Zool. Expér. Gén. 88 : 64, and Faune France 58 : 380) prefers the name Trinchesia and was followed therein by Winckworth (1951, J. Conch. 23 : 133) who abandoned the use of his own name Catriona. As to myself, I favour the use of Trinchesia, regarding it as proved that the valid type of this genus is Doris caerulea Montagu. As the type of Catriona Winckworth, 1941 (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond, 24 : 148), by original designation, is Eolis aurantia Alder & Hancock, 1842 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9 : 34), emended to aurantiaca by Alder & Hancock themselves (1851, Mon. Brit. Nud. Moll., fam. 3, pl. 27), there is still the possibility that Catriona could be used for a genus with this type- species independently of Trinchesia. 10. The name Diaphoreolis was introduced by Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923 (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 202) with the sole included species Eolis northum- 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature brica Alder & Hancock, 1844 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 13 : 165). This species is based solely on two specimens found by the said authors and several good drawings in colour have been published by them (1855, Mon. Brit. Nud. Moll., fam. 3, pl. 31, figs. 2-3) and by Eliot (1910, Mon. Brit. Nud. Moll. Suppl.: pl. 6, figs. 4-5). The type specimens have been lost but the figures are so excellent that it is easy to recognize many essential characters. 11. Recent studies of mine, based on 109 specimens of the species generally known as “ Cratena”’ viridis Forbes, 1840, have shown this species to be very variable in colour but very constant in the arrangement of the cerata (papillae) on the back. It was found not only that the species viridis Forbes is the same as caerulea Montagu but also that Eolis northumbrica of Alder & Hancock is extremely similar in all the important characters. Even the light olive colour of the cerata, as indicated on Eliot’s pl. 6, fig. 4, is exactly as found in many of my specimens of viridis. Also, the shape of this appendage shows that it is some- what contracted in the same manner as it was in my specimens when they did not thrive too well, e.g. because the water was too warm. One of my specimens in such a state showed slight annulations on the rhinophores in the manner characteristic of Eolis northumbrica and which, when preserved, may become exaggerated (cf. Eliot, pl. 6, fig. 5). There seems hardly any doubt that the alleged “‘ generic ’’ character which is the only one distinguishing the so called genus Diaphoreolis, is nothing but a structure caused by poor state of the speci- mens, which, then, would be of the same species as caerulea (or viridis). Then, Diaphoreolis will have priority over Catriona and, if Trinchesia is not accepted in the sense here proposed, will become the valid name for the genus here under consideration. These are the reasons for my now proposing that the Commission use its plenary powers to suppress the name Diaphoreolis for the purposes of the Law of Priority. There is no reason to suppress the specific name northumbrica since it cannot well become any threat to stability in nomenclature. 12. Gmelin, 1791 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (6) : 3105) described a species Doris pennata with the usual brief description and a reference to “‘ Bomme act. Vliss. 3 p. 292 t. 3 f. 2... Now, v. Benthem Jutting & Engel (1936, Fauna Neth. 8 : 66) synonymize this species with Eolis aurantia Alder & Hancock, 1842, and from the description given by Gmelin they seem to be correct in their identifica- tion. This would mean that the well established name aurantia would fall as a synonym of the totally forgotten name pennata Gmelin, 1791. The continued use of the former name should be ensured by the suppression under the plenary powers of pennata Gmelin, 1791. 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the generic name Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the specific name pennata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris pennata, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 (2) to place the generic name Trinchesia Ihering, 1879 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Pruvot-Fol, 1954, Doris caerulea Montagu, 1804, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: i (a) caerulea Montagu, 1804, as published in the binomen Doris caerulea (type-species of Trinchesia Ihering, 1879); (b) aurantia Alder & Hancock, 1842, as published in the binomen Eolis (sic) aurantia; (4) to place the generic name Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’ Donoghue, 1923 (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) pennata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris pennata (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above); (b) aurantiaca Alder & Hancock, 1851, as published in the binomen Eolis aurantiaca (an invalid emendation of aurantia Alder & Hancock, 1842). 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GODIVA MACNAE, 1954 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST AS A REPLACEMENT FOR HERVIA AUCTT. (NEC BERGH, 1871). Z.N.(S.) 1107 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) In a paper by Bergh (1871, Vid. Medd. Dansk. naturh, Foren. 1871 : 183) enumerating Danish nudibranchs, the new form Hervia modesta Bergh n.g., n.sp. was mentioned, with accompanying generic diagnosis but no special diagnosis for the sole species. Another species, described immediately below as Matharena oxyacantha n.g., n.sp. has proved to refer to the common species Favorinus branchialis Miiller, 1776. The last genus and species does not con- cern us here but illustrates that Bergh on this occasion was rather careless in his identifications. 2. A detailed description of both the above mentioned new genera and species was given by Bergh in 1875 (Verh. zool. -bot. Ges. Wien 1874 : 15, 16, 18). It appears beyond doubt that Hervia modesta is to be referred to the genus Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 (the “‘ Kissen ”’ on which the papillae of the back are placed are found only in this Northern Atlantic genus, and the radula is identical with that of Facelina). There does not seem to be any doubt that the species to which Hervia modesta should be referred is Facelina auriculata Miiller, 1776. Bergh seems to have been misled in his determination of the genus Hervia by the fact that the specimen did not show the normal and rather conspicuous annulation of the rhinophores characteristic of Facelina. The mistake led him further astray in 1888 (Verh. zool. -bot. Ges. Wien 38 : 677) when he had received a specimen from Amboina which, because of the horse- shoe shaped rows of cerata on the back, and of the relatively simple rhinophores he identified as belonging to that same genus Hervia, and called the species rosea. In fact, the specimen from Amboina belonged to a separate genus now referred to a related subfamily the FAVORININAE (or RIZZOLIINAE). The new genus thus escaped getting a valid name. 3. Since the year 1910, there has been much confusion as to what species should be referred to Hervia because most authors in the Indo-Pacific area, not knowing anything about the original Hervia modesta, used the species from Amboina as a sort of “‘type”’. The difficulties, however, are gradually being cleared away by removal of the species which should more correctly be placed in the genera Cuthona and Trinchesia (Cratena auctt.). In this way at least the Japanese authors are now attaining a rather precise definition of what they understand by the name Hervia. Taking into account, however, the enormous confusion of many Aeolid genera, in which the name Cratena and Hervia are the centres of misunderstandings, it seems better to follow Macnae (1954, Ann. Natal Mus. 13 : 20) who established the new name Godiva Macnae, 1954, for Hervia auctt. non Bergh, 1871, with the type Hervia quadricolor Barnard, 1927 (Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 25 : 203), rather than to ask for the use of the plenary powers to change the type-species of Hervia. This procedure is the one which I now Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 propose to follow, and it has been made still more necessary by the events described in the following paragraphs. 4. Bergh (1880, Verh. zool. -bot. Ges. Wien 1880 : 156) described a new species as Rizzolia modesta from Japan. Baba (1937, J. Dep. Agric. Kyushu Imp. Univ. 5 : 329) referred this species to the genus Cuthona, subgenus Hervia, there- by establishing a case of secondary homonymy between this species and Hervia modesta Bergh, 1871. Baba consequently changed the specific name of the junior homonym to Cuthona (Hervia) japonica n.nov. This change is entirely based on the misunderstanding of the generic concept Hervia, but it mixes this name still more into the confusion. Macnae (1954, Ann. Natal Mus. 13 : 22 changed the name used by Baba back to Godiva modesta (Bergh, 1880) but under Code Art. 59c the species should be known under the replacement name japonica Baba, 1937. 5. The last development in these matters is the change by Pruvot-Fol (1954, Faune France 58 : 388) who regards Hervia modesta Bergh, 1871, as a species of Rizzolia. As mentioned above this species is certainly Facelina auriculata Miiller, 1776, and never has any species of Rizzolia been found in Northern European waters. When, therefore, Pruvot-Fol is of the opinion that the type- species, modesta Bergh, 1871, of Hervia Bergh is probably the same species at Doris peregrina Gmelin, she is certainly in error. Her action means thas ~ Hervia modesta Bergh 1871, again becomes a senior homonym of “ Hervia modesta (Bergh, 1880)’, a confusion which it is imperative to avoid. Still worse, the action of Pruvot-Fol means that Hervia also becomes involved in another confusion in that to the names Hervia and Cratena* have now been attributed the same type-species. 6. The International Commission is therefore asked: (1) to place the generic name Godiva Macnae, 1954 (gender: feminine), type- species, by original designation, Hervia quadricolor Barnard, 1927, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) quadricolor Barnard, 1927, as published in the binomen Hervia quadricolor (type-species of Godiva Macnae, 1954); (b) japonica Baba, 1937, as published in the binomen Cuthona (Hervia) Japonica. * See application Z.N.(S.) 1104 Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 21: 48-49 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPLICATION FOR THE REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF THE PAMPHLET: BY J. HUBNER ENTITLED ERSTE ZUTRAGE ZUR SAMMLUNG EXOTISCHER SCHMETTERLINGE PRINTED IN 1808. Z.N.(S.) 1611 By I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London). 1. The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (a) To rule that the incomplete pamphlet of Jacob Hiibner, dated 1808, entitled Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, has not been published within the meaning of the Jnternational Code of Zoologi- cal Nomenclature (1961), Article 8, and therefore that neither the generic nor the specific names used in the pamphlet are available for nomenclatorial purposes unless made available for use as from another date. (b) To place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the correct usage of the generic names proposed in the pamphlet named above. (c) To place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the incorrect usages of the generic names proposed in the pamphlet named above. 2. Before commencing the discussion of this application it is necessary, owing to the similarity of some of the titles, to list some of the works of Hiibner and to indicate which of them are relevant to the present issue: (a) Geschichte europdischer Schmetterlinge, [1793]-[1842]. Not relevant. (b) Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge, 1796-[1838]. Not relevant. (c) Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 1806-[1838]. Not relevant. (d) Tentamen, [1806]. Relevant, see paragraph 3. (e) Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 1808. Abbre- viated to Erste Zutr. Relevant, see paragraph 6. (f) Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge [sic], [1808]-1818, volume 1. Abbreviated to Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. (i) 35 plates of numbered but unnamed illustrations published during the period [1808]-1818. Relevant, see paragraph 7(a). (ii) Text referring to the numbered illustrations but published separate- ly in 1818. Relevant, see paragraph 7(b). (g) Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816-[1826]. Not relevant. 3. In or about 1806, J. Hiibner distributed a single quarto sheet printed on both sides entitled Tentamen determinationis digestionis atque denominationis singu- larum stirpium Lepidopterorum, peritis ad inspiciendum et dijudicandum com- municatum, a Jacobo Hiibner. A facsimile of this work is provided by Hemming (1937, Hiibner 1 : 599-600). This Tentamen presented the plan of a classifica- tion of the Lepidoptera in which each of 107 stirpes (equivalent to present day genera) were used in combination with a single specific name. The impor- tance of the Tentamen lay in the fact that out of the 107 generic names, 94 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. March 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 were used for the first time. Whether or not the names in the Tentamen were to be regarded as available for nomenclatorial purposes, resulted in controversy for many years culminating in the application for a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The results of this application were published in 1926 in Opinion 97, the summary of which is as follows: “ SUMMARY.—Hiibner’s 7; entamen, 1806, was obviously prepared essentiallyas a manifolded manuscript, or as a proof sheet (cf. Opinion 87), for examination and opinion by a restricted group of experts i.e. in Lepidoptera, and not for general distribution as a record in Zoology. Accordingly, the conclusion that it was published in 1806 is subject to debate. Even if the premise be admitted that it was published in 1806, the point is debatable whether the contained binomials should be construed as generic plus specific names. Even if it be admitted that the binomials represent combinations of generic plus specific names, they are essentially nomina nuda (as of the date in question) since authors who do not Possess esoteric information in regard to them are unable definitely to interpret them without reference to later literature. If published with more definite data at later dates, these names have their status in regard to availability as of their date of such republica- tion.” 4. By present day standards the combinations of generic plus specific names referred to in the above summary would not now be regarded as nomina nuda provided that the specific name was available within the meaning of the Jnter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961) : Articles 10-15. The un- Satisfactory wording of the summary of Opinion 97 was later fully realised and in 1948 the Secretary of the International Commission, at its Paris Session gave proposals (Bull. zool. Nomencl. (1950) 3: 128) for the clarification of the Rulings given in certain of the older Opinions including that of Opinion 97. The Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. (1950) 4 : 337) agreed that: “... as regards Opinion 97, the entry to be made in the appropriate Schedule should be that this leaflet was not published within the meaning of Atticle 25 and therefore that the new names which appeared therein did not acquire availability as from the date on which copies of that leaflet were distributed by its author;...” 5. The Tentamen is now nomenclatorially dead but its relevance in the present issue lies in the fact that from the time of its distribution in 1806, authors have accepted many of the generic names proposed in it, all of which were monotypic and based on Palaearctic species. When Opinion 97 was being discussed in 1926 it was accepted that the next published use of the Tentamen generic names would make them nomenclatorially available. In nearly all cases this next usage, by Hiibner himself in his other works or by Ochsenheimer in 1816, was for the same concept as the usage in the Tentamen. But at the time of Opinion 97 nothing was known of the existence of the Erste Zutrdge of 1808. In the latter pamphlet, all 38 of the generic names used in it, all of which had previously been used in the Tentamen for a concept based on a Palaearctic species, were then applied to North and South American species, in many cases for an entirely different generic concept. 6. In 1808, J. Hiibner printed a four sheet pamphlet which is the subject of this 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature application, entitled “ Erste Zutrdége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge ”. A facsimile of this work is provided by Hemming (1937, Hiibner 1 : 443-450). In a short introduction Hiibner states that lepidopterists in foreign countries (America and Columbia are named on the title page) had sent him specimens of a large number of new species which he proposed to figure and describe in a work entitled Zutrdége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. In the next two paragraphs he went on to say that he was giving the names of the species which he intended to figure and describe in the forthcoming Zutrdge. He then listed 75 species and above each placed two numbers which ran consecutively from | to 150. At the end of this he described in detail each of the first four species on the list and started the description of the fifth, but this breaks off at the bottom of the page after only two lines. 7(a). During the period [1808]- 1818, Hiibner published the plates of the first volume of his Zutrdége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge (sic). The work was issued, without a title page, as a series of 35 unnumbered plates containing 200 consecutively numbered illustrations. Each of 100 species was figured twice. No names nor any word of text occurs on any of the plates. The present application concerns only the first 75 species, i.e. figs. 1-150, published on 26 plates during the period [1808]-1818. 7(b). In 1818, Hiibner published the text of volume | of his Zutradge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge (sic), consisting of the title page and named descriptions of the first hundred species corresponding with figs. 1-200, (each species being represented by two figures). The present application, however, concerns only the generic and specific names of the first 75 species as these had already been named in the Erste Zutrdge. 8(a). Hemming (1935, Stylops 4 : 38-48) in his work entitled “A note on Jacob Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge of 1808 ”, commenced with the following paragraph: ‘“‘ Through the kindness of Mr. H. J. Turner, the library of the Royal Entomological Society of London has recently received a photostat copy of a very important and hitherto unnoticed pamphlet published by Jacob Hiibner in 1808, which had been sent to him by Dr. Walther Horn. The original from which this copy was made is in the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut at Berlin-Dahlem. Another copy of the same pamphlet is in the possession of Herrn Friedlander and Sohn of Berlin.” 8(b). Hemming then gave a description of the Erste Zutrdge similar in substance to the description in paragraph 5 above. He then continued: “A comparison of the names given in this pamphlet with those given in the first volume of Hiibner’s well-known Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge proves beyond question that the names given in the pamphlet refer to the first 75 of the species figured in the first volume of that work, the title page of which is dated 1818. All of the generic names used in the pamphlet are different from those employed in the Zutrdge, but 54 [recte 56] out of the 75 of the specific names are identical and 11 more differ only in spelling. In 8 cases only, are different names used. In addition, the references to the figure numbers are in every case the same. “ The first conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is that the first four Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 species figured and named in the Zutrdge of 1818 were fully described in the pamphlet (the Erste Zutrdge) of 1808. It is therefore from 1808 that the names of these species should be dated. Further they must be regarded as having been first described under the generic and specific names given in the Erste Zutrdge of 1808 and not under those assigned to them in the first volume of the Zutrdge of 1818.” 8(c). Hemming then developed his argument further and after giving evidence to show that the first 25 plates of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmett- linge had been published by March 1814, he continued: “It is at this point that the second important piece of evidence is afforded by the Erste Zutrdge of 1808, for by the numbers which it gives it is possible to affix a name to each of the species figured on the first 25 plates of the first volume of the Zutrdge of 1818. Thus we see that by March 1814, each of these species had been figured (in the first volume of the Zutrdge) and had been given a name (in the Erste Zutrdge of 1808). With the exception of those figured on plates | and 2 (i.e. fig. 1-12), all these species must therefore in future be recognised as having been published by 1814 (instead of by 1818 as hitherto supposed) and must bear the names given in the Erste Zutrdge of 1808 and not those given in the well-known text of the Zutrdge, in every case in which the names given in the two works differ.” 9. It is my contention that these conclusions are based on the false premise quoted in paragraph 8(a), that the Erste Zutrdge was a “‘.. . pamphlet published by Jacob Hiibner...”. In my opinion the Erste Zutrdge was never published but was a printer’s proof. In support of this the following five paragraphs are submitted. 10. There are three known copies of the Erste Zutrdge; one in the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, East Berlin; one in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna; and one in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Milan. Hemming, as quoted in paragraph 8(a), knew of the copy in the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut and added, ‘“‘ Another copy of the same pamphlet is in the possession of Herrn Friedlander and Sohn of Berlin”. I therefore wrote to this company concerning their copy and asked for their opinion on whether it had been published. In their reply they said, ““ We cannot find anything about Erste Nactrdge, 1808. We suppose that these Erste Zutrdge, 1808, have never been published ”. I assume that Nactrdge must be a Japsus calami for Zutrdge. (a) The former Director of the Deutsches Entomologisches Institute, Professor Dr. Hans Sachtleben, has given me the following information concerning the way in which the Institute received their copy: “‘ After the death of G. A. W. Herrich-Schaffer; Dr. Gustav Kraatz, the founder of our Institute, visited Regensburg in 1874 and 1875, and there he visited Herrich-Schaffer’s son. On these occasions he acquired a part of G. A. W. Herrich-Schaffer’s library. Among these manuscripts, etc., there were some of Jacob Hiibner’s original drawings, and, so far as I know, the Institute received the Erste Zutrdge at the same time”’. It seems probable therefore that this copy was among Hiibner’s personal papers. (b) Professor Dr. M. Beier of the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, has informed me that, “‘ Die Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature sind in unserer Bibliothek mit den anderen Zutrdge in einem gemeinsamen Band gebunden. Allerdings umfasst das Exemplar der Erste Zutrdége nur die Seiten 1-8 und ist daher unvollstandig. Die Zeilenlange betragt 13°8 cm. Wie es in unseren Besitz gelangte, ist nicht mehr zu ermitteln. Nach Papier und Druck scheint es sich um eine publizierte Ausgabe und nicht um ein Korrektur-exemplar zu handeln.” (c) Professor Cesare Conci of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Milan, has informed me that, “* L’entrata del fascicolo nel nostro Museo é molto antica, e non é€ possible appurare da chi, come e quando ci é pervenuto.” 11. The plates of volume | of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge are not rare and the figures they contain bear neither names nor descriptions other than the figure numbers. Had the subscribers received the Erste Zutrdge as a preliminary text giving the names to the first 75 species, it would, in most cases, have been kept together with the plates as it would have provided the only names for the figures for the ten years from 1808 until 1818. More copies of the Erste Zutrdge would surely have survived. 12. The text of volume 1| of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge, when compared with the Erste Zutrdge, uses different names for all the genera, and eight of the species. Eleven other specific names differ in spelling, yet in the introduction no mention of a previous text (the Erste Zutrdge) is made even though Hiibner does refer to his 1806 “‘ Versuch ” [=Tentamen], his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, and his Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge. 13. All three known copies of the Erste Zutrdge are incomplete and stop abruptly at the end of the second line of the description of the fifth new species out of 75 listed. This in itself in no way precludes the pamphlet from being accepted as being published, but becomes significant when considered with the fact that when the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge text was issued all the generic names were changed. This fits in with the hypothesis that the Erste Zutrdge was a printer’s proof with which Hiibner was not satisfied. 14. The evidence which establishes that the Erste Zutrdége was not published and was only a printer’s proof is provided by Hiibner himself who supplemented his income by the sale of his works as a naturalist and being his own publisher, he issued Sale Lists. (a) In Hiibner’s Sale List dated 22 December 1807, (a facsimile of which is provided by Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 2 : 11), there was listed as available for sale, part of the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge but no other work on exotic lepidoptera. (b) In Hiibner’s Sale List dated 6 April 1809, (a facsimile of which is provided by Hemming, /oc. cit.: 13), the entry below the Sammlung exotischer Schmetter- linge was as follows: “* Beytrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. Diese sollen bloss jene Schmetterlinge enthalten, die ich nur einzeln erhalten konnte, und die noch nirgend abgebildet zu finden sind. Davon sind erst 2 Blatter fertig. Jedes Blatt wird fiir 36Kr. berechnet.” Although the Erste Zutrdége was dated 1808 no mention was made of this text in this Sale List of publications available in April 1809. It is therefore im- probable that the Erste Zutrdge was obtainable by purchase or free distribution. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 (c) In Hiibner’s Sale List dated 20 June 1813, (a facsimile of which is provided by Hemming, /oc. cit.: 17), there was the following entry: “ Zutrdge zur Samlung [sic] exotischer Schmetterlinge, aufgenommen von Jac. Hiib. in Augsb. 1806-1812. “ Davon ist bisher nichts gefertigt, als 25 Quartblitter Abbildungen das mancherley Horden. Von sammtlichen Gegenstiénden wird kaum in einem Werke irgendwo einer oder anderer abgebildet zu finden seyn, und gewiss nirgend mit gleicher Genauigkeit die Natur in allen Gliedmassen und Farben nachgeahmt. “* Jedes Blatt wird mit 36Kr. bezahlt. “Der Text erscheint kiinftig. Noch ist Stoff zu mehreren Blattern vorrathig.”’ This entry shows that 25 plates were published by 1813 but that the text was not then ready. But the Erste Zutrage text included names for the first 26 plates. Confirmation is thus given that the Erste Zutrdge was not obtainable. 15. Having established that the Erste Zutrdge was not published and is there- fore not available for nomenclatorial purposes, it can be argued that a ruling to that effect by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is all that is required. However, since the generic names as used in the Erste Zutrdge have been listed in Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus it is desirable that they are placed individually on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. And, similarly, owing to the complications which have arisen in the use of many of these names it is desirable that their correct usage is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. In the following catalogue the usage of each of the 38 generic names occurring in the Erste Zutrdge will be traced chronologically and the Commission will be re- quested to confirm the correct usage (printed in bold type) of each name. Each of these generic names will then be nomenclatorially available from the stated date and if not a nomen oblitum will compete for priority with any objective or subjective synonym. (a) Achatia Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Achatia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, 6, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 59-60. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Achatia Hiibner, [1813], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [194] (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Achatia distincta Hiibner, [1813], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [194]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (b) Agrotis Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Agrotis Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. > 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 71-72. 64 (c) (d) (e) (f) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Agrotis Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Europa 4:66 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1827 (Brit. Ent. 4:165): Noctua segetum [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, Ankiindung Syst. Werkes Schmett. Wien. Gegend : 81) (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Apatele Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Apatele Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 107-108. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Apatele Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 21, 28. (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Westwood, 1840 (Synopsis Gen. Brit. Ins.: 95): Phalaena (Noctua) leporina Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 510) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Ascalapha Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Ascalapha Hiibner, [1809], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [196], [197] (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Phalaena (Bombyx) odorata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 505, cited by Hiibner as ** Ascalapha odora”’ Linnaeus, 1764, an unjustified emendation of odorata) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Ascalapha Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4-6, nomen nudum until [1809]- [1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: fig. 45-46, 63-64, 75-76, 117-118. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Blephara Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 29-30. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Blephara has not been used again. A similar name has subsequently been proposed i.e. Blepharidia Hiibner, 1822, see below. Blepharum Hibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Blepharum Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 57-58. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (g) (h) (i) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65 Blepharum has not been used again. A similar name has subsequently been proposed i.e. Blepharidia, Hiibner, 1822, see below. Blepharidia Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. Samm. exot. Schmett. 1:11, 14 (type- species, by subsequent designation by Berio, 1957 (Mem. Soc. ent. Ital. 36 : 9): Ephesia amica Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : 14). I do not consider that this name has been used by Hiibner, 1818, in the generic sense, but it is included here as it has been so accep- ted by Berio. First published as a synonym and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Blepharidia Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 21, 26 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Berio, 1957 (Mem. Soc. ent. Ital. 36 : 9): Phalaena (Noctua) fraxini Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 512) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Chrysaor Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Chrysaor Montfort, 1808, Conch. 1 : 378 (gender: masculine) (type-species, by original designation: Chrysaor hercininus Montfort, 1808, Conch. 1 : 379) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Chrysaor Hiibner, [1809], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [161]. A junior homonym of Chrysaor Montfort, 1808, and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Chrysaor Hiibner, [1808], Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: fig. 41-42. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Diphthera Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Diphthera Hiibner, [1809], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [193] (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Diphthera elegans Hiibner, [1809], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [193]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Diphthera Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 25-26. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Elasmion Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Elasmion Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 6, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 143-144, 66 (i) (k) (I) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Elasmion Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 68, 71 (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by T. B. Fletcher (1929, Mem. Dept. Agric. India (Ent. Series) 11 : 74): Phalaena (Tinea) degeerella Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:540, cited by Fletcher as “* geerella” Hiibner, 1796, which is an unjustified emendation of degeerella) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Elasmia Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 62. An incorrect original spelling of Elasmion Hiibner, 1822, and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Epirrita Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Epirrita Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 21-22. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Epirrita Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 38, 42 (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Prout (1897, Ent. Rec. 9 : 247): Geometra dilutata [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, Ankiindung syst. Werkes Schmett. Wein. Gegend : 109) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidop- tera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Erastria Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Erastria Hiibner, [1813], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [203] (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Erastria dissimilaria Hubner, [1813], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [203]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Erastria Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 103-104. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Erpyzon Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Erpyzon Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 19-20, 91-92. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Erpyzon has not been used again. A similar name has subsequently been proposed i.e. Herpyzon Hiibner, 1822, see below. PRR era ee (m) (n) (0) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 Herpyzon Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 52, 56 (gender: neuter) (type. species, by subsequent designation by Berio, 1957 (Mem. Soc. ent- Ital. 36 : 13): Phalaena (Pyralis) proboscidalis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 533) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Euclidia Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. , Euclidia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 3. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Euclidia Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Europa 4:96 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Duponchel, 1829 (in Godart, Hist. nat. Lep. France 7:72): Phalaena (Noctua) glyphica Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 510) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Glaucopis Gmelin, 1788, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 363 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Glaucopis cinerea Gmelin, 1788, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 363) (Class Aves). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Glaucopis Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Glaucopis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 289. A junior homonym of Glaucopis Gmelin, 1788, and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Glaucopis Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 3, 4, 5, 6, nomen nudum until [1809]- [1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 9-10, 15-16, 65-66, 93-94, 133-134. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Glaee Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Glaee has not been used again. Similar names have subsequently been proposed i.e. Gloee Hiibner, 1808, [1809]-[1813] and Gioia Hiibner, 1822, see below. Gloee Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 23-24, 27-28, 73-74. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Gloee has not been used again. A similar name has subsequently been proposed i.e. Gloia Hiibner, 1822, see below. Gloia Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 16 (type-species, by subsequent designation by Berio, 1957 (Mem. Soc. ent. Ital. 36 : 14): 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Xestia chloropha Hibner, 1818, Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett.1:16. I do not consider that this name has been used by Hiibner, 1818, in the generic sense, but it is included here as it has been so accepted by Berio. First published as a synonym and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Gloia Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 21, 37 (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Curtis 1829 (Brit. Ent. 6 : 268): Phalaena (Noctua) vaccinii Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. Suec. (ed. 2): 320). Designated as the type-species of G/aea Hiibner, an incorrect sub- sequent spelling. (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Glaea Hiibner, Curtis, 1829, Brit. Ent. 6 : 268. (type-species, by original designation: Phalaena (Noctua) vaccinii Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. Suec. (ed. 2): 320). An incorrect subsequent spelling for Gloia Hiibner, 1922. (p) Hamadryas Hiibner, [1806], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [47] (gender: (q) feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Papilio (Nymphalis) amphinome Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12): 779) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidop- tera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Hamadryas Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278, and already placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Name No. 82). Hamadryas Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 37-38. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Heliaca Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Heliaca Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5 nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 115-116, 119-120. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Heliaca Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 52, 53 (gender: feminine) (type- species, here designated: Phalaena (Geometra) cingulata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 529, cited by Hiibner as “ cingulalis”’ Schiffermiiller, 1775, which is an unjustified emendation of cingulata) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Heliothis Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Heliothis Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 81-82. ae (s) (t) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett, Europa 4:91 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Samouelle, 1819 (Ento- mologist’s useful Compendium: 252): Phalaena (Noctua) dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 856) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Hipocrita Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Hipocrita Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 51-52, 89-90, Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Hipocrita Hiibner, [1810], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [189]. A subsequent incorrect spelling of Hypocrita Hiibner, [1807], see below, and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Hypocrita Hiibner, [1807], Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [187] (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Hypocrita dichroa Hiibner, [1807], Sammil. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [187]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Hypocrita Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 17-18, 43-44. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Hypercompe Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Hypercompe Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 3. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819], Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [191] (gender: neuter). This genus when originally established contained a single species i.e. Hypercompe eridane (Cramer). The species figured by Hubner on pl. [191] above this name, is not Phalaena eridanus Cramer, 1775, but is Phalaena icasia Cramer, 1777, fide Seitz, 1919 (in Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde 6 : 319). In accordance with the Int. Code zool. Nomencl. 1961: Article 70 (a) the Commission is hereby requested to use its plenary powers to designate Phalaena icasia Cramer, 1777, Uitl. Kapellen 2 : 130, pl. 181, fig. Eas the type-species. To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (u) Jdia Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. 70 (v) (w) (x) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Idia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 ; fig. 131-132. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Idia Lamouroux, 1816, Hist. Polyp.: 199 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: /dia pristis Lamouroux, 1816, Hist. Polyp.: 200, pl. 5) (Class Coelenterata, Order Thecata). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Jaspidia Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Jaspidia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 53-54, 85-86. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Jaspidia Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 23, 36 (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Grote, 1874 (Bull. Buff. Soc. nat. Sci. 2 : 8): Noctua spoliatricula [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1755, Ankiindung syst. Werkes Schmett. Wien. Gegend.: 89) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Lemur Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 29 (gender: masculine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Thomas, 1911 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1911 : 129): Lemur catta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 30) (Class Mammalia). Discussed in Opinion 122 and Direction 24 and already placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Name No. 556. Lemur Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Lemur Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 31-32, 97-98. Discussed in Direction 24 and as a junior homonym of Lemur Linnaeus, 1758, already placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Name No. 358. Mancipium Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Mancipium Hiibner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [141]. Suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy in Opinion 137, and already placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Name No. 214. Mancipium Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, 5, nomen nudum until [1809]- [1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 47-48, 77-78. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 (y) Najas Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Najas Hiibner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [60] (gender: mascu- line) (type-species, by monotypy: Najas themis Hiibner, [1807], Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [60].) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Najas Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 3. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (z) Nereis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 654 (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Hartman, 1948 (Ark. Zool. 42 (A) 1 : 63): Nereis pelagica Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 654) (Class Polychaeta). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Nereis Hiibner, [1806], Sammi. exot. Schmett.1 :pl. [1]. [2], [S]-[8], [12], [15]. A junior homonym of Nereis Linnaeus, 1758, and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Nereis Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Nereis Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4-6, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813]. Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 13-14, 123-124, 129-130, 141-142. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (aa) Oreas Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Oreas Hiibner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett.1: pl. [82] (type-species, by monotypy: Papilio piera Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 465). Hemming (1934, Gen. Names holarctic Butt.: 30) designated Papilio europa Fabricius, 1775, as the type-species selected from the 15 species included in the genus by Hiibner on a series of plates published be- tween 1807 and 1819. Asa result of more accurate dating Hemming (1937, Hiibner 1 : 403) has fixed the date of publication of plate [82], which figures Oreas piera (Linnaeus), as between 2nd January and 22nd December 1807. No other species was included in the genus until 1808, so Oreas Hiibner, [1807], is monotypic. The genus thus becomes an objective synonym of Haetera Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 284, see below. Opinion 137 is summarised as follows: “ Unless and until further evidence is forthcoming regarding the precise dates of 1807 on which were published (a) Fabricius’s paper on generic names of Lepidoptera in the sixth volume of Illiger’s Magazine fiir Insektenkunde and (b) certain plates of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, the names proposed by 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Fabricius shall have precedence over those proposed by Hiibner .. .” Oreas Hiibner, [1807] is a junior objective synonym of Haetera Fabricius, 1807, and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. Haetera Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 :284 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Scudder 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts. Sci., Boston 10 : 182): Papilio (Heliconius) piera Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 465) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Oreas Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 3. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (bb) Palpita Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Palpita Hiibner, [1808], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [209] (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Palpita unionalis Hiibner [1808], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [209]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Palpita Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, 6, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 95-96, 101-102, 113-114, 137-138. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (cc) Petrophora Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Petrophora Hiibner, [1811], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [207] (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotopy: Petrophora divisata Hibner, [1811], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [207]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Petrophora Hibner, 1808, Erste Zutre: 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 111-112. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (dd) Ptilodon Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Ptilodon Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : 35-36. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Ptilodon Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 14, 15 (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Grote, 1895 (Abhandl. naturwiss. Vereins Bremen 14 : 48): Phalaena (Bombyx) camelina Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 507) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 (ee) Pyrophyla Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Pyrophyla has not been used again but Pyrophila Stephens, 1829, was later proposed, see below. Prophyla Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4 nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samm. exot. Schmett.1 : fig. 67-68. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Prophyla has not been used again, Hiibner subsequently used Amphipyra Ochsenheimer, 1816, in its place. Amphipyra Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Europa 4 : 70 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Duponchel 1829 (in Godart, Hist. nat. Lep. France 7 (2): 71): Phalaena tragopoginis Clerck, 1759, Icones1: pl. 1, fig. 5) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Pyrophila Stephens, 1829, Ill. Brit. Ent., Haustellata 2 : 164, (type-species, by subsequent designation by Westwood 1840 (Synopsis Genera Brit. Ins.: 94): Phalaena tragopoginis Clerck, 1759, Icones1: pl. 1, fig. 5). A junior objective synonym of Amphipyra Ochsenheimer, 1818, see above. (ff) Rusticus Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Rusticus Hiibner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [102], [104] (type- species, by subsequent designation by Hemming, 1934 (Entomologist 67 : 156): Papilio gnidus Fabricius, 1787, Mant. Ins. 2: 64) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). Suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy in Opinion 137, and already placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Name No. 213. Rusticus Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, 6, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 87-88, 99-100, 120-122, 135-136. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (gg) Sphecomorpha Hubner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Sphecomorpha Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]- [1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 39-40, 49-50, Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Sphecomorpha Newman, 1838, Entom. Mag. 5 : 396 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Sphecomorpha chalybea Newman, 1838, Ent. Mag. 5 (4) : 397) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (hh) Teredo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 651 (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Children, 1822 (Quart. J. Sci. Lit. Arts 15 : 82): Teredo navalis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 651) (Class Pelecypoda). Discussed in Opinion 94 and Direction 72 and already placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Name No. 464. Teredo Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Teredo Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 6, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 145-146. Discussed in Direction 72 and, as a junior homonym of Teredo Linnaeus, 1758, already placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Name No. 985. (ii) Terpne Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Terpne Hiibner, Erste Zutr.: 6, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zur. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 139-140. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Terpne Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 38, 47 (gender: feminine) (type- species, by subsequent designation by Grote, 1902 (Allg. Zeit. Ent. 7 : 470): Phalaena (Geometra) papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 522) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (jj) Tetrachila Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Tetrachila Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 : 125-126. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Tetrachila Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 52, 75 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by present designation: Phalaena (Tinea) pascuella Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 535) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (kk) Tribonophora Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Tribonophora Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, nomen nudum until [1809]- [1813], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 109-110. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Tribonophora has not been used again. A similar name has subsequently been proposed i.e. Tribunophora Hiibner, 1822, see below. = Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . 75 Tribunophora Hiibner, 1822, Syst. -alph. Verz.: 20, 37 (gender: feminine) (type-species, here designated: Phalaena (Noctua) umbratica Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 515). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (ll) Xanthia Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen: 1. Used in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278. Xanthia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 4, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813], Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 61-62. Used in an unpublished work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Xanthia Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Europa 4:82 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1825 (Brit. Ent. 2 : 84): Noctua flavago Fabricius, 1787, Mant. 2 : 160 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 16. Regarding the specific names used in the Erste Zutrdge. Out of 75 specific names, 19 differ from those applied in the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge text to the same figures. To my knowledge none of the specific names as applied in the Erste Zutrdge has been used in zoological literature, nor in Sherborn’s Index Animalium, nor in any catalogues—with the exception of .Hemming’s work on Hiibner. There therefore seems to be no need to place these names individually on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, unless the Commission consider such a procedure desirable. If the Erste Zutrdge is rejected for nomenclatorial purposes then the names as used in the Zutrdége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge will automatically become available again. 17. The following is a summary in chronological order of the published opinions and usages of authors some of whom are in favour and others who are against the rejection of the Erste Zutrdge in part or in whole. (a) 1826-1934. No author contemporary with Hiibner nor for over a hundred years after his death in 1826 is known to have ever mentioned the Erste Zutrdge or used any of the names it contained, in place of the text of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge. (b) Hemming (1935, Stylops 4 : 38-48) published a descriptive work on the Erste Zutrdge (see paragraph 8), in which he stated that the names used in the Erste Zutrdége must take priority over those used in the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge. (c) Hemming (1937, Hiibner, 1 & 2) published his authoritative treatise on the works of Jacob Hiibner. It is a masterly synthesis of our existing knowledge and I am in complete agreement with him except on the question of the avail- ability for nomenclatorial purposes of the Erste Zutrdge. In the present application all dates relating to Hiibner have been taken from this source. (d) McDunnough (1938, Mem. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 1 : 4) in the introduction to his “ Check List of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America ”’ wrote: “Tt will be noted that no complete generic synonymy nor designation of 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature genotypes is given in the ‘ List ’ as it was considered advisable to economize on space as far as possible. Every effort, however, has been made to ascer- tain the correct genotypes according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and it is hoped, in consequence, that stability for the various terms employed has been assured. In this connection it should, however, be pointed out that, although fully cognizant of the work, I have adopted neither the genera nor the genotypes validated in Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdge of 1808. This pamphlet, which has been practically unknown and certainly never followed until its—to my mind—rather ill-advised ressurection by Hemming, is fully dealt with in this author’s monumental two-volume work on Hiibner, published by the Royal London Entomological Society in February, 1937. The recognition of this work would involve such far-reaching changes, par- ticularly in the long-accepted generic and even subfamily terms of the Noctuidae that I feel that only harm and confusion would result from a strict adherence to the letter of the law in this case. I believe that in the interest of a stable nomenclature it should be definitely invalidated and hope that some such step will be taken by the International Committee in the near future.” (e) Tams (1939, Entomologist 72 : 70) in his work entitled “ Changes in the generic names of some British moths ” wrote: “* Agrotis Ochs., 1816, Schmett. Europa 4 : 66. Type cited, 1827, Curtis: Agrotis segetum Schiff., 1775. In view of the fact that the first use of this generic name was Agrotis Hiibner [1809-1813] . type Agrotis grata Hiibn. (sole species), it will be necessary to place before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a request for the suspension of the rules in favour of the retention of Agrotis Ochs., 1816, with type Agrotis segetum Schiff., in order to avoid the hopeless confusion which will result from the strict adherence to the law of priority in this case.” Further down the page, however, Tams accepts the Erste Zutrdge for Apatele: “ Apatele Hiibn., [1809-1813], Erste Zutr.: 5, and Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett., 1: pl. 19. Type: Apatele tritona Hiibn., [1809-1813], sole species and therefore type.” (f) Tams (1939, Entomologist 72 : 138) in his work entitled “‘ Further notes on the generic names of British Moths” accepted Euclidia Hiibner, 1808, and Jaspidia Hiibner, 1808, from the Erste Zutrdége but accepted Heliothis Ochsen- heimer, 1816, instead of Heliothis Hiibner, 1808, without any comment. (g) Common, (1953, Aust. J. Zool. 1 : 320) in his work entitled “‘ The Australian species of Heliothis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and their pest status ”’, attributing the genus Heliothis to Ochsenheimer, 1816, wrote: ““ The name Heliothis was first used by Hiibner in his Tentamen Lepidop- terorum (1806) and again in his Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (1808), but it appears to have been first used validly in 1816 by Ochsenheimer for a group of moths including Noctua dipsacea Linn. It is open to doubt whether Hiibner’s nomen nudum, Heliothis jucunda 1808, should be regarded as subsequently validated by an illustration published in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 his Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge, which bore only a number and to which he applied the name Melipotis jucunda in the text of the Zutrdge in 1818 (see Hemming 1937).” (h) Forbes, (1954, Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states 3, Noc- tuidae) has followed a conservationist policy and not accepted the Erste Zutrdge. (i) Berio, (1955, Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr. 51 : 212) accepted the Erste Zutrdge by stating, “‘ Poiché Agrotis O. (1816) non puod essere usato per omonimia con Agrotis Hb. (1809-13), che ha per monogenotipo A. grata Hb....”’. (j) Franclemont (1957, Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. 52:5) in his work entitled “The genus Euclidia, with the description of a new species (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Catocalinae) ” wrote: ““T am using the traditional name Euclidia, which was first proposed by Hiibner in the Tentamen, 1806, and subsequently used by Ochsenheimer in 1816 in the same sense as Hiibner, and credited by Ochsenheimer to Hiibner. Tams (Entomologist, vol. 72, p. 139, 1939) has suggested that Euclidia Hiibner, 1808, replace Schinia Hiibner, 1818, and that Ectypa Billberg, 1820, be used for the concept I am calling Euclidia. “ The use of Euclidia is complicated by the provisions of Opinion 97 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the action of the Commission at Paris in 1948 (Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature, vol. 4, 337-338, 1950); Opinion 97 declared the Tentamen not published in accordance with the provisions of Article 25 of the Régles, and the Commission’s action at Paris reaffirmed this, but deleted the obviously erroneous statements in the Opinion. The next use of the name after the Tentamen was by Hiibner in the Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, dated 1808; this work and the Tentamen are undeniably linked, the ‘ generic names’ of the Erste Zutrdge are the ‘ stirps names’ of the Tentamen. I placed an application (Z.N.(S.) 353) before the Commission in 1950 asking for the suppression of the Erste Zutrdge for nomenclatorial purposes. If we grant that this work was published and distributed, for which there seems to be no contemporary evidence, only the first four generic names are available: the remaining names are nomina nuda, based upon the then undescribed and unfigured species. However, it must be added that many of the specific names used in the Erste Zutrdge were not original with Hiibner, but had been proposed with an indication in the Megerle Sales Catalogue of September 1804. Sales catalogues are not con- sidered acceptable publications for the availability of names, thus the status of the names used in the Erste Zutrdge is not altered by their proposal in a previously published sales catalogue. I cannot see any way of gaining availability for the stillborn nomina nuda of 1808, except by descriptions or figures actually coupled with the names. It is absolutely necessary to republish the names in connection with at least indications. The plates of the Zutrdge, issued between [1808]-[1809] and [1809]-[1813] and used by Hemming to confer supposed availability upon the names, bear only numbers and no names, and thus any claim that they do confer availability is u/tra vires.” 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (k) Boursin (1957, Bull. mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon 26 : 211) in a note, pointed out that if Agrotis Hiibner, 1808, is accepted from the Erste Zutrdge, then Scotia Hiibner, 1821, must be used to replace Agrotis Ochsenheimer, 1816, which is then preoccupied. (1) Berio (1957, Mem. Soc. ent. Ital. 36 : 5-19) in his work entitled “* Ulteriori modifiche ecambiamenti nella nomenclatura dei generi di Noctuidae del globo ” has produced a catalogue of 130 generic names of the Noctuidae together with their type-species designations. The Erste Zutrdge has been accepted wherever applicable. (m) Common (1958, Aust. J. Zool. 6 : 70) in his work entitled “* The Australian cutworms of the genus Agrotis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)”, attributed the genus Agrotis to Ochsenheimer, 1816, and wrote: ** Hiibner (1806) first used the name Agrotis in the combination Agrotis segetum in the Tentamen which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has added to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 278). The combination Agrotis grata appeared as a nomen nudum in Hiibner’s (1808) Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. In the text of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge, Hiibner (1818) substituted the name Elaphria grata, associating it by number with a plate published earlier than the text. In Hemming’s (1937) opinion the plate of the Zutrdge validated the name Agrotis grata listed in the Erste Zutrdge, though it was apparently Hiibner’s intention in the text of the Zutrdge not to use the name Agrotis for this species. The name Agrotis was next used by Ochsenheimer (1816) for a group of species including Noctua segetum. As the name has been used consistently in this sense for more than a century, it would seem logical to add Agrotis Ochsenheimer, 1816, with type Noctua segetum to the Official List of Generic Names as suggested by Tams (1939).” (n) Hardwick, (1958, Canad. Entomologist 90, Suppl. 6 : 7) in his work on the “ Taxonomy, life history and habits of the elliptoid-eyed species of Schinia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), with notes on the Heliothidinae ” wrote as follows: ‘“‘ Apart from its inclusion in Hiibner’s invalidated Tentamen Lepidop- terorum of 1806, the first usage of Heliothis was in Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge of 1808. Before Hemming’s monumental publication on Hiibner in 1937, the Erste Zutrdge had been largely overlooked or ignored by workers on Lepidoptera. According to Hemming’s interpretation, however, the names in this list became valid when the accompanying plates were released. In the Erste Zutrdge, Hibner included only jucunda in the genus Heliothis and these two names would become valid when the fifteenth plate was released between 1809 and 1813. Jucunda was subsequently listed in the Zutrdége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge, published in 1818, as the only species included in the genus Melipotis. If the Erste Zutrége names are deemed valid, then Heliothis must become a catocaline genus and Melipotis a primary synonym of it. Such a procedure could lead only to nomenclatorial confusion because Heliothis has not subsequently been associated with jucunda and has become the type genus of another subfamily.... ' ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 “If the Erste Zutrdge names are not accepted the first valid usage of Heliothis was evidently that of Ochsenheimer (1816) and the first type-species selection for the genus that of dipsacea (L.), by Samouelle (1819). “A similar tangle would result from accepting the name Euclidia Hiibner as of the Erste Zutrdge. The species illustrated in the Zutrdge as Schinia gracilenta in 1818 was previously listed in the Erste Zutrdge as Euclidia gracilis. Five species, gracilis, graphica, trifascia, bifascia and cuspida were included in Euclidia in the Erste Zutrdge. Only gracilis, however, was described in that publication and as pointed out by Tams (1939), would become type-species of Euclidia. Schinia, in this event, would become a synonym of Euclidia, at present also considered a catocaline genus. “The Erste Zutrdge names are ignored in this paper because their acceptance would result in concepts entirely foreign to current usage.” (0) Inoue (1958, Check List Lep. Japan: 445, 456) attributed both Heliothis and Agrotis to Ochsenheimer, 1816. (p) Zimmerman (1958, Ins. Hawaii 7 : 204, 215) attributed both Heliothis and Agrotis to Ochsenheimer, 1816. (q) Todd (1959, United States Dept. Agric., Tech. Bull. 1201 : 3) in his work entitled “‘ The fruit-piercing moths of the genus Gonodonta Hiibner (Lepidop- tera, Noctuidae) ”, under the heading Nomenclatorial Remarks wrote: “* The first problem relates to the use of Gonodonta Hiibner (Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge, Erstes Hundert, Augsburg, 1818, p. 11) rather than Ptilodon Hiibner (Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, Augsburg, 1808, p. 4). Many lepidopterists have not accepted the latter paper, as there is considerable doubt that it was actually published. Furthermore, J. C. Franclemont of Cornell University has applied (Z.N. 353) to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for the suppression, for nomenclatorial purposes, of Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdge. Even if the Commission were to rule against suppression, there still remains the question of whether Hemming (1937, p. 439) is correct in his opinion that the subsequent publication of the plates of the Erstes Hundert of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge in 1809-13 validated the names that were nomina nuda in Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdge. Therefore, it seems desirable to use the familiar name Gonodonta Hiibner for the taxon studied.” (r) Boursin (1961, Beitr. naturk. Forsch. SW-Deutschl. 19 : 373-398) in his catalogue of the Noctuidae from the Afghanistan Expedition 1856, accepted the Erste Zutrdge, without comment. (s) Dufay (1961, Faune terrestre et d’eau douce des Pyrénées-Orientales 6, Lép. 1 : 1-153) in his catalogue has followed the nomenclature adopted by Monsieur Ch. Boursin for the Noctuidae, and accepted the Erste Zutrdge. (t) Fletcher (1961, Ruwenzori Exped. 1952, 1, Noctuidae) has accepted Helio- this based on Ochsenheimer’s usage, but has used Scotia Hiibner in place of Agrotis Ochsenheimer, both without comment. 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (u) Van Schepdael (1961, Linnaeana Belgica 1 : 85-92) in his list of the Noc- tuidae of Belgium has followed the nomenclature adopted by Monsieur Ch. Boursin and accepted the Erste Zutrdge. (v) Viette (1962, Ann. Soc. ent. France 131 : 94) in his work entitled “ Noc- tuelles trifides de Madagascar ’’, wrote: “En attribuant ici a Ochsenheimer (1816) le genre Agrotis, j’ai respecte lusage et suivi Tams (1939 : 70)....” (w) Berio (1963, Atti Soc. ital. Sci. nat. 102 : 223-228) in a paper entitled “ La seconda copia del famoso Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge di Hiibner (1808) € conservata al Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano ”’, reported the existence of this copy which in his opinion confirms that the Erste Zutrdge was actually published. 18. To sum up, all the evidence agrees with the hypothesis that the Erste Zutrdge was a printer’s proof and is therefore not available for nomenclatorial purposes. All authors who have carried out revisionary work involving generic names used in the Erste Zutrdge have deliberately refrained from adopting that usage. Some authors in catalogues, and lists of the Palaearctic and Ethiopian fauna have used the next available synonym in place of generic names occurring in the Erste Zutrdge, for example the well known genera Agrotis and Heliothis are being replaced by Scotia and Chloridea respectively, thus leaving the former names to be used in the sense of the Erste Zutrdége, mainly as New World genera. This change of well established names to, in many cases, an entirely different concept is not only unnecessary but nomenclatorially incorrect, and although advocated has so far not been adopted. Unless a decision on this application is now obtained, the schism which is developing among lepidopterists will increase. I therefore request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature take the action indicated in paragraph 1(a) and at the same time place on the appropriate List or Index the generic names as indicated in para- graphs 15 (a)-(ID. 3 1MAR1964 PURCHASED. 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, O.B.E., BCES ATA: Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., M.A., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant: Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. - Prof. Dr. R. Spirck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Decisions Opinion 687 (Sigara atomaria Illiger, 1807) ... Opinion 688 (Dromia Weber, 1795)... a Opinion 689 (Corystes Latreille, [1802-1 803]) Opinion 690 (Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849) Opinion 691 (Cyrnus Stephens, 1836) ... eae Opinion 692 (Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826) Opinion 693 (Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858) fee Opinion 694 (Cynips caricae Linnaeus, 1762)... Opinion 695 (Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844) ay New Cases Proposed use of the plenary powers to grant precedence to the family- group name CUTHONIDAE over TERGIPEDIDAE and to stabilise name Cratena Bergh, 1864, in order to validate the generic name Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877 (Gastropoda) (Henning Lemche) Proposed stabilisation of the generic name Trinchesia Ihering, 1879, and suppression underthe plenary powers of Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923 (Gastropoda) (Henning Lemche) ae Godiva Macnae, 1954 (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to the Official List as a replacement for Hervia Auctt. (nec Bergh, 1871) (Henning Lemche) ... Fe at =a oe wel Application for the rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the pamphlet by J. Hiibner entitled Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmetterlinge printed in 1808 (I. W. B. Nye) Page 52 56 58 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Comments on the proposed suppression of Eulachnus Del Guercio, 1909 (D. Hille Ris Lambers; F. C. Hottes) _.... Comments on the proposed validation of Psylla Geoffroy, 1762, and suppression of Chermes Linnaeus, 1758, under the plenary powers (W. R. Richards; A. W. Steffan; Frej Ossiannilsson; L. D. Tuthill) Comments on the proposed. ‘suppression “of Triturus utescens Rafinesque, 1832 (F. J. Kramer & J. T. Collins; H. M. Smith) Comment on the proposal to substitute the generic name Dryadophis Stuart, 1939, for Mastigodryas Amaral, 1934 (A. do Amaral) Comment on the proposed designation of a type-species for Cteno- phthalmus Kolenati, 1856 (R. Traub) ju © 1963. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 13 19 a ek Volume 21. Part 2. 23rd April, 1964 pp. 81-160 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 23 APR 1964 URCH S a SED The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page Election of Officers and Council... as aah as ap ne 81 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications Bes in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature =f % Sas 82 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 82 (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 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1. 1964 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holthius (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands.) Acting 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 election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning LeMcuHE (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur.-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OsrucueEv (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) Pe) Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. MuNrRoE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. Borcusentus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) saat W. = Cuina (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting ecretary Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. Sto. (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. L. B. Hoxruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Dr. Alden H. MiLter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor Ernst MAyrR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (23 August 1963) Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Rwe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) MAT. BULLETIN OF “TOULOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 21, Part 2 (pp. 81-160) 23rd April, 1964 ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND COUNCIL In accordance with the new. Bylaws of the Commission and as directed by the Washington Congress, 1963, a secret ballot has been held by the Secretariat to elect, from amongst the Commissioners, a new Council. Voting Papers were sent to all Commissioners. The preliminary ballot, with all Commissioners as candidates, was for four members of the Council. The order of voting for the first four places was (1) Miller (U.S.A.), (2) Mayr (at large), (3) Holthuis (Netherlands) and (4) Sabrosky (U.S.A.). These Commissioners were then asked if they were willing to serve, either as officers or councillors. Commis- sioner Sabrosky modestly retired on the grounds that he had only just been elected Commissioner, so that Commissioner Stoll (U.S.A.) moved from fifth to fourth place on the ballot. Normally the fifth member of the Council would be the retiring President, but as Professor J. Chester Bradley has resigned from the Commission at the age of 75 he is no longer available and it was necessary to elect a fifth councillor. Consequently Commissioner Forest, now in fifth place, was selected as the replacement for the ex-President on the new Council. From amongst the five candidates for office, only Commissioner Miller was agreeable to serve as President, and was therefore considered as elected to that office. A second secret ballot was held for the election of a Vice-President. The result was the election of Commissioner Holthuis. Certificate I certify that the votes cast in the above mentioned ballots resulted in the election of the following Officers and Council: President: Dr. Alden H. Miller. Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holhuis Councillors: Dr. J. Forest Prof. Ernst Mayr Dr. N. R. Stoll (signed) W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Death of Canon L. W. Grensted The Acting Secretary regrets to announce the death, on March 18th, 1964, of Canon Prof. L. W. Grensted, for many years Classical Adviser to the Commission. 82 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) Suppression of six specific names of mites (Acarina). Z.N.(S.) 1564. (2) Suppression of the generic name Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843 (Gastropoda) Z.N.A(S.) 1098. (3) Validation of the generic name Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (Gastropoda) Z.N.(S.) 1100. (4) Designation of type-species for Portlandia Mérch, and Yoldia Moller, 1842 (Pelecypoda). Z.N.(S.) 1522. (5) Suppression of the generic name Cardinalis Jarocki, 1821 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1608 (6) Suppression of the generic name Smerdis Leach, 1817; Designation of type-species for Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, and Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, Stomatopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1609. (7) Validation of the specific name Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1612. (8) Designation of a type-species for Baetis [Leach, 1815] (Insecta, Ephemero- ptera). Z.N.(S.) 1620. (9) Designation of a type-species for Megalopta Smith, 1853 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1624. (10) Suppression of Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836, and Cavator Blackwall, 1840 (Araneae). Z.N.(S.) 1625. (11) Validation of the family-group name PLATYPLEURINAE Schmidt, 1918 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1626. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 COMMENT ON PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN NAMES OF TANAGERS Z.N.(S.) 1182 (see volume 20, pages 296-302) By Kenneth C. Parkes (Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa. U.S.A.) I am in full accord with the “ strong opposition . . . voiced by American ornitholo- gists against Proposal A ” of Salomonsen, Junge and Stresemann (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 20 : 301), which would involve changes in currently used names at the specific, generic, and family levels by invoking the plenary powers to “ end confusion”. I propose to show that these changes are neither necessary nor desirable; that certain of the argu- ments used by the proposers of the changes are irrelevant or erroneous; and that confusion would be augmented rather than ended should either of the proposals be adopted. Professor Mayr has given a scholarly resume of the history of usage of the tanager names in question. He has given much emphasis to the status of the names prior to 1926, the year that Wetmore and Miller proposed the family name Thraupidae, based on Richmond’s finding in 1908 that 7) hraupis is the correct name for the true tanagers. A key sentence in Professor Mayr’s summary is: “‘ This suggestion [i.e., that of Wetmore and Miller] has been adopted in most subsequently published [i.e., post-1926] major works on ornithology.” It cannot be emphasized too often, when these matters of restoring older names through the plenary powers are introduced, that the literature of ornithology is expanding at a virtually exponential rate. The earliest name being considered in this case is Tanagra Linnaeus, 1764. I do not doubt for a moment that the tanagers in question have been mentioned in print more often in the 37 years from 1926 to 1963 than in the entire 162 years from 1764 to 1926. The emphasis in Professor Mayr’s Alternative 1 (2) on “ the historical usage of the names Tanagra (as used for 142 years) and Euphonia (as used for 102 years) ” is quite misleading. What is important to the ornithologist working with the literature is not numbers of years but numbers of references. In addition, the working ornithologist finds himself consulting the relatively recent literature far more frequently than older publications. Two illustrations, using the “ turning-point ” date 1926, will demonstrate this fact. The newest text-book of ornithology (Welty, 1963. The life of birds) has a bibliography of some 800 titles, considered by the author as being the most important of approximately 8000 consulted. Of these, 54, or less than 7 per cent, are older than 1926. As for current research, the major papers in the 1963 volume of 7) he Auk list a total of 471 references, of which 46, or less than 10 per cent, are older than 1926. Thus I agree with the position expressed in Proposal B by Mayr, Miller, Storer, and Stresemann, that the names 7) hraupis and Thraupidae have become all but universal, and that confusion would be fostered rather than avoided by reverting to earlier usages, The authors of Proposal B suggest that, because the name Tanagra has been used for two quite different groups of birds, the tanagers and the euphonias, it has “‘ lost much of its usefulness”. Professor Mayr states: “*. . . the danger of confusion is so evident that even Hellmayr often [italics mine] uses the designation Tanagra (Euphonia) to indicate which genus he is referring to”. Lest this statement be accepted uncritically, it should be pointed out to those without ready access to ornithological literature that such a designation appears exactly twice in Hellmayr’s tanager volume (1936, Cat. Bds. Americas, pt. TX), in both instances being exact transcriptions of names (complete with parentheses) as used by the original describers. Granted that the change of application of Tanagra from the tanagers to the euphonias has caused confusion in the past during a period of transition, I do not see that anything is gained by making still another change, even if it is a reversion to an earlier usage. Substitution of Euphonia for Tanagra as of 1964 will not expunge from the literature the great mass of references under the latter name. We need now only to remember that, in general, references to the euphonias prior to 1908 appear under Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Euphonia, and, increasingly after 1908, under Tanagra. Under Proposal B it would become necessary to add to this an additional date; after 1964, Tanagra may no longer be used, and Euphonia will reappear in the literature—except that there will inevitably be another period of transition while this dictum gradually reaches workers who may be studying tanagers but may not have access to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Some may continue for years to use Tanagra for the euphonias. Such workers would be in error according to the International Rules, just as those ‘‘ Continental European authors > mentioned by Mayr were in error in continuing to use the family name Tanagridae after the perfectly correct action of Wetmore and Miller in 1926—although Mayr cites this erroneous usage as an argument for conserving the older name! In view of the fact that the modern literature (which, as mentioned above, is the principal tool of most workers) employs the name Tanagra for the euphonias, I do not see that anything is gained by reversion to the generic name Euphonia except what Professor Mayr calls ‘‘ congruence of scientific name... with vernacular [name]”’. However, the International Rules make no provision for the conservation of mnemonic aids as a principle of zoological nomenclature. Similarly, it is perhaps annoying to have both Tanagra and Tangara as currently used generic names within a family, but this means chiefly a closer attention paid to proof-reading. Reference is also made in Proposal A (and in the request to the International Commission following Proposal B) to the substitution as first reviser by Gyldenstolpe in 1945 of Loxia virens Linnaeus, 1766, for Tanagra episcopus Linnaeus of identical date, as the name for the Bishop Tanager. The statement is made that ‘‘ Loxia virens... has never been used in this sense [i.e., for the Bishop Tanager]”’. This statement was already incorrect at the time it was originally written in 1956, and the name virens has received increasing acceptance in subsequent years. Among the standard references and major faunal papers in which the name Thraupis virens is used for this species are: Phelps and Phelps, 1950 (Bol. Soc. Venez. Cien. Nat., 12 : 326) and 1963 (idem., 24: 372-373) on Venezuela; de Schauensee, 1951 (Caldasia, 5 : 1044-1046) and Miller, 1963 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 66 : 53) on Columbia; Junge and Mees, 1958 (Zool. Verhandl., no. 37 : 139-140) and Herklots, 1961 (Birds Trinidad and Tobago : 256-257) on Trinidad and Tobago; Haverschmidt, 1955 (Publ. Found. Sci. Res. Surinam and Neth. Antilles, no. 13 : 132) on Surinam; Traylor, 1958 (Fieldiana; Zoology, 35 : 134) on Peru; Slud, 1960 (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 121 : 112) on Costa Rica; Blake, 1953 (Birds of Mexico : 529) and Miller et. al., 1957 (Pac. Coast. Avi-fauna, no. 33 : 300) on Mexico. Although Gyldenstolpe did not make a formal substitution of virens for episcopus until 1945, Hellmayr warned as long ago as 1936 (Cat. Birds Americas, pt. IX; 205) that virens was probably the correct name for the Bishop Tanager. Since 1945, many other species of birds have undergone name changes to comply with the International Rules. In the years 1946-1956, for example, over twenty changes of specific or subspecific names for purely nomenclatorial (i.e., not taxonomic) reasons were accepted by the American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on Classification and Nomenclature, for the North American avifauna alone. Some of the species involved have a far larger literature than does the Bishop Tanager. In view of the wide current acceptance of the name virens for this species, it seems almost capricious to single out the name episcopus for restoration through the plenary powers of the International Commission. To summarize, I believe that the necessity for none of the proposed changes, through use of the plenary powers, has been demonstrated, and that certain of these changes would compound rather than alleviate confusion among those working with the literature of the tanagers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO PLACE ACARUS TELARIUS LINNAEUS, 1758, TROMBIDIUM TILIA RIUM JOH. HERMANN, 1804, AND TETRAN YCHUS URTICAEC. L. KOCH, 1836 (ACARINA) ON THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1564 (see volume 20, pages 363-366) By G. L. van Eyndhoven (Zodlogisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) With reference to the above mentioned request by my colleagues H. Bruce Boudreaux & Gudo Dosse I am sorry to say that I can only partially agree with their proposal. My objections are listed underneath: 1. In my paper “ The lectotype of Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758 (Acar.); Notulae ad Tetranychidas 10”, in Entomologische Berichten 23 : 121-122, 1 July 1963, I selected as the lectotype of Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 616) the specimen (or if there were more than one, the largest of the specimens) described by Linnaeus (1746, Fauna Svecica (ed. 1) : 350) under no. 1212 as “ Acarus viridi- albicans foliorum Tiliae ’’, which is the spider mite of Tilia, which in Sweden lives on Tilia leaves and produces a big webbing on its trees. As Linnaeus (1758) in his original description of Acarus telarius referred to his 1746 description of his Acarus 1212, this selection is entirely valid. In the same paper I indicated a neotype which is in accordance with the six require- ments prescribed in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. As this lectotype has been selected, in my opinion the species Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758, at this moment is entirely restricted to the mite from Tilia, now known as Eotetranychus telarius (Linnaeus, 1758). This selection was the least complicated one out of the confused 1758 description. 2. The Linden Mite or Limetree Mite from Tilia was known to Linnaeus already as early as 1746 (Fauna Svecica no. 1212) and he has emphatically mentioned it in his later works containing the confused description, giving it a preference by using the number 1212 before the number 1196. In the confused 1758 description it is the only one emphatically mentioned by a named plant host (Tilia). All the other indications of this description: “in Europae plantis’’, ** caldario inclusis ’’, are general terms which do not say anything definite. 3. Icannot agree that the word “ hyalino-fulvus ” in Linnaeus’ 1758 description simply can be translated as ‘“‘ reddish’’. According to lexicons the word ‘“‘ fulvus ” normally means shades where the yellow dominates, such as dark yellow, brown yellow and reddish yellow, in general the colour of lions, sand, gold, etc., and only under circumstances may signify a bright red colour. The fact that Linnaeus explicitly indicates ‘‘ in Tiliae foliis aversis autumno frequens ” proves that he meant a more or less orange colour, for the Tilia mite is never red. It has in autumn a more or less orange tint which is about the same tint belonging to the diapause stage of the Common Spinning Mite (“* in Europae plantis ’’, ““ caldario inclusis ”). To include“ bright red ” in his description, he would have had to add a second adjective. Spider mites of a bright red colour, as for instance Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) sensu Boudreaux, 1956, are in Northern European countries not at all common on plants in the field (perhaps even completely lacking) and also not very common in greenhouses. We may admit that Linnaeus in 1758 meant the spider mites common in the countries he had visited, i.e. the Northern European countries. Experience teaches that in those countries the Common Spinning Mite (Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836, sensu Boudreaux & Dosse) is an extremely common species on plants in the open air. In greenhouses it is normally the same species and the Carmine Mite (Tetranychus cinna- barinus (Boisduval, 1866) sensu Boudreaux 1956) is a rare species, only now and then occurring there. Note: The correct publication date of Tetranychus cinnabarinus Boisduval is 1866. In 1867 the same work was published with a new title page only. See also: Bulletin entomologique 2™ partie, Bull. ent. in Ann. Soc. ent. France 6 : LXXIII-LXXV, 1866 (1867). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. It is true that C. L. Koch in 1838 (Deu. Crust. Myr. Archn., Fasc. 17 : 12) described a spider mite which he called Tetranychus telarius. But Koch had not the intention to revise the genus or its species and so he is not a true reviser in the sense of the International Code. Koch indicated in his Latin description the colour as ‘“ fusco-testaceus ’’ which might be translated as “‘ dark red ” (“‘ reddish ” in the proposal of Boudreaux & Dosse). But in his own German translation of the Latin description Koch indicated the colour as “braunlich gelb, der Vorderleib und die Beine etwas heller”’. His original coloured plate also shows a pale brownish yellow tint with no trace of red. It is impossible, therefore, to read this as the bright red colour of Boudreaux’ Carmine Mite (Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) sensu Boudreaux, 1956). Furthermore Koch indicates: *‘ antice obtusiusculus, postice conicus ’’ and “ sehr klein’. Boudreaux’ Carmine Mite is neither very small nor has it the conical posterior ending as mentioned and depicted by Koch. One might suppose that Koch has not had anything else but a male of the Common Spinning Mite, which male is much smaller than the female and has a conical ending. Another possibility, though less probable, is that Koch has described a nymph. Also Koch’s ‘*‘ dunkelbraune Flecken, sehr selten in einen grossen Seitenfleck zusammengeflossen, dabei doch im Innern etwas gelbliche Mischung”’ do not at all refer to the bright red colour of the Carmine Mite. In his description Koch refers to A. Dugés (1834, Recherches sur l’ordre des Acariens etc., Premier Mémoire, Annales Sci. nat., Partie Zool., sér. 2, vol. 1). On pages 25-27 Dugés gives a description just as confused as Linnaeus, 1758, and he does not attribute any value to the colour which may change from greenish to bright red, but he certainly was not specially describing a red species. Koch also refers to Hermann (1804, Mémoire aptérologique, p. 40, 24, plate 2, fig. 15). This is Hermann’s Trombidium telarium. Hermann does not mention a red colour at all and he gives a coloured picture which shows a yellowish tint. 5. Moreover Koch writes that he found his mite specially on the “‘ rothe Johan- nisbeere ”, Ribes rubrum. This is the only plant mentioned by name. His other indications about wild plants and plants in rooms and greenhouses are all entirely vague indications. I have seen many spider mites on Ribes rubrum. They are the Common Spinning Mite (Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836) as mentioned in the request of Boudreaux & Dosse. They often have not the greenish tint of mites from weeds, but show a yellowish or brownish tint which has nothing to do with red. 6. All these facts clearly show that C. L. Koch, when describing his Tetranychus telarius in 1838, did not at all describe a red or reddish species, nor had he the intention to do so. 7. It is true that Rydbeck in his 1758 paper (Pandora Insectorum) was not a reviser in the strict sense of the International Code. I have indicated this in my 1962 paper (Acarus telarius versus Tetranychus urticae (Acar.); Notulae ad Tetranychidas 9 in Entom. Berichten 22 : 182). It is a fact, however, that Rydbeck (read : Linnaeus) has made a decision at that moment, because for the similar mite from Malva (also belonging to the confused description of Linnaeus, 1758) he does not use the word “‘telarius ’’, but only the indication ‘‘ Fn. 1196’. This proves that Rydbeck (read : Linnaeus) in that paper did not use the word fe/arius as a general indication for all spider mites. It cannot be denied that Linnaeus, in later reprints of his works, repeated his confused description. But in later reprints of Rydbeck’s dissertation the names of 1758 were repeated. So the question of a strict name has evidently been of secondary importance to Linnaeus. The reprints were not made critically; so Linnaeus, for instance, in later works uses for indicating the colour “‘ hyalino-fulvus ” as well as ** rubicundo hyalinus ”’. 8. Apart from all this, establishing Tetranychus telarius Linnaeus, 1758, as a sub- stitute for Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) sensu Boudreaux, 1956, would cause alot of confusion. In fact the name Tetranychus telarius has already two mean- ings which have continuously caused much confusion, especially in applied Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 literature: 1. the mite from Tilia; 2. the Common Spinning Mite. The proposal of Boudreaux & Dosse would create a third meaning for this mite, with as a result three different meanings in literature. This more especially would cause confusion to applied acarologists who, as a rule, are not working on systematics. Moreover the name Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) as interpreted by Boudreaux, 1956, is a well introduced name now in literature, also in applied works, and altering it would create a superfluous synonym which only would change literature still more. It would force all the acarologists, all over the world, to change the names they used up to now. 9. By using 1. the name Eotetranychus telarius (Linnaeus, 1758) for the Linden Mite from Tilia; 2. Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836 for the Common Spinning Mite and 3. Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) for the Carmine Mite, the confusion in literature is reduced to two meanings and only part of the acarologists (especially those outside Europe) will have to apply another name in future than that they were used to. 10. If we accept Eotetranychus telarius for the mite from Tilia, a discussion about the name Eotetranychus tiliarium (Joh. Hermann, 1804) (see paragraph 11 of the pro- posal of Boudreaux & Dosse) is not necessary. If my idea is not accepted, it would be wise to accept the name filiarium for the future designation of the Tilia mite, according to the proposal of Boudreaux & Dosse. 11. The proposal of Boudreaux & Dosse to accept the name Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836 for the Common Spinning Mite needs no discussion. This proposal, to my idea, is attractive and recommendable, and should certainly be accepted. 12. Summarizing, my ideas are: (a) Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758 belongs to Tilia by my selection of the lectotype, 1 July 1963. There is no reason to cancel this selection. (b) Accepting Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836 as the definite name for the Common Spinning Mite, as proposed by Boudreaux & Dosse, is a very good decision and should certainly be accepted. (c) Tetranychus telarius as interpreted by C. L. Koch, 1838, is a very small mite and is not red, so that it can not be taken as a synonym of Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) sensu Boudreaux, 1956. Accepting it would entirely be against the ideas of C. L. Koch. (d) Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) has been redescribed by Boudreaux, 1956, and is a good species. Its name is well introduced in acarology now and should be maintained. (e) If, notwithstanding, Tetranychus telarius sensu C. L. Koch, 1838, is accepted for Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) as proposed by Boudreaux & Dosse, a third meaning would be created for the name “‘telarius”. This would only cause further confusion in literature and that has to be avoided. (f) By accepting Eotetranychus telarius (Linnaeus, 1758) for the Linden Mite from Tilia; 2. Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836 for the Common Spinning Mite, and 3. Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1866) for the Carmine Mite, we have the most simple solution, forcing only part of the acarologists to change their traditional names. 13. My counter-proposal to the International Commission is therefore that the following names be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) telarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus telarius (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 616), restricted to Tilia by the lectotype selection of G. L. van Eyndhoven (Entom. Berichten 23 : 121-122, 1 July 1963). I designate as neotype a male mounted on a glass microscopical slide on deposit in the Zéologisch Museum, Amsterdam, bearing the following data: Eotetranychus telarius (L., 1758), neotype Acarus telarius L., 1758, Tilia sp., Lund, Sverige, 29. VIII. 1957, leg. Dr. G. Kruseman, loc. 957481 ”’, (b) urticae C. L. Koch, 1836, as published in the combination T% etranychus urticae, according to the proposal and neotype of Boudreaux & Dosse (Bull, zool. Nomencl. 20 : 365-366, 21 Oct. 1963. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) cinnabarinus Boisduval, 1866, as published in the combination Acarus cinna- barinus (Essai sur l’ Entomologie horticole etc., page 88, 1866) according to the redescription of Boudreaux (Ann. ent. Soc. America 49 : 46, 1956). As neotype the specimen indicated by Boudreaux & Dosse (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 365, 21 Oct. 1963) under the name Acarus telarius (B.M.(N.H.)) 1963.1.9.1. might be available. 14. I furthermore propose to the International Commission to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) alceae De la Chenaye des Bois, 1759, as published in the combination Acarus alceae (Dictionn. raisonné et Universal des Animaux 1 : 647, 1759). De la Chenaye des Bois copied this name from Linnaeus’ Fauna Svecica, 1746, (ed. 1) : 347, which is not entirely binominal. If this name is considered valid because De la Chenaye des Bois gives a description, it is recommended to be rejected, as it might be an older synonym of Tetranychus urtica C. L. Koch, 1836. (b) sambuci Schrank, 1781, as published in the combination Acarus sambuci (Enumeratio Insectorum Austriae, p. 524, 1781). This species is often considered as an older synonym of Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836. The solution of this problem is not yet definite, but the two species are closely related. If they prove to be synonymic, it is preferable to reject the older name sambuci as at present. If they are not synonymic, the mite of Sambucus can be renamed later. (c) textor Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the combination Acarus textor (Entomolo- gia parisiensis 2 : 530, 1785). Notwithstanding the short description this animal can be considered as a senior synonym of Tetranychus tiliarium (Joh. Hermann, 1804) (Boudreaux & Dosse, 1963, in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 365, 11b), but it would be a junior synonym of Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758 sensu Van Eyndhoven (in this paper). The diagnosis of Acarus textor has been copied from Geoffroy (1762, Hist. abr. Ins. 2 : 626-627), who gave no binominal name. (d) tiliae Forskal, 1787, as published in the combination Acarus tiliae (Hospita Insectorum Flora, 1787, in Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 3 : 296). Although this name is a junior synonym of Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758 sensu Van Eyndhoven (in this paper), it is to be considered as a senior synonym of Trombidium tiliarium (Joh. Hermann, 1804) (Boudreaux & Dosse in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 365, 11b). (e) alceae Forskal, 1787, as published in the combination Acarus alceae (Hospita Insectorum Flora, 1787, in Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad.3 : 299. This is important in case the name alceae of De la Chenaye des Bois, 1759 (see this paragraph under “‘ a ”’) is not rejected. (f) tiliarium Joh. Hermann, 1804, as published in the combination Trombidium tiliarium (Mém. Apt., page 42-43). Although this name will become a junior synonym of Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758, sensu Van Eyndhoven (in this paper), it is better to place it on the Official Index, as the description of Joh. Hermann is not restricted to Tilia, but refers to other plants as well. It could thus be considered as a junior synonym of Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836 (see paragraph 12b in this paper and Boudreaux & Dosse, 1963, in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 365-366). COMMENT ON THE COUNTERPROPOSALS OF G. L. VAN EYNDHOVEN RELATIVE TO THE VALIDATION OF ACARINE NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1564. By H. B. Boudreaux (Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge) It was because of the widely differing interpretations of intent attributed to Linnaeus that our proposal for stabilization of the names of important species of spinning mites Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 was constructed (Boudreaux and Dosse, 1963, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 365-366, 21 Oct.). If I disagree with Prof. van Eyndhoven, it is largely in the interpretations of the works of the early writers. I want to comment on some of our differences, with reference to Eyndhoven’s comments above. It seems to me that his selection of a lectotype from a non-existent series of “syntypes” is invalid, because by its very selection a lectotype must be represented by a specimen or figure that can be studied. As far as is known there are no extant Linnaean types of mites. In every early account of Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758, that I can find, various authors confuse the Linden mite with other spinning mites in the same fashion that Linnaeus did in Systema Naturae Ed. 10, and not until 1804 was the Linden mite distinguished from other mites by name and in unmistakable fashion, when Johann Hermann proposed its name in a note inserted in the book written by his son, J. F. Hermann, 1804, Memoire Apterologique: 41-42. The name Trombidium tiliarium then must be credited to the father, Joh. Hermann. The son, J. F. Hermann, used the name (op. cit: 42-43) for at least three species which were confused, but the son’s description was written before the father’s validation of the name Trombidium tiliarium for the Linden mite. The claim that Rydbeck, 1758, Pandora Insectorum, restricted the name telarius to the mite usually found on Linden is unacceptable, because Rydbeck speci- fically points out that his use of Acarus telarius is in the sense of the confused descrip- tion of Systema Naturae. Without the direct testimony of Linnaeus, the species included in his original Acarus telarius will never be certainly known. In spite of the testimony of Eyndhoven (above), the inclusion of a host plant citation cannot certainly identify the mites in question, and can only be suggestive. Eotetranychus tiliarium (Joh. Hermann, 1804) sensu Boudreaux and Dosse has been recorded on hosts other than Tilia. The other two mites are known to be highly polyphagous, and one occasionally infests Tilia. Therefore instead of trying to interpret the confused statements of the early writers, I feel that we must use names as they were first definitely established. Although Eyndhoven states that the carmine mite (Tetranychus telarius (L.) 1758, (sensu Boudreaux and Dosse) is perhaps completely lacking outdoors and not very common in greenhouses, there is evidence to the contrary in the European literature, and the firsthand experiences of Dosse confirm this. There is no question that Koch established the name T. urticae (1836, Deutsche Crust. Myr. Arach. fasc. 1 : 10) for the common two-spotted mite in an unmistakable fashion, for the first time. I believe from the evidence we have found that the carmine mite was also included in the Linnaean “ A. telarius”’. There are so many old references to “ red spiders ” in the sense of the Linnaean “ A. telarius”’ that it is hardly thinkable that the carmine mite was not common at the time of Linnaeus, but it was confused with the orange or yellow fall colour of diapausing mites. Therefore the carmine mite was the last to remain after Joh. Hermann removed 77. tiliarium, and Koch removed T. urticae. The establishment of a lot of confusion, as claimed by Eyndhoven, will not be avoided by his proposals. Until rather recently the name Tetranychus telarius was used everywhere except in Europe for both the two-spotted mite and the carmine mite. Eyndhoven refers to acarologists especially outside of Europe as “ only part of the acarologists *’. I submit that his version would cause even more confusion, because “acarologists outside of Europe ” out number those in Europe. Concerning Eyndhoven’s proposed rejected names (op. cit., Paragraph 14), alceae de la Chenaye des Bois, 1859 (Dictionn. rais. Univ. Anim.1: 647) cannot be an available name because the author is not binomial in other parts of his work. I agree that sambuci Schrank, 1781 (Enum. Insect. Aust. p. 524) should be suppressed, for the reasons given by Eyndhoven. The same is true for textor Fourcroy, 1785 (Ent. Paris. 2 : 530) because both the latter species cannot be identified. The names filiae Forskal, 1787 and alceae Forskal, 1787 are improperly cited as 1787. Forskal’s work was first published as a dissertation in 1752. This was reprinted several times, and such reprinting does not make a name available, so these names are not available as credited to Forskal. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Finally Eyndhoven (Par. 14, f.) mentions tiliarium Joh. Hermann, 1804 (Mem. Apt. 42-43). This name was used not by Joh. Hermann (pére), but by J. F. Hermann (fils) in a confused sense before Joh. Hermann wrote his note restricting the name tiliarium to the linden mite. Thus it is the name filiarium J. F. Hermann (fils) 1804, which must be suppressed in the sense of Eyndhoven, and not tiliarium Joh. Hermann (pére), 1804. The name proposed by the father appears in the inserted note on pp. 41-42, and clearly must be credited to the father. Please see the full discussion of our path of reasoning in: Boudreaux and Dosse, 1963. Concerning the names of some common spider mites in: Recent Advances in Acarology 1 : 350-364. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. OBJECTION TO, AND REVISION OF, THE PROPOSAL RELATING TO KROHNIA LANGERHANS, 1880 (CHAETOGNATHA). Z.N.(S.) 1586 (see volume 20, pages 381-382) By Norman Tebble (British Museum (Natural History), London) With reference to the application by R. Alvarado and I. Moreno (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) for the validation of Krohnia Langerhans, 1880 Chaetognatha, under the plenary powers, I wish to register a firm objection. The genus Krohnia Quatrefages, 1865, with type-species Alciopa lepidota Krohn, 1845, is a valid taxon. It is a recognised species of pelagic polychaete widely dis- tributed in Tropical and Sub-Tropical waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. As Krohnia lepidota (Krohn, 1845) it has been reported as a good species by Stop-Bowitz (1948), Dales (1957), Hartman (1959), Tebble (1960, 1962). Fauvel (1923) was in error in rejecting Krohnia for Callizonella Apstein, (1891), which is a synonym of it. REFERENCES FAUVEL, P. 1923. Polychétes errantes. Faune de France, Paris 5 : 1-488, 181 text-figs. Stop-Bowitz, C. 1948. Polychaeta from the ‘‘ Michael Sars”? North Atlantic Deep-Sea Exped. 1910. Rep. Sars N. Atl. Deep-Sea Exped. 5(8) : 1-91, 51 figs. DAEs, R. P. 1957. Pelagic polychaetes of the Pacific Ocean. Bull. Scripps Inst. Oceanogr. 7 : 99-167, 64 figs. HARTMAN, O. 1959. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications No. 23, Catalogue of the Polychaetous Annelids of the World TEBBLE, N. 1960. The distribution of pelagic polychaetes in the South Atlantic Ocean. “ Discovery’ Report 30 : 161-300, 52 figs. — 1962. The distribution of pelagic polychaetes across the North Pacific Ocean. Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Zool. 7(9) : 371-492 By R. Alvarado and I. Moreno (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) In view of the fact that Krohnia is now in use in Polychaeta, as Dr. Tebble (in a letter dated 8 Nov. 1963) has pointed out, we have considered the proposal submitted and published (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 381-382) as a case included under the Code (Arts. 53, 60 and 67(i)). Considering the literature concerned with both the nominal genera Eukrohnia and Krohnia we have modified our first proposal and the new one is submitted as follows: The International Commission is requested: (1) to place the generic name Euvkrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909 (gender : feminine), type-species by original designation, Sagitta hamata Mobius, 1875, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) to place the specific name hamata Mobius, 1875, as published in the binomen Sagitta hamata (type-species of Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the generic name Krohnia Langerhans, 1880 (a junior homonym of Krohnia Quatrefages, 1865) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF BORIOMYIA BANKS, 1905. Z.N.(S.) 1531 (see volume 20, pages 305-306) By F. M. Carpenter (Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) Although the basic chronology has been correctly set forth by Mr. Kimmins in his first four paragraphs, his fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs require some clarification. The following comments are directed to these paragraphs: (1) Mr. Kimmins states that the application of the Rules has led to the “ adoption of an interpretation of the generic name Boriomyia Banks contrary to the original intention of the author’, In support of this, Mr. Kimmins quotes from my revision of the Hemerobiidae ( 1940) in which I reported that Mr. Banks had told me (1940) that the sequence of publication of his two papers (1904, 1905) was the reverse of the sequence which he expected. I included this statement in my 1940 revision because Mr. Banks felt he should explain why he did not designate a type-species of Boriomyia in his 1904 paper. I feel that I should now add that, in the same conversation, Mr. Banks further stated that he was nevertheless in complete agreement with Mr. Killington’s treatment of Boriomyia (1937, p. 253) and he admonished me to follow Killington in my revision, i.e., using Boriomyia in its 1904 sense. Quite apart from Mr. Banks’ opinion, it is not his intentions which should deter- mine the validity of the name, but the actual record of publication. If we are to inject the highly subjective factor of intention in our nomenclature, we might as well dispense with all rules. (2) Mr. Kimmins states in paragraph 6 that although Killington’s action is justified under the Rules, his generic name Kimminsia has not been universally adopted. I consider this statement misleading. A survey of the literature on Boriomyia and Kimminsia subsequent to 1937 (when Killington called attention to the confusion over the type-species of Boriomyia shows that the names Kimminsia and Boriomyia have been used in the 1904 sense (i.e., Killington’s) by Carpenter (1940), Eglin (1940), Fraser (1940, 1942, 1951, 1953, 1959), Friedrich (1953), Kimmins (1952), MacLeod (1960), Meinander (1963), Nakahara (1956, 1960) and Parfin (1956). In fact, so far as I am aware, Mr. Tjeder has been the only one, in all the years since 1937, who has adhered to the use of Boriomyia Banks (sensu 1905)! The only exception to that statement is Zeleny (1963), who has made it clear (in. litt.) that he arbitrarily followed Tjeder, without investigating the history of the case. (3) Mr. Kimmins proposes in paragraph 7 that “ stability in nomenclature in this case be attained by suppressing the generic name Boriomyia Banks, 1904, and by placing Boriomyia Banks, 1905, on the official list of generic names”. As a matter of fact, stability could better be attained by retaining the name Boriomyia Banks, 1904, with fidelis Banks as the type-species; since this is in accordance with the Rules and in accordance with actual usage, except for Mr. Tjeder. (4) The introduction of the question of whether or not Wesmaelius Kriiger, 1922, and Kimminsia Killington, 1937 (=Boriomyia Banks, 1905) are congeneric is entirely irrelevant to the Proposal to validate Boriomyia Banks, 1904. This synonymy, suggested by Tjeder, is entirely a matter of his opinion, which I do not share. If Wesmaelius and Kimminsia are congeneric, there are no problems involving Boriomyia, since Wesmaelius is available for the genus for which Kimminsia was established. From a consideration of all the facts involved in this case, I believe Mr. Kimmins’ Proposal should be rejected. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ADDENDUM TO OPINION 643 RULING.—(1) Paragraphs 1 (b) (ii), 1 (b) (iii), 2 (e), 4 @) and 4 (m) of the Ruling given in Opinion 643 are hereby cancelled. (2) The generic name Saduria Adams, 1852 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1500. (3) The generic name Mesidotea Richardson, 1905, (a junior objective syn- onym of Saduria Adams, 1852) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1579. (4) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology concerning Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758, (para. 3 (f) of the Ruling of Opinion 643) is hereby amended to read as follows: entomon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus entomon (type- species of Saduria Adams, 1852) (Name No. 1587). EXPLANATION In considering the number of votes cast for the alternative proposal of Dr. Lemche in this case, the Secretariat overlooked the fact that Dr. Lemche’s proposal called for a more drastic use of the plenary powers than the original proposal of Drs. Heegaard and Holthuis, and therefore needed a two-thirds majority over the latter. In consequence certain portions of the Ruling given in Opinion 643 (those concerned with the suppression of Saduria Adams, 1852, and Idotaega Lockington, 1877) were invalid, having not obtained the two-thirds majority vote stipulated in the Commission’s By-Laws. This error was pointed out by Dr. Holthuis after Opinion 643 had been pub- lished in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 18-25. In accordance with the By-Laws, since Alternative B presented on Voting Paper (61)34, obtained a majority, but not a two-thirds majority, of the votes cast, the vote taken on that Voting Paper was treated as a preliminary vote only. On 13 May 1963, therefore, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)24 either for alternative A (as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17: 182- 184 and supplemented in paragraph 6 of the report reproduced in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 20-23) or for Alternative B (as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17: 183-185, and supplemented and amended in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the report reproduced in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 20-23). At the close of the prescribed Voting period on 13 August 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: For Alternative A—eleven (11), received in the following order: Boschma, Holthuis, Stoll, Bonnet, Alvarado, Obruchev, Borchsenius, Uchida, Tortonese, Miller, Mertens. For Alternative B—twelve (12): China, Vokes, Hering, do Amaral, Mayr, Jaczewski, Lemche, Riley, Binder, Evans, Kuhnelt, Brinck. On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commissioner Hemming returned a late vote in favour of Alternative A. Since Dr. Lemche’s proposal has again not obtained the necessary two-thirds Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 majority, the proposal of Heegaard and Holthuis (Alternative B) is deemed to have been adopted. The Ruling given in Opinion 643 is corrected accordingly, by the withdrawal of the generic name Mesidotea from the Official List and its entry on the Official Index together with the withdrawal of Saduria and Idotaega from the Official Index (those names having not been validly suppressed under the plenary powers) and the entry of Saduria on the Official List. CERTIFICATE I certity that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)24 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper as Alternative A has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Addendum to Opinion 643, W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 November 1963 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 696 PARTHENOPE WEBER, 1795, AND DALDORFIA RATHBUN, 1904 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Parthenope Weber, 1795 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Rathbun, 1904, Cancer longimanus Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1581); (b) Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cancer horridus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1582). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) horridus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer horridus (type-species of Da/dorfia Rathbun, 1904) (Name No. 1962); (b) Jongimanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer long- imanus (type-species of Parthenope Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1963). (3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Lambrus Leach, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Parthenope Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1678); (b) Parthenope Fabricius, 1793 (a junior homonym of Parthenope Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1679). (4) The family-group name PARTHENOPIDAE (correction of PARTHENOPINA) Macleay, 1838 (type-genus Parthenope Weber, 1795) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 362. (5) The family-group name PARTHENOPINA Macleay, 1838 (an incorrect original spelling for PARTHENOPIDAE) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 399. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1487) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in June 1961. Dr. Holthuis’ application was sent to the printer on 13 July 1961 and was published on 2 February 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 58-60. 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 publica- tions (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56). Objections to Dr. Holthuis’ case were advanced by Dr. D. N. Johnson, Dr. Fenner A. Chace and Dr. John S. Garth. These were published together with a reply by Dr. Holthuis in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 314; 20 : 99-101. The following further letter from Dr. Holthuis was sent to Commissioners with V.P.(63)17: “Recently I received the reactions of Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr., and Dr. John S. Garth on my application in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19(1) : 58-60) con- cerning the names Parthenope Weber, 1795, Parthenope Fabricius, 1798 and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 Lambrus Leach, 1815. The arguments given by Drs. Chace and Garth to keep strictly to the Rules and not to use the plenary powers here, are, I have to admit, quite strong. It is a matter of personal opinion whether or not one considers the degree of frequency in which the incorrect names are used more than the correct ones sufficiently great to offset the disadvantages of the suspension of the Rules. Since European authors are more used to the incorrect names, they are more easily inclined to think the invoking of the plenary powers justified. However, also the viewpoint that the Rules should be applied here strictly can be well defended as shown by Drs. Chace and Garth. The present problem indeed is one of those borderline cases in which both parties have almost equally strong arguments in favour of their viewpoints. ‘“* Whether or not my proposal is accepted by the Commission, it will be of the utmost importance that a decision on this question be taken one way or the other, so that finally an end be made to the double usage of the generic name Parthenope in carcinological literature. Neither Dr. Chace nor Dr. Garth have suggested an alternative action for the event that the Commission rejects my proposal. Therefore, I would suggest that in that case the Commission take the following decisions, which agree with the viewpoints of my opponents: (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Parthenope Weber, 1795; (b) Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904: (2) 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 Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904); (b) Jongimanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer longimanus (the name of the type-species of the genus Parthenope Weber, 1795); (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Lambrus Leach, 1815 (an objective junior synonym of Parthenope Weber, 1795); (b) Parthenope Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Parthenope Weber, 1795). (4) identical to par. (4) of my proposal. (5) identical to par. (6) of my proposal. “Tt is hoped, that whatever decision the Commission may make, carcin- ologists all over the world will abide by this decision so that finally uniformity will be established in the nomenclature of the group.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 May 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)17 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 60. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 13 August 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Affirmative votes—nine (9), received in the following order: Holthuis, Hering, Bonnet, Obruchev, Binder, Borchsenius, Uchida, Tortonese, Kiihnelt. Negative votes—fourteen (14): China, Boschma, Vokes, Stoll, do Amaral, Mayr, Alvarado, Jaczweski, Lemche, Riley, Miller, Evans, Brinck, Mertens. On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commisioner Hemming returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. Henning Lemche (24.vi.63): The case is very controversial, but the con- sistency in the American usage of the formally correct nomenclature cannot be left without support—even though the way in which Weber’s names gained priority has never appeared morally correct in the minds of European authors. Dr. Per Brinck (7.viii.63): I think that the arguments presented by Dr. Holthuis are reliable and that his application means a safe way out of present double usage of Parthenope. When—in spite of this—I vote against the pro- posal this is because of the series of strong objections which have been presented by various carcinologists. 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: Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 171 horridus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629 Lambrus Leach, 1815, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 310 longimanus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629 Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.: 315, 352 Parthenope Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr.: 92 PARTHENOPIDAE Macleay, 1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert.) : 55 PARTHENOPINA Macleay, 1838, in incorrect original spelling for PARTHENOPIDAE q.v. The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Parthenope Weber, 1795 : Rathbun, 1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17170471 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)17 were cast as set out above, that the proposal adopted was the proposal put forward as an alternative to the use of the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 696. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London ; 21 September 1963 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7) OPINION 697 DOTO OKEN, 1815 (GASTROPODA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Doto Oken, 1807, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (b) the generic name Doto Oken, 1815, is hereby validated, with type-species Doris coronata Gmelin, 1791. (2) The generic name Doto Oken, 1815 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Doris coronata Gmelin, 1791, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1583. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) coronata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris coronata (type-species of Doto Oken, 1815) (Name No. 1964); (b) fragilis Forbes, 1838, as published in the binomen Melibaea [sic] fragilis (Name No. 1965); (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) Doto Oken, 1807 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1680); (b) Dota Gray, 1840 (an incorrect spelling for Doto Oken, 1815) (Name No. 1681); (c) Melibaea Forbes, 1838 (an incorrect spelling for Melibe Rang, 1829) (Name No. 1682); (d) Meliboea Forbes, 1838 (an incorrect spelling for Melibe Rang, 1829) (Name No. 1683); (e) Dotilla Bergh, 1879 (a junior homonym of Dotilla Stimpson, 1858) (Name No. 1684); (f) Dotona Rafinesque, 1815 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 1685); (g) Dotona Iredale, 1918 (a junior homonym of Dotona Carter, 1880) (Name No. 1686). (S) The family-group name DoTIDAE (correction of DOTONIDAE) Gray, 1853 (type-genus Doto Oken, 1815) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 363. (6) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) DOTONIDAE Gray, 1853 (type-genus Doto Oken, 1815) (an incorrect original spelling for DOTIDAE) (Name No. 400); (b) DOTOIDAE Jeffreys, 1896 (type-genus Doto Oken, 1815) (an incorrect spelling for DOTIDAE Gray, 1853) (Name No. 401). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1006) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission in February 1956 by Dr. Henning Lemche. A revised version of Dr. Lemche’s application was sent to the printer on 20 October 1961 and was published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 156-159. 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 specialist serials. Dr. Lemche’s proposals were supported by Professor H. Engel and Professor Nils Odhner. Dr. Odhner, however, objected to the form of the family-group name proposed for addition to the Official List (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 138), Further correspondence on the correct form of the family based on Doto was sent to Commissioners with Voting Paper (63)18, and is reproduced below. Prof. L. W. Grensted (Classical adviser to the Commission) (27.11.63) Doto is the name of a sea-nymph, found in Homer and Hesiod and taken over by Virgil and Valerius Flaccus into Latin. The Latin use is of course decisive, but in fact the Greek gives the same result. In Greek: Awta gives the genitive Awtotc. This is contracted from Ag@téoc, and Dr. Lemche is right grammatically in treating Awto- (Doto-) as the stem. But normal usage is to treat -otc as the genitive termination, giving the stem Dot- and the family-group name DOTIDAE. This is actually the answer given in the Table in the Rules, p. 138, in the parallel case of a15e>¢-00c and 7yxa-otc (aidds-ous and écho-ous), so that though there is a case for Dr. Lemche’s DOTOIDAE that answer is not allowed by the Rules. In Latin, which as I say is decisive. Doto has the genitive Dotus, where -us is simply the Latinization of the Greek -ot¢. This must give Dot- as the stem and DOTIDAE as the family-group name. Actually this termination and genitive are not (and ought to be) given in the Table on p. 123 of the Rules, and of course are just a direct transliteration of the Greek. But that does not affect the answer to the question. DOTONIDAE is simply wrong, as there is no genitive Dotonis DOTOIDAE is wrong, but very nearly right DOTIDAE is the only answer possible under the Rules, and remembering that the Latin has priority as against the original Greek. Prof. Nils Odhner (7.11i.63) In this case we have the possibility of comparing the nomen proprium Doto with the n.pr. Dido, genitive Didous or (in Latin) Didonis (cf. A.G.G. Salenius, Latin-Swedish Dictionary, Stockholm, 1873). By analogy with Didonis, it is quite justifiable to adopt the genitive form Dotonis, at least as a licentia scienciae —and the problem is solved. The Commission has sanctioned such linguistic- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 ally impossible, though nomenclatorially practical, genitives as médbiusi; why not admit the “ new ” form Dotonis (perhaps to be linguistically avoided, but analogically consequent and nomenclatorially quite practical)? I therefore recommend the first use of the family name DOTONIDAE auct. for the Official List of Family-Group Names, and that the names DOTIDAE and DOTOIDAE be rejected. It may be added that the first of these two reminds one more of dos, dotis (= dowry) than of the zoological name Doto. Dr. Henning Lemche (19.i11.63) In reply to your letter concerning the spelling of the name DOTOIDAE/ DOTONIDAE, and the statement by Prof. Grensted, I should like to say that I am very little concerned with this problem. I shall gladly accept the form DOTIDAE if that is the correct spelling, and I see no chance of any confusion arising out of a change-over to that spelling. Nobody can be in any doubt as to what is meant, and that is what matters. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 May 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)13 (A) either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 158-159, paras. (1)-(4); (B) either for the addition of DOTIDAE to the Official List with addition of DOTONIDAE and DOTOIDAE to the Index or for the postponement of a decision on the family name until the.possible use of the plenary powers has been advertised. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 13 August 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Part A. Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Holthuis, Vokes, Stoll, Hering, Bonnet, do Amaral, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Lemche, Riley, Binder, Borchsenius, Uchida, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Miller, Evans, Kiihnelt, Brinck, Mertens. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Prantl Part B. For the addition of DOTIDAE to the Official List: — Sixteen (16): China, Boschma, Holthuis, Stoll, do Amaral, Mayr, Obruchev, Lemche, Riley, Borchsenius, Uchida, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Miller, Evans, Brinck. For postponement of a decision—two (2): Vokes, Binder. Commissioner Hemming returned a late vote, voting in the affirmative in Part A and for the addition of DOTIDAE to the Official List in Part B. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: coronata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3105 Dota Gray, 1840, Syn. Cont. Brit. Mus. (ed. 42) : 148 Dotilla Bergh, 1879, Verh. zool. -bot. Ges. Wien 28 : 574 DOTIDAE Gray, 1853, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 11 : 220 Doto Oken, 1815 Lehrb. Naturgesch. (3) 1 : 278 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOTOIDAE Jeffreys, 1869, Brit. Conch. 5 : 59 Dotona Iredale, 1918, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 13 : 30 Dotona Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature: 161 DOTONIDAE Gray, 1853, an incorrect original spelling for DOTIDAE q.v. fragilis, Melibaea, Forbes, 1838, Malac. Monensis: 4 Melibaea Forbes, 1838, Malac. Monensis: 4 Meliboea Forbes, 1838, Malac. Monensis: 59 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)18 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the Inter- national Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 697. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 September 1963 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 OPINION 698 LYSTROPHIS COPE, 1885 (REPTILIA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Rhinostoma Fitzinger, 1826; (b) the specific name nasua Wagler, 1830, as published in the binomen Vipera nasua. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (gender: masculine), type-species, by original designation, Heterodon dorbignyi Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 (Name No. 1584); (b) Phimophis Cope, 1860 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, through Rhinosimus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, Rhinosimus guerini Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 (Name No. 1585); (c) Simophis Peters, 1860 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Heterodon rhinostoma Schlegel, 1837 (Name No. 1586). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) dorbignyi Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéril, 1854, as published in the binomen Heterodon dorbignyi (type-species of Lystrophis Cope, 1885) (Name No. 1966); (b) guianensis Troschel, 1848, as published in the binomen Heterodon guianensis (Name No. 1967); (c) guerini Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéril, 1854, as published in the binomen Rhinosimus guerini (type-species of Phimophis Cope, 1860) (Name No. 1968); (d) nigrum Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, as published in the combina- tion Scytale neuwiedii var. nigrum (Name No. 1969); (e) rhinostoma Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Heterodon rhinostoma (type-species of Simophis Peters, 1860) (Name No. 1970). (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) Rhinostoma Fitzinger, 1826 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1687); (b) Rhinosiphon Fitzinger, 1843 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 1688); (c) Rhinaspis Fitzinger, 1843 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 1689); (d) Rhinosimus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 (a junior homonym of Rhinosimus Latreille, [1802—1803]) (Name No. 1690). (5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) nasua Wagler, 1830, as published in the binomen Vipera nasua (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 785); (b) proboscidea Fitzinger, 1826, as published in the binomen Rhinostoma proboscidea (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 786); (c) proboscidea Fitzinger, 1843, as published in the binomen Rhinostoma (Rhinaspis) proboscidea (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 787). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1484) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Joseph R. Bailey in June 1961. Dr. Bailey’s application was sent to the printer on 20 October 1961 and was published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 164-169. 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. Dr. Bailey’s proposals were supported by Professor Hobart M. Smith and Professor A. do Amaral (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 83). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 May 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)19 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 166-167. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 13 August 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Holthuis, Vokes, Stoll, Hering, Bonnet, do Amaral, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Lemche, Riley, Binder, Borchsenius, Jaczewski, Uchida, Tortonese, Miller, Evans, Kiihnelt, Brinck, Mertens. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commissioner Hemming 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: dorbignyi, Heterodon, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, in Roret’s Suites a Buffon, Erpét. Gén. 7 : 772 guerini, Rhinosimus, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, in Roret’s Suites a Buffon, Erpét. Gén. 7: 991 guianensis, Heterodon, Troschel, 1848, in Schomburgk, Reisen in Britisch-Guiana, Reptilien: 653 Lystrophis Cope, 1885, Proc. amer. phil. Soc. 22 : 193 nasua, Vipera, Wagler, 1830, Natiirl. Syst. Amph.: 171 nigrum, Scytale neuwiedii var., Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, in Roret’s Suites 4 Buffon, Erpét. Gén. 7 : 1002 Phimophis Cope, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 12 : 79 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 proboscidea, Rhinostoma, Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Classif. Rept.: 56 proboscidea, Rhinostoma, (Rhinaspis), Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 26 Rhinaspis Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 26 Rhinosimus Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéril, 1854, in Roret’s Suites 4 Buffon, Erpét. Gén. 7: 991 Rhinosiphon Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 26 Rhinostoma Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Classif. Rept.: 56, 29 rhinostoma, Heterodon, Schlegel, 1837, Essai Phys. Serpens 2 : 100 Simophis Peters, 1860, Monatsb. K.-preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1860 : 521 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)19 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. 698. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 October 1963 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 699 GRYLLUS CAMPESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—Under the plenary powers the nominal species Gryllus cam- pestris Linnaeus, 1758, is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated by D. K. McE. Kevan, 1962. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1485) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. D. K. McE. Kevan in June 1961. An amended version of Dr. Kevan’s application was sent to the printer on 20 October 1961 and was published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 170-172. 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. The application was supported by Dr. D. R. Ragge. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 May 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)20 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 :171. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 13 August 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Vokes, Stoll, Hering, Bonnet, do Amaral, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Lemche, Riley, Binder, Borchsenius, Jaczewski, Uchida, Tortonese, Miller, Evans, Kiihnelt, Brinck, Mertens. Negative votes—one (1): Holthuis. On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commissioner Hemming returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (20.v.63). If the specimens figured by Frisch and Roesel on the plates to which Linnaeus (1758) in the original description of Gryllus campestris refers, are what is generally considered to be the true Gryllus campes- tris, one of them could be selected the lectotype of Linnaeus’ species. In this way the identity of the species can be fixed in the currently adopted sense without interference by the Commission. Professor E. Mayr (4.vi.63). The application is misleading. Linnaeus had no type concept, as proven by H. Svenson, Ramsbottom and Arthur Cain. The specimens in the Linnaean collection are not types in the modern sense. The references to Frisch and Roesel carry an equal amount of weight as the speci- mens in the collection. Actually this isa name based on composite material and should be handled by restriction by a first reviser. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 Dr. H. Lemche (24.vi.63). The proposal is accepted though I cannot follow the applicant in his reasoning. The Gryllus campestris Linnaeus was certainly a composite species, but there is no proof that all of Linnaeus’ material is still present in London. Thus the female mentioned cannot be regarded as a holotype. Still, however, a neotype selection is needed to secure stability. REFERENCES The specific name Gryllus campestris was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1283 by the Ruling given in Direction 64. The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for that species: Kevan, D. K. McE., 1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 171 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)20 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained 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. 699. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 October 1963 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 700 DASIOPS ALVEOFRONS MOFFITT & YARUSS, 1961 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name alveofrons Moffitt and Yaruss, 1961, as published in the binomen Dasiops alveofrons, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name alveofrons McAlpine, 1961, as published in the binomen Dasiops alveofrons, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1971. (3) The specific name alveofrons Moffitt & Yaruss, 1961, as published in the binomen Dasiops alveofrons (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 788. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1492) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. J. F. McAlpine, Dr. H. R. Moffitt and Dr. F. L. Yaruss in July 1961. The applica- tion was sent to the printer on 22 August 1961 and was published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 173. 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. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 May 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)21 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 73. At the close of the prescribed voting period the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Holthuis, Vokes, Stoll, Hering, Bonnet, do Amaral, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Lemche, Riley, Binder, Borchsenius, Uchida, Tortonese, Miller, Evans, Kiihnelt, Brinck. Negative votes—two (2): Jaczewski, Mertens. On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Mertens. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commissioner Hemming returned a late affirmative vote. The following comment was made by Prof. Jaczewski in returning his negative vote: ““ In my opinion no action is necessary as the case falls clearly under Art. 50 and 51 of the new Code. The correct citation of the species in question would be: Dasiops alveofrons McAlpine in Moffitt & Yaruss, 1961. Let us apply the Code instead of resorting to the plenary powers of the Commission in every minor and simple case!” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: alveofrons, Dasiops, McAlpine, 1961, Canad. Ent. 93 (7) : 539-544 alveofrons, Dasiops, Moffitt & Yaruss, 1961, J. econ. Ent. 54 (3) : 504-505 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)21 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained 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. 700. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 October 1963 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO PLACE ACARUS TELARIUS, TROMBIDIUM TILIARIUM AND TETRANYCAUS URTICAE ON THE OFFICIAL LIST Z.N.(S.) 1564 (see volume 20, pages 363-366) By Wm. L. Putman (Canada Department of Agriculture, Vineland Station, Ontario, Canada) Tetranychid mites are so important economically that their nomenclature concerns many biologists other than taxonomists. Any reasonable proposal to resolve the long- standing chaos in the use of these names deserves consideration. The application of Boudreaux and Dosse appears to be based on sound principles consistent with the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. I therefore wish to support this petition. By Donald E. Johnston, Willi Kniille and G. W. Wharton (Institute of Acarology, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station), Clifford R. Cutright, Howard Y. Forsythe, Jr., Ralph B. Neiswander and Roy W. Rings (Department of Zoology and Entomology, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, U.S.A.) The currently existing confusion, coupled with the wide need of names for these mites in the literature of applied and basic biology, demands stability in nomenclature. The actions proposed by Boudreaux and Dosse will not only lead to stability but have the added merit of being entirely consistent with all available information pertinent to the nomenclature of these mites and with the Code. In our opinion such a proposal is more likely to lead to stability than one involving suspension of the Code in order to validate the proponent’s current usage. The designation of neotypes for the species involved and the deposition of these in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) is also to be commended. 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 701 PISIDIA LEACH, 1820, DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS; AND CANCER ISTRIANUS SCOPOLI, 1763, SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Pisidia Leach, 1920, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cancer longicornis Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus; (b) the specific name istrianus Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cancer istrianus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Petrolisthes Stimpson, 1858 (gender: masculine), type-species by original designation, Porcellana violacea Guérin, 1820 (Name No. 1587); (b) Pisidia Leach, 1820 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cancer longicornis Linnaeus, 1767 (Name No. 1588); (c) Porcellana Lamarck, 1801 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cancer platycheles Pennant, 1777 (Name No. 1589). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Jongicornis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Cancer longicor- nis, as defined by the lectotype designated by Holthuis, 1962 (type- species of Pisidia Leach, 1820) (Name No. 1972); (b) platycheles Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Cancer platy- cheles (type-species of Porcellana Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 1973); (c) violacea Guérin, 1829, as published in the binomen Porcellana violacea (type-species of Petrolisthes Stimpson, 1858) (Name No. 1974). (4) The family-group name PORCELLANIDAE Haworth, 1825 (type-genus Porcellana Lamarck, 1801) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 364. (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Porcellana Statius Miiller, 1766 (a name published in a non-binominal work) (Name No. 1691); (b) Porcellana Linck, 1783 (a name published in a non-binominal work) (Name No. 1692); (c) Porcellana Meuschen, 1787 (a generic name not published in the nomina- tive singular) (Name No. 1693); Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 (d) Porcellana Bruguiére, 1792 (a nomen nudum not published for use in zoological nomenclature) (Name No. 1694). (6) 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) hexapus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Cancer hexapus (a junior objective synonym of Jongicornis, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 789); (b) histriae Herbst, 1783, as published in the binomen Cancer histriae (an incorrect spelling for istrianus, Cancer, Scopoli, 1763) (Name No. 790); (c) histrianus Nardo, 1869, as published in the binomen Cancer histrianus an) incorrect spelling for istrianus, Cancer, Scopoli, 1763) (Name No. (791; (d) histrio Herbst, 1796, as published in the binomen Cancer histrio (an incorrect spelling for istrianus, Cancer, Scopoli, 1763) (Name No. 792); (e) istrianus Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cancer istrianus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 793); (f) linnaeana Leach, 1820, as published in the binomen Pisidia linnaeana (a junior objective synonym of Jongicornis, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 794). (7) The following works are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Numbers specified : (a) Linck, J. H., 1783-1787. Index Musaei Linckiani, oder kurzes system- atisches Verzeichnis der vornehmsten Stiicke der Linckischen Naturalien- sammlung zu Leipzig, 3 volumes (vol. 1, 1783; vol. 2, 1786; vol. 3, 1787) (Title No. 68); (b) Statius Miiller, P. L., 1766. Deliciae Naturae selectae; oder auslerlesenes Naturalien-Cabinet, welches aus den drey Reichen der Natur zeiget, was von curiosen Liebhabern aufbehalten und gesammelt zu werden verdient. Ehemals herausgegeben von Georg Wolfgang Knorr; fortgesetzt von dessen Erben, 3 volumes (ed. 1, 1766; ed. 2, 1778; Dutch translation, 1771) (Title No. 69). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1496) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in August 1961. Dr. Holthuis’ application was sent to the printer on 22 August 1961 and was published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 179-181. 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 the other pre- scribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56). No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 May 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)22 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 179-181. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 13 August 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Holthuis, Vokes, Stoll, Hering, Bonnet, do Amaral, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Lemche, Riley, Binder, Borchsenius, Uchida, Tortonese, Miller, Evans, Kiihnelt, Brinck, Mertens. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commissioner Hemming returned a late affirmative vote. Dr. Lemche qualified his affirmative vote as follows: “I vote for the proposals with the exception of proposal (7). Though these works may deserve being rejected, it cannot be done in complete secrecy as here proposed. Their rejection is to be formally and distinctly proposed.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: hexapus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1039 histriae, Cancer, Herbst, 1783, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1 (2-5) : 97 histrianus, Cancer, Nardo, 1869, Mem. Ist. Veneto Sci. Lett. Arti 14 : 14 histrio, Cancer, Herbst, 1796, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 2 : 222 istrianus, Cancer, Scopoli, 1763, Ent. carn.: 409 linnaeana, Pisidia, Leach, 1820, Dict. Sci. nat. 18 : 54 longicornis, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1040 Petrolisthes Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 227 Pisidia Leach, 1820, Dict. Sci. nat. 18 : 53 platycheles, Cancer, Pennant, 1777, Brit. zool. (ed. 4) 4 : 6 Porcellana Bruguiére, 1792, Ency. méth. 1 (2) : 545 Porcellana Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr.: 153 Porcellana Linck, 1783, Index Mus. Linck. 1 : 140 Porcellana Meuschen, 1787, Mus. Geversianum. : 398 Porcellana Statius Miiller, 1766, Deliciae Naturae 1 : 129 PORCELLANIDAE Haworth, 1825, Phil. Mag. 65 : 108 violacea, Porcellana, Guérin, 1829, in Duperrey, Voy. “‘ Coqguille’’, Zool. 2:2): piz3, fg..2, The following is the original reference for the designation of a lectotype for a species concerned in the present Ruling: For Cancer longicornis Linnaeus, 1767: L. B. Holthuis, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 178-179. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)22 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained 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. 701. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 October 1963 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature lil OPINION 702 STEREOMASTIS BATE, 1888 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Eryoneicus Bate, 1882, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Stereomastis Bate, 1888 (gender: feminine), type- species, by designation by Holthuis, 1962, Pentacheles suhmi Bate, 1878, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1590. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) sculptus Smith, 1880, as published in the binomen Polycheles sculptus (Name No. 1975); (b) suhmi Bate, 1878, as published in the binomen Pentacheles suhmi (type- species of Stereomastis Bate, 1888) (Name No. 1976). (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) Eryoneicus Bate, 1882 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1695); (b) Eryonicus Faxon, 1893 (an incorrect spelling for Eryoneicus Bate, 1882) (Name No. 1696). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1497) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in August 1961. Dr. Holthuis’ application was sent to the printer on 22 August 1961 and was published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 182-183. 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 13 May 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)23 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 183. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 13 August 1963 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Holthuis, Vokes, Stoll, Hering, Bonnet, do Amaral, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Lemche, Riley, Binder, Borchsenius, Uchida, Tortonese, Miller, Evans, Kiihnelt, Brinck, Mertens. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Negative—none (0). On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Prantl. Voting Paper not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commissioner Hemming returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Eryoneicus Bate, 1882, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10 : 456 Eryonicus Faxon, 1893, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 24 : 197, 198 sculptus, Polycheles, Smith, 1880, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 2 : 246 Stereomastis Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. “‘ Challenger” (Zool.) 24 : 154 suhmi, Pentacheles, Bate, 1878, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 2 : 278 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Stereomastis Bate, 1888: L. B. Holthuis, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 183 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)23 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted unde the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 702. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 October 1963 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 OPINION 703 PTEROPHORUS SCHAFFER, 1766 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES RULING.—(1) The generic name Pterophorus Schaffer, 1766 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Whalley, 1961, Phalaena pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1591. (2) The specific name pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena pentadactyla (type-species of Pterophorus Schiffer, 1766) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1977. (3) The family-group name PTEROPHORIDAE Zeller, 1841 (type-genus Pterophorus Schiffer, 1766) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 365. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1463) The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. P. E. S. Whalley in July 1960. An amended version of Mr. Whalley’s application was sent to the printer on 22 September 1960 and was published on 14 April 1961 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18: 159-160. Mr. Whalley’s proposals were supported by Dr. L. Bigot (Bull zool. Nomencl. 19: 141) and opposed by Prof. E. M. Hering (Bull zool. Nomencl. 18: 333). The applicant’s reply to Prof. Hering’s objections was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19: 69. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 July 1962 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (62)25 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18: 160. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 25 October 1962 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Riley, Obruchev, Evans, Uchida, Binder, do Amaral, Miller, Boschma, Lemche, Vokes, Tortonese, Stoll, Borchsenius, Mertens, Poll, Alvarado, Bonnet. Negative votes—six (6): Mayr, Key, Jaczewski, Hering, Brinck, Kiihnelt. On Leave of Absence—three (3): Bradley, Munroe, Prantl. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hemming. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Prof. Ernst Mayr (17.viii.62). “‘ It does not seem to me that the conflicting statements have been sufficiently investigated. This is a very recent application, as evident from its serial number, and it would have seemed to me that Hering and Whalley should have been requested to present more detailed data on usage. It is difficult for a Commissioner to arrive at a reasoned judgment on the basis Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the scanty and contradictory evidence so far available. This is particularly regrettable in the case of such an important genus as Pterophorus.”’ Dr. K. H. L. Key (24.vii.62). “ 1 am voting against the application relating to Pterophorus, because there seems to be a great deal of unresolved confusion on several points at issue. Not only is there disagreement among the three specialists who have written to the Commission, but there is much internal inconsistency in the two statements by Whalley. “The case has two aspects: (1) What would be the valid type-species of Pterophorus Geoffroy, if that genus were not unavailable as from Geoffroy? This is not strictly relevant, but it would provide a suitable species to designate as type-species of Prerophorus Schaffer provided that usage were not against such choice. In any case, one would like to feel that investigations on this point had led to a definite conclusion. (2) What choice of type-species would be indicated by usage? **(1) In the original application it is stated that pentadactylus is the type- species of Pterophorus Geoffroy by designation by Curtis (1827). However, in Bull. 19: 69 we read that Leach (1815) designated the same type-species earlier, while Latreille (1802-3) cited didactylus as type-species. Moreover, Cuvier (1798) cited ‘ a type ’ for the ‘ complex ’ of Alucita L. and Pterophorus Geoff. and * put pentadactyla in this group’. Whether this should be read to mean that pentadactyla was cited as the type is not clear to me, nor for which of the two nominal genera the type must be considered to have been formally selected.! On page 69, also, it is stated that didactylus was subsequently cited as type-species of Geina Tutt, but lower down we read that monodactylus ‘ should be left as the type-species of Geina Tutt’.2 Wallengren is said to have given monodactylus as a synonym of pterodactylus L., a name not otherwise referred to (and possibly a misprint). Contrary to Whalley, Bigot (although writing in support of him) states that most authors currently put monodactylus in the genus Emmelina (not Geina). ** (2) As regards usage, the views of Whalley and Bigot favouring pentadac- tylus, are diametrically opposed to those of Hering, favouring monodactylus. ““T do not see how the ordinary Commissioner can come to any conclusion on such conflicting submissions.” Dr. T. Jaczewski (24.ix.62). “I agree with the objection raised by Prof. E. M. Hering and I am of the opinion that the case requires careful reconsidera- tion. Iam supported here in this opinion by Prof. S. Adamezewski.” Prof. W. Kiihnelt (23.x.62). “I should like to support the proposal of E. M. Hering to designate monodactyla Linnaeus as the type-species of Ptero- phorus Schaffer instead of pentadactyla Linnaeus.” In spite of the serious objections raised by Commissioners Mayr, Key, Jaczewski and Hering, it has been decided to accept the majority vote of the Commission, because the Secretary sees no other way of solving this rather urgent problem, where there has obviously been divergent use of a generic name among lepidopterists of different countries. 1 None of these earlier “‘ designations” is in fact valid under the Code. * This was a lapsus calami on the part of Mr. Whalley, monodactylus is type of Emmelina. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the Original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: pentadactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 542 PTEROPHORIDAE Zeller, 1841, Isis (Jena): 755 Pterophorus Schiffer, 1766, Elementa Entomologica: Tab. 104, figs. 2, 3 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for the genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Pterophorus Schaffer, 1766: P. E. S. Whalley, 1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18: 159, CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (62)25 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 703. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 October 1963 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AEOLIDIA CUVIER, 1797 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1097 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The purpose of the present application is to place the generic name Aeolidia Cuvier on the Official List of Generic Names. The name has been misspelt many times but the correct spelling has become established in modern usage. 2. Aeolidia was published by Cuvier in 1797 (Tabl. Elem. Hist. nat. : 388) and included two species, Doris fasciculata and Doris papillosa. Alder and Hancock, 1847 (Mon. brit. nud. Moll. (3), Gen. 13 : 2) selected “* Eolis papillosa’’, i.e. Limax papillosus Linnaeus, 1761, as the type-species. Gray 1848 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 166) selected the same species but as his paper was not read before the Society until November 9th, 1847 it seems certain that Alder & Hancock were the first to select the type-species. 3. Cuvier changed the spelling of the generic name in nearly every paper he later published—producing an enormous confusion. In 1800 (Lécons Anat. comp. 1 : Sth table at the end) the spelling was Eolia. In 1805 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 6: pl. 61) he wrote Eolis, and in 1816 changed to Eolidia (Régne Anim. 2 : 393). There is no doubt that these names were meant for the same genus, the currently accepted form of which is Aeolidia. 4. Still more incorrect spellings were introduced by later authors. Eolida Fleming, 1828 (Hist. brit. Anim. : 285) contained L. papillosus Linnaeus and three other Aeolidacea (as now defined). As there is no reference to Cuvier’s work in Fleming, it may be formally more correct to treat the latter name as having a separate status, with the type-species, here designated, as Limax papillosus Linnaeus, 1761. 5. The spelling Aeolis was introduced by Menke, 1844 (Z. Malakozool. 1844 : 73) as the only linguistically correct way of spelling the name of that masculine God of the Wind. Cuvier, for unknown reasons, seems to have changed the sex of that God and all subsequent authors have treated the name Aeolidia as of the feminine gender. 6. The name Aeolidia has been used not only to form the family name AEOLIDIIDAE but also the modern and well-defined subordinal name Aeolidacea. The family-group name was first published as EOLIDIDAE by d’Orbigny, 1834 (Moll. Ech. Foram. Pol. iles Canar. : 34) and was corrected to AEOLIDIIDAE by Bergh, 1879 (Sci. Expl. Alaska 1, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. : 128). There have been several erroneous subsequent spellings of the family name and the Commission is asked to place these on the Official Index. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to place the generic name Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797 (gender: feminine), type- species, by subsequent designation by Alder & Hancock (1847), Limax papillosus Linnaeus, 1761, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 (2) to place the specific name papillosus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Limax papillosus (type-species of Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) the following erroneous subsequent spellings of Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797: (i) Eolia Cuvier, 1800; (ii) Eolis Cuvier, 1805; (iii) Eolidia Cuvier, 1816; (b) Folida Fleming, 1828 (a junior objective synonym of Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797); (c) Aeolis Menke, 1844 (an invalid emendation of Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797); (4) to place the family-group name AEOLIDIIDAE (correction by Bergh, 1879 of EOLIDIDAE) d’Orbigny, 1834 (type-genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) EOLIDIDAE d’Orbigny, 1834 (type genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an incorrect original spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE); (b) AEOLIDINA MacGillivray, 1843 (Hist. Moll. Anim. : 192) (type genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE); (c) EOLIDINA Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 166) (type genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE) ; (d) AEOLIDIDAE Bergh, 1870 (in Semper, Reisen Arch. Philipp., Malac. Unters. 1:1) (type genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE); (e) AEOLIDAE Locard, 1886, (Prodr. Malac. Fr. : 43) (type genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE) ; (f}) AEOLIDIADAE Bergh, 1888 (in Semper, Reisen Arch. Philipp., Malac. Unters. 3 : 777) (type genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE). 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AEOLIDIELLA BERGH, 1867, AND CALMA ALDER & HANCOCK, 1855 (GASTROPODA): TWO GENERIC NAMES PROPOSED FOR PROTEC- TION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1098 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The object of the present application is to preserve the generic names Calma Alder & Hancock, and Aeolidiella Bergh in their currently accepted sense by suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843. 2. In 1843 Quatrefages (Ann. Sci. nat. (Zool.), Paris (2) 19 : 276) established a new genus Eolidina with the type-species, by monotypy, Folidina paradoxum n. sp. (: 277). The identity of this species remained questionable for a very long time. 3. Alder & Hancock 1854 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 14 : 104) described a new species Eolis glaucoides which in 1855 (Mon. brit. nud. Moll. 7 app. : XXI) they made the type-species of their new genus Calma. This genus was very soon accepted and was characterized by the very conspicuous forestalks which carry the cerata on the back. 4. Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Vid. Medd. Dansk. Naturh. Foren. 1866 : 99) is a name given to a genus which, in the original publication, included a number of species, the first of which, Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart, 1829 (Breves Anim. : 16) was subsequently designated as the type-species by Suter (1913, Man. N.Z. Moll. : 581). Suter, however, misspelt the specific name as sommeringii and this name should be placed on the Official Index. 5. For 80 years the name Folidina Quatrefages was entirely out of use. Then, Iredale & O’Donoghue (1923, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 201) applied it to the genus hitherto called Aeolidiella Bergh. Since then, more and more authors changed to Eolidina (Winckworth, 1932, J. Conch. 19 : 238; Baba, 1937, J. Dept. Agr. Kyushu Imp. Univ. 5 : 336; Pruvot-Fol, 1951, Arch. Zool. exper. gén. 88:2 (as Aeolidina) and 54; Pruvot-Fol, 1954, Faune France 58 : 428). When in 1951, Winckworth changed back to Aeolidiella, he stated that Aeolidiella occidentalis Bergh was the type-species of that genus. This, however, cannot be correct, as the genus Aeolidiella was clearly established in 1867 when several named species were included, among them occidentalis n. sp. which, however, was not described until 1874, thus being a nomen nudum when originally included in the genus Aeolidiella. 6. Most other authors have recently changed back again to the use of Aeolidiella following Odhner, 1939 (K. Norske Vid. Selsk. Skr. 1939, 1 : 77). Odhner synonymized Eolidina with Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855, and gave strong supporting evidence for this synonymy. To me Odhner’s statements are sufficient to show that it would be more convenient to stabilize nomenclature by suppressing Eolidina Quatrefages altogether. A transfer of this name to another group of Aeolidacea than that to which it has hitherto been applied would cause confusion without any gain. Under the circumstances described Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 by Odhner, however, it would be perhaps unwise to suppress the specific name of the type-species, paradoxum Quatrefages, which may possibly cover another species than those hitherto described. 7. There is in use a family-group name CALMIDAE Iredale and O’Donoghue 1923 (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 - 200), based upon Calma Alder & Hancock. In 1951, Pruvot-Fol, (Arch. Zool. exper. gén. 88 : 54) published the sub-family name EOLIDININAE (type-genus Eolidina Quatrefages) as a subfamily of AEOLIDIIDAE. This seems to be a superfluous name and will be invalid if the type-genus is suppressed under the plenary powers. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to Suppress the generic name Eolidina Quatrefages, 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) Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855 (gender: feminine) type-species by original designation, Eolis glaucoides Alder & Hancock, 1854: (b) Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (gender: feminine) type-species, by sub- sequent designation by Suter, 1913, Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828: (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) glaucoides Alder & Hancock, 1854, as published in the binomen Eolis glaucoides (type-species of Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855); (b) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen Eolida soemmerringii (type-species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867); (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above); (b) Aeolidina Pruvot-Fol, 1951 (an incorrect spelling for Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843); (5) to place the specific name sommeringii Suter, 1913, as published in the binomen Aeolidiella sommeringii (an incorrect spelling for Eolida soemmerringti Leuckart, 1828) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (6) to place the family-group name CALMIDAE Iredale and O’Donoghue, 1923 (type-genus Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (7) to place the family-group name FOLIDININAE Pruvot-Fol, 195] (type- genus Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843) (invalid because the name of the type-genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FLABELLINA VOIGT, 1834 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1099 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The object of the present application is to place the generic name Flabellina Voigt, 1834, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This generic name has, in general use, been dated from Cuvier, 1830. However, in the Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 3 : 55, Cuvier used the French vernacular names for his genera which he had used in ed. 1 in 1817, and in most cases added the latinized forms. In the case of the ‘‘ Flabellines ” the Latin name is omitted and thus the name remains invalid even though there is a definition and a type-species, Doris affinis Gmelin. 2. The first place in which the latinized form Flabellina appeared was in the German edition of Cuvier’s work (Voigt, 1834, Das Thierreich 3 : 124) with the type-species, by monotypy, as before, Doris affinis Gmelin, 1791 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1: 3105). It is now proposed that this name should be placed on the Official List. 3. D’Orbigny, 1839 (in Sagra, Hist. nat. Ile Cuba: 42) introduced the name Flabellina for a genus of foraminifera, but without included species. The following year, d’Orbigny (1840, Mém. Soc. geol. Fr. 4 : 23-25) cited three new species as belonging to the genus—rugosa (: 23, Pl. 2, figs. 4, 5, 7); baudouiniana (: 24, Pl. 2, figs. 8-11); and pulchra (: 25, Pl. 2, figs. 12-14). Of these, Cushman, 1927 (Contr. Cushman Lab. foram. Res. 3 : 189) selected rugosa as the type-species. The name Flabellina as thus defined, has until recently been in use. 4. In 1940, Cushman (Foraminifera: 201) included the genus Flabellina as a synonym of the older genus Palmula Lea, 1833 (Contr. Geol. : 219). In spite of this Bartenstein, 1948 (Senckenbergiana 28: 122) introduced the name Neoflabellina as a replacement name for Filabellina d’Orbigny non Voigt. It will therefore be seen that the road has been cleared for using without dis- turbance the name Flabellina for the nudibranch genus for which it has priority. It is not here proposed that Neoflabellina be placed on the Official List as there seems to be doubt as to the validity of that genus. 5. The name Flabellina Forbes & Hanley, 1851, as mentioned in Neave’s Nomenclator, is Flabellina Voigt and has no separate status. Flabellina Levinsen, 1902 (Vid. Medd. Dansk. Naturh. Foren.: 21) is an invalid emenda- tion of Flabellaris Water, 1898, a Bryozoan. Filabellina de Gregorio (1930, Ann. géol. Paléont. Palermo 52 : 33) was applied to another Bryozoan. Clearly the last two generic names should now be placed on the Official Index. 6. The conditions under which the family-group names within most Aeolidacean nudibranchs have been established are such that a special Ruling on the whole problem may be required. In 1890, the experienced opisthobranch specialist R. Bergh ventured “ ein gewagter Versuch ” to arrange these animals systematically (Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.) 5 : 39). But this attempt was antedated by Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 a compilation by Carus (1889-1893, Prodr. Fauna Medit. 2) who, although without any experience himself with these animals, cited all of the same sub- family names as Bergh, adding behind each of the names the reference “ Bgh.”’. Thus, it is beyond doubt that Carus intended to publish the names established by Bergh, and that he did so in 1889, the year before Bergh’s paper was pub- lished. Therefore the Commission is asked to accept that the reference “‘ Bgh.” in the work of Carus indicated that the latter author was publishing in his work the subfamily names created by Bergh, and that the reference to author shall be cited as Bergh, 1889, in Carus. 7. There is a family name based on Flabellina Voigt, namely FLABELLINIDAE Bergh, 1889 (in Carus, Prodr. Fauna Med. 2 : 215 as FLABELLININAE). Thiele (1931, Handb. Syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 451) included the genus Coryphella Gray in this family, thereby placing the name CORYPHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889 (in Carus, loc. cit.: 211) as a subjective synonym of FLABELLINIDAE. Pruvot-Fol (1954, Faune France 58: 413 and : 421 resp.) keeps these families as distinct. It appears therefore that both of these names should now be placed on the Official List, with a note that FLABELLINIDAE takes precedence over CORYPHELLIDAE in case of competition. The type-genus of CORYPHELLIDAE is Coryphella M. E. Gray, 1850 (Figs. moll. Anim. 4 : 109), type-species by subsequent designation by Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Mon. brit. nud. Moll. 7, app.: XXII), Eolis rufibranchialis Johnston, 1832 (Mag. nat. Hist. 5: 428). The specific name rufibranchialis, however, is not considered to be the oldest available name for the species concerned and ought not therefore to be placed on the Official List, but should be replaced by Eolidia verrucosa M. Sars, 1829 (Bidr. Soedyr. Naturh. : 9). 8. The Commission is therefore requested: (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Flabellina Voigt, 1834 (gender: feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Doris affinis Gmelin, 1791; (b) Coryphella M. E. Gray, 1850 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Alder & Hancock, 1855, Eolis rufibranchialis Johnston, 1832; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) affinis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris affinis (type-species of Flabellina Voigt, 1834); (b) verrucosa M. Sars, 1829, as published in the binomen Eolidia verrucosa; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Flabellina d’Orbigny, 1839 (a junior homonym of Flabellina Voigt, 1834); (b) Flabellina Cuvier, 1830 (a cheironym); (c) Flabellina Levinsen, 1902 (an unjustified emendation of Flabellaris Waters, 1898); 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) Flabellina de Gregorio, 1930 (a junior homonym of Flabellina Voigt, 1834); (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology: (a) FLABELLINIDAE Bergh, 1889, in Carus (type-genus Flabellina Voigt, 1834) (a name selected by Thiele (1931, Handb. Syst. Weichtierk. 1: 451) as first reviser, in preference to CORYPHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889); (b) CORYPHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889, in Carus (type-genus Coryphella M. E. Gray, 1850) (for use by those zoologists who consider CORYPHELLIDAE as a taxon distinct from FLABELLINIDAE Bergh, 1889). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 EMBLETONIA ALDER & HANCOCK, 1851 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1100 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The present proposal is mainly concerned with the stabilization of the generic name Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (Class Gastropoda). Klug, 1805 (Beitr. z. Naturk. 1 : 143) described a genus of solitary wasps under the name Pterocheilus, including several species of which Vespa phalerata Panzer, [1797] (Fauna Ins. Germ. (47): 21) was chosen as the type by Blanchard, 1840 (Hist. nat. Ins. 3, Hymenopt.: 389) as Pterochile phalaerata, the spellings being invalid emendations of both generic and specific names. Illiger, 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk. 6 : 196) spelled the generic name Pterochilus, which spelling has been gradually adopted so that it became generally accepted. Only in a recent publication did Muesebeck, Krombein & Townes (1951, Hymenopt. Amer. N. Mexico 2 : 904) change back to Pterocheilus. Illiger’s name has no status in nomenclature if it is a simple misspelling, whereas if it is an emendation it has its own rights concerning authorship and date. No indication concerning Illiger’s intentions is to be found in his paper. 2. In 1844 Alder & Hancock (Amn. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 : 329) introduced the name Pterochilus for a genus of Aeolid nudibranchs, the type-species being, by monotypy, Pterochilus pulcher Alder & Hancock, 1844. These authors later considered that Pterochilus was preoccupied by Prerocheilus Klug and replaced their own generic name by Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (Mon. Brit. Nud. Moll. (5): fam. 3, genus 14). The name Embletonia came into general use and has been consistently applied to that genus ever since. The present action is taken to ensure the continued use of Embletonia by suppression of Pterochilus Alder & Hancock under the plenary powers. 3. Verany (1854) (J. Conchyliol. 4 : 385) used the generic name Diplocera Blanchard with the type-species Diplocera veranyi and listed Embletonia as a synonym. He did not describe either genus or species and the only place in the Ann. Sci. nat. cited by Verany where I have been able to trace any mention of this name is in 1848 (Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (3) 9 : 187) where a number of nudi- branchs are listed by name only, amongst them Diplocera veranyi, which is therefore a nomen nudum both from Blanchard, 1848 and Verany (1854). These names should therefore be placed on the Official Index. The date of publication of Verany’s paper seems almost certain to be 1854 since it was published in the last part of the band in question together with a letter dated ““2 decembre 1853 ” (page 450). It would seem extremely unlikely, therefore, that publication should have taken place before the end of 1853. 4. The generic name Embletonia was made the basis of the family-group name EMBLETONIIDAE by Pruvot-Fol, 1954 (Faune de France 58: 410). As this name is generally considered to be a junior synonym of TERGIPEDINAE Bergh (in Carus), 1889, I do not ask that it be placed on the Official List. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Pterochilus Alder & Hancock, 1844, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Pterochilus pulcher Alder & Hancock, 1844, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name pulcher Alder & Hancock, 1844, as published in the binomen Pterochilus pulcher (type-species of Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Pterochilus Alder & Hancock, 1844 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above); (b) Diplocera Blanchard, 1848 (a nomen nudum); (5) to place the specific name veranyi Blanchard, 1848, as published in the binomen Diplocera veranyi (a nomen nudum) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 NAMES OF NUDIBRANCH GASTROPOD GENERA PROPOSED FOR THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1108 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) When most of the names of the more important genera of Northern Atlantic Aeolidacean Nudibranchs are stablized by the proposals already placed before the Commission, it seems reasonable to use the opportunity to place the names of the remaining well-known genera on the Official List. These names are dealt with individually below. 2. Cumanotus Odhner, 1907 (K. svensk. Vetensk. -Akad. Handl. 41 (4) : 26, 29, 101, text figs. 2-4) was established for the new species Cumanotus laticeps Odhner, 1907, which in the next few years was found to be identical with Coryphella beaumonti Eliot, 1906 (J. mar. biol. Assoc. U.K. 7 : 361). (See also Eliot, 1908, op. cit. 8 : 313, and Odhner, 1910, op. cit. 10 : 82). No problems have been found to exist concerning this generic name. 3. The genus Cuthonella Bergh, 1884 (Rep. Voy. “Challenger” (Zool.) 26 : 23) was established for the new species abyssicola Bergh, 1884 (op. cit. : 24, pl. 10 figs. 1-3 pl. 11 fig. 2, pl. 12 figs. 9-13) which is therefore the type by monotypy. No problems exist in the nomenclature of this genus. 4. Favorinus Gray, 1850, (Figs. Moll. Anim. 4: 109) was established with Eolis alba Alder & Hancock, 1844 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 13 : 164) as the type by monotypy. Eolis alba being preoccupied by Eolis alba Van Hasselt, 1824 (Alg. Konst. Letter-Bode : 23) the name of Alder & Hancock’s species was changed by Iredale & O’Donoghue to albidus (1923, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 205). The species is now generally held to be the same as Doris branchialis Rathke, 1806 (in. O. F. Miiller, Zool. Dan. (ed. 3) 4 : 33, Tab. 149, figs. 5-7) which is the name now proposed for addition to the Official List. 5. Precuthona Odhner, 1929 (Tromsé Mus. Arsh. 50 (1) : 16) was established with Eolis peachii Alder & Hancock, 1848 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 1: 191) as the type by monotypy. No problems are involved in this case. 6. The only family-group name based on a genus here proposed for addition to the Official List is FAVORININAE at present in use as a subfamily name and first proposed in that form by Bergh, in Carus, 1889 (Prodr. Faun. Medit. 2:212). This name should be placed on the Official List. 7. The International Commission is therefore asked: (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Cumanotus Odhner, 1907 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Cumanotus laticeps Odhner, 1907; (b) Cuthonella Bergh, 1884 (gender: feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Cuthonella abyssicola Bergh, 1884; (c) Favorinus Gray, 1850 (gender: masculine), type-species, by mono- typy, Eolis alba Alder & Hancock, 1844; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) Precuthona Odhner, 1929 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Eolis peachii Alder & Hancock, 1848; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) beaumonti Eliot, 1906, as published in the binomen Coryphella beaumonti; (b) abyssicola Bergh, 1884, as published in the binomen Cuthonella abyssicola (type-species of Cuthonella Bergh, 1884); (c) branchialis Rathke, 1806, as published in the binomen Doris branchialis ; (d) peachii Alder & Hancock, 1848, as published in the binomen Eolis peachii (type-species of Precuthona Odhner, 1929); (3) to place the specific name alba Alder & Hancock, 1844, as published in the binomen Eolis alba (a junior primary homonym of Eolis alba Van Hasselt, 1824) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name FAVORININAE Bergh, in Carus, 1889 (type- genus Favorinus Gray, 1859) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 YOLDIA MOLLER, 1842, and PORTLANDIA MORCH, 1857: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH REJECTION OF YOLDIA ARCTICA MOLLER, 1842. Z.N.(S.) 1522 By T. Soot-Ryen (Zoologisk Museum, Oslo, Norway) There has been and still is some confusion about the two genera Yoldia Moller, 1842, and Portlandia Mérch, 1857. Both were in fact established on species which were given incorrect names though the description or cited synonyms clearly indicate the characters of these genera. It is therefore necessary to put the question of the type-species before the Commission and to obtain a final settlement. 1. Gray (1824) described two species viz. Nucula arctica (p. 241) and Arca glacialis (p. 244), both from Prince Regents Inlet. The descriptions are clear and these two species are today known as Portlandia arctica(Gray) and Bathyarca glacialis (Gray). Much confusion has arisen as Wood (1828) unfortunately figured Nucula arctica Gray under the name Arca glacialis (P1. 2, fig. 6). The last name was used by MOrch (1857) and even by Gray himself (1851) as Yoldia glacialis. In the British Museum there are two valves named “ N. glacialis Gray, and M. truncata Brown ”’, which are P. arctica (Gray). In the meantime other names had been given to N. arctica viz. N. truncata Brown, 1827; N. portlandica Hitchcock, 1837; N. siliqua Reeve, 1855. 2. As Nucula arctica Gray has been considered to be the type-species both of the genus Yoldia MGller, 1842, and of the subgenus Portlandia Mérch, 1857, there are several difficulties relating to the type designations. It seems advisable to start with the youngest genus. 3. Morch (1857, p. 93) lists under Gen. 81 Nuculana Link, Sbg. Portlandia aut.? However, there seems to be no earlier reference to this name in print. It must therefore be dated from 1857 as of M6rch. The subgenus is monotypic as MOérch mentions one species only with three synonyms in the following way: Sbg. Portlandia aut? 188. N. glacialis (Arca) Gray. Parry.» Voy. Wood Supp. t. 6. Yoldia Portlandica Woodward non Hitsch. Nucula truncata Brown. IIl. XXV. f. 19. Yoldia glacialis Gray. Cat. Brit. Moll. p. 161. N. glacialis (Arca) Gray is used according to the reference to Wood, t. 6 (=Nucula arctica Gray). The three synonyms listed below all refer to the same species. The species is not misidentified by Mérch, but the wrong use of the name dates from Wood (1828). The taxon Portlandia Mérch, 1857, has at least in Northern Europe, been used with Nucula arctica Gray as type-species for more than a half century. 4. H. P.C. Moller in his “‘ Index Molluscorum Groenlandiae ”’, Hafniae 1842, established the genus Yo/dia on p. 18. He mentions two species: Y. arctica and Y. angularis nob. Apparently Mdller thought that his first species was identical with Nucula arctica Gray, as this name was added between Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature commas after the name Y. arctica. However, the diagnosis of the genus and the description of the species clearly show that the reference to Nucula arctica Gray is erroneous. Therefore Mdller’s Yoldia arctica is a species distinctly different from Gray’s Nucula arctica. Y. angularis Moller is a synonym of Nucula thraciaeformis Storer, 1838, which is the type—-species of gen. Megayoldia Verrill and Bush, 1897. 5. Torell (1859, pp. 145-152) discussed this nomenclatural problem and introduced the specific name Yoldia hyperborea for Y. arctica Moller non Gray. The name Y. Ayperborea was first mentioned by Gould (1841, p. 99) as a manu- script name of a shell from Spitsbergen sent to him by Lovén. The name was here a nomen nudum. A full diagnosis and figures are given by Torell (1859, p. 149, Tab. 2, figs. 6a, b). The correct name of this species must therefore be Yoldia hyperborea Torell, 1859. 6. The earlier designations of the type-species for gen. Yoldia have been discussed by Grant and Gale (1931, p. 127). Stoliczka (1871) designated Y. lanceolata Sow. as type though this species was not mentioned by Méller. Verrill and Bush (1897) say: “‘ Type Y. Ayperborea Torell”’ and Dall (1898) assumed that Torell’s species probably was equivalent to Y. arctica Gray of Miller and designated hyperborea as type-species. As the wording of the earlier designations has been more or less incorrect I made a new designation (1959, p. 14). 7. To prevent a revival of the specific name Yoldia arctica MGller, 1842, which would cause still more confusion, it should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. 8. The originally erroneous use of the names of the type-species of the genera Yoldia MOller, 1842, and Portlandia Morch, 1857, makes it necessary to obtain a final decision. Therefore the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Portlandia Mérch, 1857, made prior to the Ruling now requested and to designate the nominal species Nucula arctica Gray, 1824, to be the type-species of that genus; (b) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Yoldia MOller, 1842, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so to designate the nominal species Yoldia hyperborea Torell, 1859, to be the type of that genus; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Portlandia Mérch, 1857 (gender: feminine), type-species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Nucula arctica Gray, 1824; (b) Yoldia Mller, 1842 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Yoldia hyperborea Torell, 1859; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129 (a) arctica Gray, 1824, as published in the binomen Nucula arctica (type-species of Portlandia Morch, 1857); (b) Ayperborea Torell, 1859, as published in the binomen Yoldia hyper- borea (type-species of Yoldia Miller, 1842); (4) to place the specific name arctica Moller, 1842, as published in the binomen Yoldia arctica (not a new name but a misidentification of Nucula arctica Gray, 1824) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES DALL, WILLIAM HEALY 1898. Contributions to the Tertiary Fauna of Florida. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. of Philadelphia 3 (4) Philadelphia GouLtp, A. A. 1841. Report on the Invertebrata of Massachusetts. Cambridge GRANT, U.S. IV. & Hoyt Ropney GALE 1931. Catalogue of the Marine Pliocene and Pleistocene Mollusca of California. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem. 1. Diego Gray, J. E. 1824. Supplement to the Appendix to Parry’s first Voyage, Shells. London GeAy, J. ©. USsl- Fer of British Animals in the British Museum Pt. VII. London MO ter, H. P.C. 1842. Index Molluscorum Groenlandiae. Wafniae Morcu, O. A. L. 1857. Fortegnelse over Gronlands Bléddyr. In Rink, H: Grénland geographisk og statistisk beskrevet. Bd. II, Tillaeg Nr. 4, Kj6ben- havn Soot-Ryen, T. 1959. Pelecypoda. Reports on the Lund University Chile Expedi- tion 1948-49. Lund SToLiczKa, F. 1871. Cretaceous Fauna of Southern India. Vol. 3. The Pele- cypoda, with a Review of all known Genera of this Class, Fossil and Recent. India Geol. Surv. Palaeontologica Indica. Ser. 6 TORELL, O. 1859. Bidrag till Spitsbergens molluskfauna. Stockholm VERRILL, ADDISON E. & KATHARINE J. BusH 1897. Revision of the Genera of Ledidae and Nuculidae of the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Amer. Jour. Sci. 3. New York 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature STENOSCISMA CONRAD, 1839 (BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST WITH TEREBRATULA SCHLOTHEIMII VON BUCH, [1834], AS TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1539 By Herta Schmidt (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) The object of the present application is to conserve the generic name Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839, in its present usage. The Ruling on this case will also have consequences for the validity of the generic names Camerophoria King, 1846, and Machaeraria Cooper, 1955. Historical Survey 2. In 1839, Conrad introduced the nominal genus Stenoscisma referring to this genus only one species, “ the common silurian Bivalve Terebratula schlot- heimii von Buch ”’, which therefore is the type-species by monotypy. 3. King, 1946, established the genus Camerophoria, designating as type- species Terebratula schlotheimi von Buch. 4. Hall, 1847, used Conrad’s name, spelling it “‘ Stenocisma’’. He included in the genus the nominal species Atrypa deflecta, A. recurvirostra, A. exigua and A. modesta. 5. Hall, 1862, proposed the generic name Zygospira, with modesta as type- species, for the four species mentioned above. 6. Hall, 1867, stated that Conrad’s designation of 7. schlotheimii was based on a misidentification and that what Conrad considered as T. schlotheimii actually was Rhynchonella formosa Hall, 1857. Hall “ revived” the name Stenocisma [sic] Conrad with Rhynchonella formosa as type-species. 7. Dall, 1877, in opposition to Hall, argued for Terebratula schlotheimii von Buch as type-species of Stenoscisma. Also Oehlert, 1887, cited “* Steno- schisma Conrad, em. 1839 (Stenocisma) ”’ with the type-species T. schlotheimi von Buch and, consequently, considered Camerophoria King, 1846, as a junior objective synonym of Stenoschisma [sic] Conrad. He mentioned “ Stenocisma Hall 1867 (non 1847, nec Conrad, 1839)” as a synonym of Rhynchonella. 8. Schuchert, 1897, while interpreting the genus in the sense of Hall, 1867, used the spelling “‘ Stenochisma”’. 9. During the next decades the interpretation of Hall, 1867, predominated. Consequently, the usage of Camerophoria for the genus typified by 7. schlot- heimii exceeded that of Stenoscisma. 10. The International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature of 1905 did not include regulations concerning misidentified type-species. Opinions 65 and 168 of the International Commission directed that, “‘ in absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be assumed that the original author of a genus correctly identified the species assigned by him thereto... but that, where there is evidence that either or both of these assumptions is at variance with the facts, the case should be submitted with full details to the ICZN...” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 11. In the literature of the last twenty years the conception of Stenoscisma with 7. schlotheimii as type-species and Camerophoria as a junior objective synonym has been more and more accepted (for instance H. Schmidt, 1941: A. Cooper, 1942; P. E. Cloud, 1944; Branson, 1948; R. C. Moore, 1952; H. Muir-Wood, 1956; Rshonsnitskaya, 1956). The family-group name CAMERO- PHORIINAE Waagen, 1883, has been replaced by STENOSCISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887 (nom. correct., Muir-Wood, 1955 : 91; Pro STENOSCHISMATINAE Oebhlert, 1887 : 1304, et pro STENOSCHISMINAE Oehlert, 1887 : 1365 [laps. cal.]). 12. It was in harmony with this nearly generally accepted interpretation that A. Cooper, 1955, established the genus Machaeraria with formosa Hall as its type-species, the species designated by Hall, 1867, as type-species of Stenoscisma Conrad. Under the view accepted now, formosa Hall was till then without a generic name. 13. Rshonsnitskaya, 1960, while agreeing with Oehlert and later authors in the interpretation of Stenoscisma, cites as a valid name Stenocisma Hall, 1867, with the type-species formosa Hall. She consequently mentions Machaeraria Cooper, 1955, as a junior objective synonym. Discussion 14. Evidently the specimens determined as Terebratula schlotheimii by Conrad are not identical with von Buch’s species. It is open to doubt whether Conrad’s determination was an erroneous one or may be considered as a conception of T. schlotheimii in a wider sense. In any case, the conclusions concerning nomenclature diverged during many years, while nearly all present authors have been using Stenoscisma with Terebratula schlotheimii as type- species. Additional confusion was caused by various spellings: Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839; Stenocisma Hall, 1847; Stenoschisma Oehlert, 1887; Stenochisma Schuchert, 1897. As Hall, Oehlert, and Schuchert explicitly refer to Conrad’s genus all these subsequent spellings are unjustified emendations, and, as such, they are junior objective synonyms of Stenoscisma Conrad. Therefore it is not admissible to recognise Stenocisma Hall, 1867, as a valid generic name, independent of Stenoscisma Conrad, as did Rshonsnitskaya, 1960. Neither the unjustified emendation of the original name, nor the substitution of a new type-species, formosa Hall, can found a new nominal genus (apart from the fact that the emendation Stenocisma Hall dates from 1847, and that Stenocisma Hall, 1867, if intended as a new generic name, would be its junior homonym). Conclusions 15. Considering the fact that the generic name Stenoscisma is now generally used for the genus typified by Terebratula schlotheimii von Buch, and that the name, in this sense, has also been accepted by bibliographic indices and text- books, it seems suitable to conserve this usage. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 (: 59) (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Terebratula schlotheimii von Buch, [1834]; 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Machaeraria Cooper, 1955 (: 55) (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Rhynchonella formosa Hall, 1857; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) schlotheimii von Buch, [1834] (: 59), as published in the binomen Terebratula schlotheimii (type-species of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839); (b) formosa Hall, 1857 (: 76), as published in the binomen Rhynchonella formosa (type-species of Machaeraria Cooper, 1955); (3) to place the family-group name STENOSCISMATINAE (correction of STENOSCHISMATINAE) Oehlert, 1887 (: 1304) (type-genus Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Stenocisma Hall, 1847 (: 142), an unjustified emendation of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839; (b) Stenoschisma Oehlert, 1887 (: 1309), an unjustified emendation of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839; (c) Stenochisma Schuchert, 1897 (: 413), an unjustified emendation of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839; (d) Camerophoria King, 1846 (: 89-91), a junior objective synonym of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839; (e) Camarophoria Herrmannsen, 1846 (: 161), an unjustified emendation of Camerophoria King, 1846; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) CAMEROPHORIINAE Waagen, 1883 (: 435) (type-genus Camerophoria King, 1846), rejected before 1961 because the name of the type- genus is a junior objective synonym of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839; (b) STENOSCHISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887 (: 1304) (type-genus Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839), an incorrect original spelling for STENOSCISMATINAE. REFERENCES Bucu, L. Von 1834. Ahb. K.-preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1833 ConRAD, T. A. 1839. Second ann. Rep. New York. geol. Surv. Cooper, G. A. 1955. J. Paleont. 29 (1) Da.L.L, W. H. 1877. Index Brachiop. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 8 HALL, J. 1847. Nat. Hist. New York, Palaontology 1 —— 1857. Tenth ann. Rept. New York State Cab. nat. Hist. — 1859. Nat. Hist. New York, Palaontology 3 — 1862. Fifteenth ann. Rept. New York State Cab. nat. Hist. — 1867. Nat. Hist. New York, Palaontology 4 HERRMANNSEN, A. N. 1846. JIndicis Gen. Malacoz. KInc, W. 1846. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 18 OEHLERT, D. P. 1887. Brachiopodes, in FiscHeR, Manuel Conchyl. RSHONSNITSKAYA, M. A. 1960. in OrLov, Osnovy Palaontologii SCHUCHERT, C. 1897. Synopsis of Amer. foss. Brachiop., Bull. U.S. geol. Surv. 87 WAAGEN, W. 1882-1885. Salt Range Fossils, Palaeont. Indica (13) 1 (1-5) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 CARDINALIS BONAPARTE, 1838 (AVES); PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1608 By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.), J. T. Marshall, Jr. (University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona) and Robert K. Selander (University of Texas, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.) The name “ cardinals” is applied to a group of genera of finches, which were raised to subfamily status by Sushkin (1925, Auk. 42 : 260) under the name Cardinalinae. Subsequent researches by Beecher (1953, Auk. 70 : 270-333) and by Tordoff (1954, Auk. 71 : 273-284) have confirmed the distinctness of this group; it is an important subfamily of birds to which also belong such well known genera as Pheucticus, Guiraca, and Passerina. A problem has arisen as to the correct name of the type genus of this impor- tant subfamily. Since reference to this genus in the ornithological literature is made hundreds of times annually, the Commission is asked for a decision that will restore uniformity and universality in the use of this important name. 1. The type genus of this subfamily, formerly long known under the name Cardinalis, is based on Loxia cardinalis Linnaeus, 1758, an American bird well known under the vernacular name Cardinal. The names Richmondena and Pyrrhuloxia have prevailingly been used for this genus in recent years. The history of these names is as follows: 2. Brisson (1760, 3 : 42) was apparently the first to use the name Cardinalis. The first species listed by him under this heading, “‘ Le Cardinal,” is the Scarlet Tanager of northeastern North America, now known as Piranga olivacea Gmelin 1789, a member of the family Thraupidae (Tanagridae) or Tanagers. The name Cardinalis in the sense of Brisson has apparently never been used by a subsequent author except possibly by Jarocki (see below). It is not included as the name of a genus in the index of the work of Brisson (ibid., p. 1112), and Cardinalis Brisson has recently been rejected by action of the Inter- national Commission (Direction 105). 3. Jarocki (1821, Zoologiia 2 : 133) published (in Polish) a list of genera of birds, in which he assigns the Scarlet Tanager of northeastern North America to the genus Cardinalis, apparently on the authority of Brisson. This name Cardinalis (as credited to Jarocki), was a dead-born synonym of Piranga Vieillot 1807 (Type, Fringilla rubra L. 1758) at the time of its publication. It was never used by a subsequent author as a generic name for a tanager and was apparently not even cited in synonymy of Piranga during the next 97 years. The Jarocki publication seems to be exceedingly rare. We have been unable to trace a single copy in the United States and the volume is not even in the library of the British Museum. 4. Bonaparte (1838, Proc. zool. Soc. London (1837, : 111) was the first to use the generic name Cardinalis for the American bird well known by the vernacular name “ Cardinal,”’ originally described as Loxia cardinalis Linnaeus 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:172), based on the pre-Linnaean name Cocco- thraustes rubra of Catesby. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. The generic name Cardinalis Bonaparte was used in this sense for 80 years. It appears in all standard ornithological works of that period in America as well as Europe, such as Baird, 1858, Birds of North America : 509; Coues, 1872, Key to North American Birds : 151; Baird, Brewer and Ridgway, 1874, History North American Birds 2100; Salvin and Godman, 1884, Biologia Centrali Americana, Aves : 340; Sharpe, 1888, Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 12 : 160; Ridway, 1901, Birds North and Middle America, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 50 (1) : 674. 6. In 1918 Mathews and Iredale (Austral. Avian Rec. 3 : 144) called attention to the earlier name Cardinalis of Jarocki (1821). Instead of requesting the International Commission to apply its plenary powers, sanctioned in 1913 by the Monaco Congress, to suppress the long forgotten and dead-born name Cardinalis Jarocki, Mathews and Iredale suppressed Cardinalis Bonaparte 1838 as a homonym of Cardinalis Jarocki 1821 and proposed a substitute name Richmondena for the North American Cardinal (= Cardinalis Bonaparte). 7. The name Richmondena has been widely adopted since the 1920’s and has been used, until recently, almost universally in the American ornithological literature. It was adopted in the last two editions (1931, 1957) of the Check-List of the American Ornithologists’ Union; by Hellmayr in his Catalogue of the Birds of the Americas, part XI (1938), Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. Ser. 13 : 67; by Pinto, 1944, in the Cat. Av. Bras. (2) : 588, and by the Zool. Record. 8. Regrettable though the change from the previously used name Cardinalis to Richmondena was in the beginning (and Cardinalis is still used by many non- American ornithologists), the name Richmondena has been used so widely in the last three decades that it would seem legitimate to consider it firmly established by usage. However, it now appears that the genus is threatened by still another name change, which is the reason for the present application. 9. It has become apparent in recent years that the Mexican Cardinal or Pyrrhuloxia, described by Bonaparte in 1838 as Cardinalis sinuatus (Proc. zool. Soc., London, 1837 : 111) is not separable generically from the North American Cardinal, “‘ Richmondena” cardinalis. The genus Pyrrhuloxia created by Bonaparte in 1851 (Consp. Gen. Av., 1 (2) (1850) : 500) for Cardinalis sinuatus has 68 years of priority over Richmondena. 10. Mayr and Amadon in 1951 (Amer. Mus. Novit., No. 1476 : 27), accept- ing the congeneric status of Loxia cardinalis Linnaeus and Cardinalis sinuatus Bonaparte, adopted the name Pyrrhuloxiinae for the subfamily of cardinals, based on the oldest valid name of the type genus of Sushkin’s Cardinalinae, in line with the provisions of Article 5 of the International Code, as valid in 1951, but in conflict with Article 40 of the new Code (1961). 11. As a consequence of the developments stated under (6-10) there is now lack of universality in the name used by authors for this genus. The American literature of the period 1930-1960 employs Richmondena almost universally, the classical literature and some recent authors use Cardinalis, while some students (indeed an increasing number of them) use Pyrrhuloxia, for the zoological reasons set forth in the Appendix. The eventual abandonment of the name Richmondena for the stated zoological reasons appears probable. 12. It would appear advisable to use the new period of instability as an fey r. a 2 Oe Keates ax Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 Opportunity to return to the well known name Cardinalis, rather than to shift to the little known name Pyrrhuloxia. As the most satisfactory method to restore stability and universality it is herewith proposed to suppress the name Cardinalis Jarocki and place Cardinalis Bonaparte 1838 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 13. Such action has several advantages. (a) It restores to the taxon the traditional scientific name Cardinalis, a name used throughout the classical literature and easily remembered, since it agrees with the vernacular name of the group. Thirteen of the 17 now recognized species and subspecies of this genus (sensu lato) were originally described under the name Cardinalis. (b) It avoids a possible incongruity between a subfamily name Richmon- deninae (if Article 40 is applied retroactively) and the name Pyrrhuloxia of its type genus. (c) Since the name Cardinalis Bonaparte 1838 is older than either Pyrrhuloxia 1850 or Richmondena 1918, its stability is not affected by the current zoological argument on the generic separability of the type species (sinuatus and cardinalis) of these two taxa. (d) The word Pyrrhuloxia has become the vernacular name of a particular species, the Pyrrhuloxia (=sinuatus). It would be confusing to call all cardinals Pyrrhuloxia. The name cardinal is also used for several Neotropical species, not only the North American cardinal. (e) Cardinalis is the name still used in part of the non-American literature and recommended with a 3 to 1 vote by the Standing Committee on Ornj- thological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (F. Salomonsen, Copenhagen; G. C. A. Junge, Leiden; E, Stresemann, Berlin; with A. H. Miller, Berkeley, dissenting) (1960, Proc. XII Intern, Orn. Congress 1 : 35-37). There is no danger of confusion since the name Cardinalis has not been used in the past 140 years for (and has never been the valid name of any group of birds, except the cardinals. Nor will the restoration of the name Cardinalis be 14. It is evident from the past history of the names Cardinalis and Rich- mondena, and from the zoological disagreement as to the generic distinctness of Richmondena and Pyrrhuloxia, that no nomenclatural solution can be found that will be equally acceptable to all ornithologists. Some ornithologists will be disappointed regardless of the decision that the International Commission will make. It is our belief, however, that the proposal here made will have the greatest potential, in the long run, to re-establish a stable nomenclature of the cardinals. 15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cardinalis Jarocki 1821, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the generic name Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Gray, 1840, Loxia cardinalis Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the generic name Cardinalis Jarocki, 1821 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cardinalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Loxia cardinalis (type-species of Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838); (b) sinuatus Bonaparte, 1838, as published in the binomen Cardinalis sinuatus) ; (5) to place the subfamily name CARDINALINAE Sushkin, 1925 (type-genus Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. APPENDIX The separation of Pyrrhuloxia from Cardinalis Bonaparte (= Richmondena Mathews and Iredale) was based primarily on a difference in the shape of the bill of the two type species. In recent years, however, it has been realized how plastic a structure the bill is in birds. More and more cases are discovered of exceedingly closely related species which differ strikingly in the form of the bill. Differences in the bill are therefore not decisive as proof of generic distinctness unless supported by other more trenchant characters. The significance of the difference between the two species is further reduced by the fact that there is a third species (“ Cardinalis”’ phoenicae) in which bill and crest are intermediate between those of the species cardinalis and sinuatus. There are no other significant differences between these type species of Pyrrhuloxia and Richmondena; indeed all recent studies indicate their extra- ordinary similarity. The most recent analysis of the biology of the two species (Gould, 1961, Condor, 63 : 246-256) comes to the conclusion that they are “ basically very similar ” in all aspects of their life history. “‘ Their songs are homologous and at times they are indistinguishable.” ‘‘ The nesting cycle and habits are almost identical.” “‘ Differences in ecology which cause a different geographic distribution of the two species are not evident on the study area, where they both occur and utilize the same environment in the same way.” “‘ The considerable similarity between the two species (cardinalis and sinuatus) in life history supports the hypothesis that they are congeneric.” To separate a monotypic genus Pyrrhuloxia from a genus with two species (‘‘ Richmondena’’), when all three species of this group are exceedingly similar, and one of the three species intermediate between the other two, is in clear conflict with the best principles of classification. An increasing number of recent authors have drawn the consequences from these findings and have combined Pyrrhuloxia and ‘‘ Richmondena,” (for instance, Brodkorb in the handbook: The Vertebrates of the United States, 1957, Blair et al., p. 586). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS (A) TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE GENERA PSEUDOSQUILLA DANA, 1852, AND GONODACTYLUS BERTHOLD, 1827, AND (B) FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE GENERIC NAME SMERDIS LEACH, 1817 (CRUSTACEA, STOMATOPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1609 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) and Raymond B. Manning! (Division of Marine Invertebrates, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) A recent revision of the genera of Stomatopoda brought to light that a strict application of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in three instances would lead to serious confusion. The three genera involved are Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827, and Smerdis Leach, 1817. In order to legalize the currently accepted names in their currently accepted sense, the Commission is asked here to make use of their plenary powers in these three cases. This opportunity is taken also to place the names of three other genera of Stomatopoda on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. All three of these names were published more than 60 years ago; as far as we can determine they are the oldest available names for the taxa to which they have been given and are not preoccupied by older homonyms. 2. The generic name Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, has been used until very recently for a rather heterogenous group of Stomatopoda. It was Seréne (1962, Bull. Inst. océanogr. Monaco 1241 : 1-27) who first separated this group into a number of more homogeneous components. Seréne considered “* Guérin, in Eydoux et Souleyet 1841 ” to be the author of the generic name Pseudosquilla and he indicated as the type of that genus Squilla ciliata Fabricius, 1787. Seréne, however, was mistaken as in Eydoux & Souleyet’s (1841, Voy. autour du monde La Bonite (Zool.) 1 (2) : 263) paper the genus was only indicated with the vernacular French name “ Pseudosquille’. The first use of the latin name Pseudosquilla was by Dana (1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13 : 621), who placed in this genus the two species Squilla lessonii Guérin, 1830, and Squilla stylifera Lamarck, 1818, without indicating a type. The first type selection for Dana’s genus that we know of is by Rathbun (1926, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 138 : 137), who selected as such Squilla lessonii Guérin, 1830; this selection is entirely valid. In Sérene’s new classification the two species Squilla lessonii Guérin, and Squilla stylifera Lamarck, 1818 (the latter being a subjective junior synonym of Squilla ciliata Fabricius, 1787) are placed in different genera, which for convenience sake are indicated here as genus A and genus B respectively. It is to genus B that Seréne (1962) gave the name Pseudosquilla, while according to the Code this name should be used for genus A. Genus A is relatively poorly known and contains three species, all of which are rare and seldom reported 1 Contribution from The Marine Laboratory, Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami. These studies were supported by the National Science Foundation under grants GB-389 and GB-1602. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature upon in the literature. Genus B constitutes by far the best known group of the old undivided genus Pseudosquilla, with 6 species, some of which are very common, with a wide distribution and repeatedly dealt with in the literature. Seréne (1962) gave the new name Pseudosquillopsis to genus A, which actually should be known as Pseudosquilla. The latter name was used by Seréne for genus B. For this genus two other names are available, viz., Alimerichthus Guérin (1855, in R. de la Sagra, Hist. fis. polit. nat. Cuba (8), (Atlas), Articulata, pl. 3, fig. 12) (type-species, by monotypy: Alimerichthus cylindricus Guérin, 1855, in R. de la Sagra, His. fis. polit. nat. Cuba (8), (Atlas), Articulata, pl. 3, fig. 12), and Pseuderichthus Brooks (1886, Johns Hopk. Univ. Circ. 5 (49) : 83), a genus originally described without any included nominal species (type-species by selection by Manning (1963, Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib., 13 (2) : 310) from among the species placed in the genus by the first subsequent author (Hansen, 1895, Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. 2 (G) (c) : 69, 84, 86) : Squilla ciliata Fabricius, 1787, Mant. Ins. 1 : 333). Like all stomatopod generic names derived from the word Erichthus, Alimerichthus and Pseuderichthus have so far been used only to indicate larval stages, and their use for adults may give rise to serious confusion. Furthermore, though it is very probable that Alimerichthus cylindricus is the larva of Squilla ciliata, there is no full certainty on this point, owing to our very imperfect present knowledge of the larval development of the Stomatopoda. Summarizing we may state that in applying the Code here strictly, the well known name Pseudosquilla must be given a relatively little known section of the former large genus, while the name Alimerichthus, which so far has been used for larvae only and the identity of which is not fully certain, has to be used for the best known and largest section of the old genus Pseudosquilla. The use of the plenary powers to designate Squilla ciliata as the type-species of the genus Pseudosquilla would solve the problem very easily. In that case the name Pseudosquilla can be used in the sense proposed by Seréne (1962) for genus B, which is formed from the largest and best known part of the old genus, while the name Pseudosquillopsis then would become available for genus A; furthermore the “ larval”? names Alimerichthus and Pseuderichthus will then disappear in the synonymy of Pseudosquilla, and so become harmless. It is this solution that we now submit for approval to the Commission. This nomenclatural problem is further confused by the fact that the two names listed immediately below are junior homonyms that have been applied to larval forms (Alimerichthus Claus) and a fossil form (Pseuderichthus Dames). The Commission is requested to place these names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. The names in question are: Alimerichthus Claus (1871, Abh. Ges. Wiss. Géttingen 16 : 146), a genus origin- ally described without any included nominal species (type-species by present selection from among the species placed in the genus by the first subsequent author (Lanchester, 1903, in Gardiner, J. S., Fauna and Geography of the Maldive and Laccadive Archipelagoes 1 (4) : 457, 458): Alimerichthus pyramidalis Lanchester, 1903, in Gardiner, J. S., loc. cit. : 457 which is an invalid junior homonym of Alimerichthus Guérin, 1855; and Pseuderichthus Dames (1886, Zeitschr. Deutsch. geol. Ges. 38 : 571) (published after September, 1886) (type- species, by monotypy, Pseuderichthus cretaceus Dames, 1886, Zeitschr. Deutsch. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 geol. Ges. 38 : 571) which is an invalid junior homonym of Pseuderichthus Brooks, 1886 (May). The name Pseuderichthus was introduced into the literature on three separate occasions in 1886. Brooks, in a summary of his “ Challenger” report, first published the name in May, 1886 in the Johns Hopkins University Circulars. Brooks again introduced the name sometime after August, 1886, in the ‘‘ Challenger ” report proper. Dames independently introduced the name sometime after September, 1886. The first use of the name by Brooks, of course, has priority. 3. The second problem is somewhat similar. Berthold (1827, Latreille’s Naturl. Fam. Thierr. : 271) in the original description of the genus Gonodactylus stated: “‘ Das Geschlecht Gonodactylus ist mit Squilla Chiragra und Squilla Scyllarus gebildet’”’. No type-species was indicated by Berthold. The first type selection for Gonodactylus known to us is the one by H. Milne Edwards (1837, Cuvier’s Régne Anim. (ed. 4) (=Discip. ed.) 18 : pl. 55) who figured as the type-species of the genus Gonodactylus the species Cancer scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758. In view of the fact that this is one of the two species mentioned by Berthold (1827), his type selection is entirely valid. It is most unfortunate, however, as at present Squilla chiragra Fabricius, 1781, and Cancer scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758, are considered to belong to two different genera, and the name Gonodactylus is currently in use for the genus containing Squilla chiragra. Cancer scyllarus, on the other hand, is the type-species of the genus Odonto- dactylus Bigelow, 1893, which in Opinion 295 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 8 (12) : 155-166) was placed under the plenary powers of the Commission on the Official List under no. 731. As the genus to which Squilla chiragra belongs is found throughout the tropics of practically the entire world, is extremely common where it occurs, and after being separated from Squilla has been known only under the name Gonodactylus, no other name being available for it, it would be extremely awkward for the name Gonodactylus to be dropped and a new name proposed for the genus. On the other hand, the name Gonodactylus has never been used for the genus Odontodactylus by any carcinologist who recognized Cancer scyllarus and Squilla chiragra as belonging to different genera. The fact that the name Odontodactylus was placed on the Official List under the plenary powers of the Commission would necessitate the suppression of the name Gonodactylus in order to save Odontodactylus. The best solution for this problem is quite simple: if, under the plenary powers of the Commission, Squilla chiragra Fabricius, 1781, is indicated to be the type-species of the genus Gonodactylus Berthold, the latter name can be used in its currently adopted sense, while the generic name Odontodactylus also remains available. 4. The third problem concerns the generic name Smerdis Leach, 1817. This genus was erected for two species: Smerdis armata Leach, 1817, and Smerdis vulgaris Leach, 1817; so far as is known to us no type-species has ever been selected for the genus. Both species are based on larval stages; Smerdis armata, according to the most current opinion, is probably the larva of Coronida bradyi (A. Milne Edwards, 1869), while Smerdis vulgaris in all prob- ability is the larva of Lysiosquilla scabricauda (Lamarck, 1818). To conform to 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Recommendation 69B (5) of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature, Smerdis vulgaris Leach is here selected as the type-species of the genus Smerdis. Hereby the name Smerdis Leach, 1817, becomes a subjective senior synonym of Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852, a name placed under the plenary powers of the Commission on the Official List in Opinion 294 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 8 (11) : 143-154). The Commission is now requested again to make use of its plenary powers and suppress the name Smerdis so as to validate the name Lysiosquilla. 5. The date and place of the original publication of the generic name Smerdis has been cited differently by different authors. In Neave’s 1940 ““Nomenclator Zoologicus ” (4 : 213) this generic name is cited as “‘ Smerdis Leach, 1816, Journ. Physique, 86, 305”. The genus (as well as the genus Alima) is indeed described by Leach on p. 305 (and the genus Phyllosoma on p. 306) of vol. 86 of Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d’Histoire Naturelle et des Arts, but this part of the journal is that for “‘ Avril an 1818 ” as is very clearly indicated on p. 253 and also on pp. 301 and 309. The description of Smerdis was also published by Leach on p. 415 (and those of Alima and Phyllosoma on p. 416) of Appendix IV to J. K. Tuckey’s “ Narrative of an Expedition to explore the River Zaire, usually called the Congo, in South Africa, in 1816”’, which, as indicated on the title page was likewise published in 1818. The three genera, however, are also figured and named on an un-numbered plate in Tuckey’s book. On this plate both Smerdis armata and S. vulgaris are shown and their names are given. On the bottom of this plate is printed “‘ Published Novr. Ist, 1817, by John Murray, London’”’. As there is no indication that this statement is incorrect, 1 November 1817 thus must be accepted as the correct date of publication of the generic names Smerdis, Alima, and Phyllosoma as well as that of the names of the new species figured there. The generic name Phyllosoma Leach, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as name no. 1144 in Opinion 507 (1958, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 18 (10) : 200), also is incorrectly cited there. The entry in the Index should be changed to: Phyllosoma Leach, 1817, Tuckey’s Narrative Exped. River Zaire (app. 4): unnumbered pl. (type-species, by selection by Holthuis, 1956, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 55, Phyllosoma commune Leach, 1817, Tuckey’s Narrative Exped. River Zaire (app. 4) : unnumbered pl.). 6. Some problems arise also with the generic name Coronis Desmarest, 1823, which is requested here to be placed on the Official List. Coronis Desmarest (1823, Dict. Sci. nat. 28 : 345) is a homonym of Coronis Huebner (1823, Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (17) : 265). Since the two names were pub- lished in the same year, it is important for the establishment of their relative priority to know their dates of publication more exactly. According to Sherborn (1922, Index Anim. (1) : xliv), volume 28 of the Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles was published in September 1823, while Hemming (1937, Huebner 1 : 488-517) made clear that the part 17 of Huebner’s work was published on or before 21 December 1823. The present state of our knowledge of the publication dates of these two names indicates that Coronis Desmarest has priority over Coronis Huebner. Therefore we request the Commission to place the former of these two names on the Official List, the latter on the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 Official Index. The genus Coronis Desmarest was originally described without included nominal species. _Desmarest (1823), it is true, stated in his description “il est vraisemblable que la squille pieuse, squilla eusebia, de M. Risso, Crust., pag. 115, appartient a ce genre ”’, but he did not positively assign Risso’s species to the new genus. Neither did Berthold (1827, Latreille’s Natiir]. Fam. Thierr.: 271), who remarked “‘ das Geschlecht Coronis ist auf Squilla Eusebia von Risso, oder auf eine sehr nahe stehende Art gegriindet”’. The first species definitely assigned to Coronis is Coronis scolopendra Latreille (1828, Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. (Ins.) 10 : 474) which consequently is its type-species. 7. All Stomatopod genera considered in the present proposal are currently considered to belong to the family Squillidae. Though the generic name Squilla Fabricius, 1787, has been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the family name Squillidae has not yet been inserted in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Therefore this opportunity is taken to request the Commission to enter the name Squillidae on the appropriate list. 8. The concrete proposals which we now submit for consideration to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that they should: (1) make use of their plenary powers: (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the generic name Smerdis Leach, 1817, Tuckey’s Narrat. Exped. River Zaire (app. 4): unnumbered pl. (type-species, by present selection: Smerdis vulgaris Leach, 1817, Tuckey’s Narrat. Exped. River Zaire (app. 4): unnumbered pl.); (b) to set aside all designations or selections of type-species for the genus Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13 : 615, 621, made prior to the proposed ruling, and having done so (c) to designate as the type-species of that genus Squilla ciliata Fabricius, 1787, Mant. Ins. 1 : 333; (d) to set aside all designations or selections of type-species for the genus Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s Natiirl. Fam. Thierr. : 271, made prior to the proposed ruling, and having done so (e) to designate as the type-species of that genus Sqguilla chiragra Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 515; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Coronida Brooks, 1886, Johns Hopk. Univ. Circ., 5 (49) : 84 (a genus described without originally included nominal species; type- species, by selection by Balss, 1938, Bronn’s Klassen u. Ord. Tierr., 5 (1) (6) (2) : 130 : Squilla bradyi A. Milne Edwards, 1869, De Folin & Périer’s Fonds de la Mer 1 : 137) (gender: feminine); (b) Coronis Desmarest, 1823, Dict. Sci. nat. 28 : 345 (type-species by subsequent monotypy: Coronis scolopendra Latreille, 1828, Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. (Ins.) 10 : 474) (gender: feminine) ; 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s Natiirl. Fam. Thierr.: 271 (type-species, designated under the plenary powers under (1) (e) above: Squilla chiragra Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1:515) (gender: masculine); (d) Hemisquilla Hansen, 1895, Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. 2 (G) (c) : 72 (type-species, by monotypy: Gonodactylus styliferus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust., 2 : 530 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This specific name is a subjective synonym of Gonodactylus ensiger Owen, 1832, Proc. zool. Soc. London 1832 : 6)] (gender: feminine); (e) Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13 : 615, 621 (type- species, designated under the plenary powers under (1) (c) above: Squilla ciliata Fabricius, 1787, Mant. Ins. 1:333) (gender: feminine); (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) bradyi A. Milne Edwards, 1869, as published in the combination Squilla bradyi, being the name of the type-species of the genus Coronida Brooks, 1886; (b) chiragra Fabricius, 1781, as published in the combination Squilla chiragra, being the name of the type-species of the genus Gono- dactylus Berthold, 1827, as designated under (1) (e) above; (c) ciliata Fabricius, 1787, as published in the combination Squilla ciliata, being the name of the type-species of the genus Pseudo- squilla as designated under the plenary powers under (1) (c) above; (d) ensiger Owen, 1832, as published in the combination Gonodactylus ensiger, [being the valid name of the type-species of the genus Hemisquilla Hansen, 1895]; (e) scolopendra Latreille, 1828, as published in the combination Coronis scolopendra, being the name of the type-species of the genus Coronis Desmarest, 1823; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Coroniderichthus Hansen, 1895, Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. 2 (G) (c) : 81, 83, 98, 102 (type-species by present selection: Sguilla bradyi A. Milne Edwards, 1869, De Folin & Périer’s Fonds de la Mer 1 : 137), an objective junior synonym of Coronida Brooks, 1886; (b) Coronis Huebner, 1823 (21 December), Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (17) : 265 (type-species by monotypy: Coronis stollii Huebner, 1823, Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (17) : 265) a junior homonym of Coronis Desmarest, 1823 (September). (c) Gonerichthus Brooks, 1886, Johns Hopk. Univ. Circ., 5 (49) : 83 (a genus described without originally included nominal species; type-species, by present selection: Squilla chiragra Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 515) (an objective junior synonym of Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827); (d) Pseuderichthus Brooks, 1886 (May), Johns Hopk. Univ. Circ., 5 (49) : 83 (a genus described without originally included nominal Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 species; type-species, by selection by Manning (1963, Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib., 13 (2) : 310) from among the species placed in the genus by the first subsequent author (Hansen, 1895, Ergebn. (e) Pseudosquille Eydoux & Souleyet, 1842, Voy. Bonite (Zool.) 1 (2): 263 (a vernacular (French) name); junior homonym of Pseuderichthus Brooks, 1886; (g) Alimerichthus Claus, 1871, Abh. Ges. Wiss. Géttingen 16 : 146 (type- Laccadive Archipelagoes 1 (4) : 457), a junior homonym of Alimerichthus Guérin, 1855: (h) Smerdis Leach, 1817, 7; uckey’s Narrat. Exped. River Zaire (app. 4) : unnumbered pl. (as Suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above); (5) place on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology the name SQUILLIDAE (correction of SQUILLARES by White, 1847, List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 83) Latreille, [ 1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 36 (type-genus Squilla Fabricius, 1787). 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GRISELDA RADICANA HEINRICH, 1923 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1612 By Nicholas S. Obraztsov? (Research Fellow, Department of Entomology, the American Museum of Natural History, New York) In his Revision of the North American Moths of the Subfamily Eucosminae Heinrich (1923, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 123: 186, pl. 7, fig. 36; pl. 49, fig. 329) established a new genus Griselda and designated Paedisca radicana Walsingham (1879, Illustr. Lepid. Heter. Brit. Mus. 4: 53, pl. 72, fig. 5) as its type-species. The examination of the type-specimen of this species, made by the author of this proposal as a part of his research on the Nearctic Tortricidae, has shown that this species and the species known from the above publication of Heinrich as Griselda radicana are not conspecific and not even congeneric. Thus, in accordance with this examination the genus Griselda Heinrich becomes a genus with a misidentified type-species, and must be ruled in compliance with Article 70, Section (a), of the International Code. It is evident that the name “ Griselda radicana (Walsingham)” can no longer be used for the type-species of the genus Grise/da, but it is nevertheless desirable to conserve this binominal combination which has been in general usage for forty years. Although Heinrich did not intend to describe his radicana as a new species and gave no detailed diagnosis of it, de facto he was the real creator of the conception of ‘‘ Griselda radicana ”’ as it is known at present. He defined this species in keys and published two figures of its male genitalia. Thus, he made his “‘ Griselda radicana’’ completely recognizable as a species distinct from Paedisca radicana Walsingham. For this reason it seems to be expedient to ask the International Commission to make use of its plenary powers and validate Griselda radicana Heinrich (not Walsingham) as the name of the type- species of the genus Griselda Heinrich. This action of the Commission will save the generic name Griselda Heinrich from becoming a subjective synonym of the genus Epiblema Hiibner, and is important for conservation of the bino- minal combination Griselda radicana. No synonym is available for replace- ment of either the generic or specific names cited above. The nominal Paedisca radicana Walsingham is a species belonging to the genus Epiblema Hiibner and synonymous with Eucosma vomonana Kearfott (1907, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 33:90) = Eucosma serangias Meyrick (1912, Ent. mon. Mag. 48: 35; a substitute name). In accordance with Article 23, Section (b), of the International Code, the name Paedisca radicana Walsingham should be treated as ‘“‘ a name that has remained unused as a senior synonym in the primary zoological literature for more than fifty years ’”, and “‘ be considered a forgotten name (nomen oblitum)”. It would however be unjust to reject the name Paedisca radicana Walsingham (1879) as the prior synonym of the species 1 Grant of the U.S. National Science Foundation. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 in question. The original description of this species and its colored figure permit its recognition. Its type-specimen is in good condition, and is deposited in the British Museum (Natural History). Also in respect to its author, one of the most active pioneers in the study of the Nearctic moths, conservation of the name Paedisca radicana Walsingham and recognition of its priority before Eucosma vomonana Kearfott are to be desired. It is therefore advisable to ask the International Commission to restore the priority of the name Paedisca radicana Walsingham excluding it from the category of nomina oblita not available as senior synonyms, and place this specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The concrete proposals submitted herewith to the International Commission for consideration are: (1) to use its penary powers to make available the species name Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923, despite the fact that this was a misidenti- fication and that Heinrich had no intention of publishing a new name, and having done so, to designate that nominal species to be type of Griselda Heinrich, 1923; (2) to place the generic name Griselda Heinrich, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923 (non Paedisca radicana Walsingham, 1879) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: - (a) radicana Heinrich, 1923, as published in the binomen Griselda radicana (type-species of Griselda Heinrich, 1923); (b) radicana Walsingham, 1879, as published in the binomen Paedisca radicana. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BAETIS [LEACH, 1815] (INSECTA, EPHEMEROPTERA) : PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THEPLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S). 1620 By D. E. Kimmins, (British Museum (Natural History) London) The object of this application is to request the use of the plenary powers to stabilize the current usage of the generic name Baetis [Leach, 1815] by designa- ting for that taxon a type-species which was not an originally included species. The generic name Baetis was first used by Leach, 1815 (in Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 9 : 137), the only included species being Ephemera bioculata Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 577). Linnaeus’ description of E. bioculata was very brief but included a reference to a fuller description (1746, Fauna Suecia, no. 751). This fuller description was reprinted in the binominal second edition of this work (1761 : 376). The name Baetis bioculatus (L., 1758) (often mis-spelt binoculatus) has been universally quoted as the type-species of Baetis Leach. In 1912, Bengtsson (Ark. Zool. 7 (36) : 4-5) cast doubts on the accepted interpretation of Baetis bioculatus (L., 1758) and, after considering the fuller description given in the Fauna Suecica, he came to the conclusion that the species generally called Baetis bioculatus (L.) was not conspecific with Ephemera bioculata Linnaeus, and that the latter name ought to be applied to the species Ephemera diaphanum Miiller, 1776 (Zo@/. dan. Prodrom. : 143) (=Centroptilum luteolum auct.). In the same paper, Bengtsson states (p. 5) that the species Baetis bio- culatus auct. nec. L. is in fact Ephemera fuscata Linnaeus, (1761 : 376). This species was placed by Eaton (1885, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. (2) 3 (Zool.) : 158) in the synonymy of the mis-identified species Baetis bioculatus (L.). These changes were not adopted by Ulmer (1929, Tierw. Mitteleur. 4 (1) III) (possibly due to a dislike of disturbing a well-established name) nor by Schoenemund (1930, Tierw. Deutschl. 19) and in consequence they have been overlooked or ignored by the majority of later workers. Concerning the types of these Linnean species, they are not represented in the Linnean Society’s collection, and Bengtsson (1912) states “‘ Little or nothing of value seems to be left now of LINNE’s and FABRICIUS’ types of this group”. We are thus left with only the descriptions on which to base our interpretations. Bengtsson’s conclusions are derived from these descriptions and from his knowledge as to which of the commoner Scandinavian species best fitted the descriptions. There appears to be no reason to reject Bengtsson’s findings and we are therefore faced with two alternatives: (1) to accept Bengtsson’s interpretation of Ephemera bioculata Linnaeus, 1758, as the species which Leach intended, when he cited E. bioculata L. as the type-species of his genus Baetis. Such action would entail the transfer of the well-established name Baetis to the group of Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 species currently known as Centroptilum Eaton, and the large group of species hitherto known as Baetis would require a change of name; or (2) to accept Baetis fuscatus (Linnaeus, 1761) (= Baetis bioculatus auct.) as the type-species of Baetis [Leach, 1815], thus preserving the current usage of both the generic names Baetis and Centroptilum. Since the second alternative is in the greater interests of stability of nomen- clature, the Commission is therefore requested (1) to use its plenary powers (under Art. 70(a) ) to set aside all selections of type-species for the genus Baetis [Leach, 1815], made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Ephemera fuscata Linnaeus, 1761, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Baetis [Leach, 1815] (gender : masculine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Ephemera fuscata Linnaeus, 1761; and (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name fuscata Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Ephemera fuscata (type-species of Baetis [Leach, 1815]). 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MEGALOPTA SMITH, 1853 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.NAS.) 1624 By Charles D. Michener (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and J. S. Moure, C.M.F. (University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil) The purpose of the present application is to request the use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for Megalopta Smith, 1853, in accordance with accustomed usage. 2. Megalopta Smith, 1853 (Catalogue hymenopt. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus.1 : 83) was described with two included species, bituberculata Smith, 1853, and idalia Smith, 1853. The genus has become well-known in the neotropical region and has never been attributed to any other area. There is a monograph of the genus by Friese (1926) and revisional or biological studies by Cockerell (1900), Ducke (1912), Schrottky (1902), Moure, (1943, 1958) and others. 3. Cockerell (1900, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.) and Meade-Waldo (1916, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 17: 451) designated M. bituberculata as the type- species. Unfortunately the type of M. bituberculata is actually an Australian insect in a different subfamily erroneously attributed to South America, as an examination of the type specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) shows. It would normally be placed in the Indoaustralian genus or subgenus Reepenia Friese, 1909 (Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Hungarici 7 : 205). Acceptance of the type designation would result in transfer of the name Megalopta from a Neotropical to an Australian group of bees and changes in the names of both groups. 4. Moure, 1958 (J.N.Y. ent. Soc. 66 : 179) argued that, because most of the characters cited in the original description of Megalopta were based upon M. idalia, that form and not M. bituberculata ought to be the type-species of the genus. This is in accordance with the type designation of idalia by Ducke, 1912 (Zool. Jahrb., Syst. 34 : 85). Regardless of the validity of Moure’s argu- ment, it is obvious that to conserve the currently accepted generic nomenclature, the Commission should take the following steps: (1) make use of its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type- species for the nominal genus Megalopta Smith, 1853, and, having done so, designate Megalopta idalia Smith, 1853, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Megalopta Smith, 1853 (gender : feminine), type-species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Megalopta idalia Smith, 1853; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 (b) Reepenia Friese, 1909 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Nomia variabilis Friese, 1909: (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) idalia Smith, 1853, as published in the binomen Megalopta idalia (type-species of Megalopta Smith, 1853); (b) variabilis F Tiese, 1909, as published in the binomen Nomia variabilis (type-species of Reepenia Friese, 1909), 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AMAUROBIUS C.L. KOCH, 1837 AND COELOTES BLACKWALL, 1841, (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE): PROPOSED PRESERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1625 By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and Otto Kraus (Natur-Museum und Forschungs- Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany). 1. The purpose of the present application is to ask that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its plenary powers to suppress the generic names Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836, and Cavator Blackwall, 1840, and place them on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, and place the generic names Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837, and Coelotes Blackwall, 1841, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 2. The facts relating to this case have recently been summarized by Kraus (1962, Senckenbergiana biol., 43 (2): 149-151), who points out that C. L. Koch twice introduced the name Amaurobius into literature, and that the date of one of these was probably 1836, not later as thought by many authors. In this report we rely on Kraus’ paper, as some of the evidence is not readily available. 3. Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836 (in Panzer, Deutschlands Insekten, pub- lished by Herrich-Schaffer, Heft 141, 5-6; and in Herrich-Schaffer, Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden, Heft 8, 5-6). The dates of publication have always been in doubt, but Kraus believes, and cites evidence to indicate, that the papers cited above were published simultaneously on 1 October 1836. Two species, A. roscidus C. L. Koch, 1836, and A. tigrinus C. L. Koch, 1836, were originally included in Amaurobius on this occasion. These species have been interpreted by later authors (Canestrini and Pavesi, 1868 : 800; Thorell, 1873: 437, 502; Simon, 1937: 1035) as belonging to the genus well known under the name Coelotes Blackwall, 1841, family AGELENIDAE. One of the originally included species, A. roscidus, has been fixed as the type-species of this genus Amaurobius by F. O. Pickard-Cambridge [1902, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (7) 9 : 20]. 4. Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837, (Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems, 1 : 15). Seven nominal species were included on this occasion: A. roscidus, A. tigrinus, and five others, of which one, Clubiona atrox Latreille, 1806 [= Aranea fene- stralis Strom, 1768], was designated type-species by Thorell (1870, On European Spiders, p. 126). This is the sense in which the important and well-known name Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837, has always been in common use. 5. According to Kraus, 1962, this type-designation by Thorell is invalid because it was of a nominal species originally not included in Amaurobdius C. L. Koch, 1836. Following priority, Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836, with type A. roscidus, has to be used for the common European spiders previously placed in Coelotes Blackwall, 1841. The cribellate genus heretofore called Amaurobius by most authors would lose this name and, instead of it, take the oldest available name, Ciniflo Blackwall, 1840 [Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., 1 (8) : 66, and Ann. Mag. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15] nat. Hist., (1) 6 : 229]. For the family-group-name AMAUROBIIDAE the name CINIFLONIDAE Blackwall, 1841 [Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 18 (4): 606] would have to be used. 6 Name-changing according to (5) would be extremely unfortunate and would lead to hopeless confusion, as during the last sixty years the name Amaurobius and the family-name AMAUROBIIDAE have been used in virtually all pertinent literature for this common group of cribellate spiders. This includes Gerhardt and Kaestner, 1937 [in Kiikenthal’s Handbuch der Zoologie, 3 (2)]; Millot, 1949 (in Grassé, Traite de Zoologie, 6); Roewer, 1942 (Katalog der Araneae); Bonnet, 1955 (Bibliographia Araneorum) ; numerous text- books; and the great majority of all authors. On the other hand, Kraus (1962) cites only the following few uses of Ciniflo: F. O. Pickard -Cambridge, 1902, Kulezynski, 1907; Lessert, 1910; Drensky, 1917, 1929; Bristowe, 1939, 1958; Locket & Millidge, 1951, 1953, in the important “Spiders of Great Britain”, Cloudsley-Thompson, 1957; and Casemir, 1961. Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837, contains over 100 nominal species from all parts of the world. Many species arecommon. The combination Amaurobius fenestralis (Str6m), as an example, has been used approximately 184 times between 1900 and 1961; the combination Ciniflo fenestralis only 15 times between 1900 and 1961 (for a common European spider). The combination Amaurobius bennetti (Blackwall) has been used about 30 times between 1900 and 1961 for the common North American spider; it has never been placed in Ciniflo during this period. 7. Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 [Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 18 (4) : 618] is the well-known name for the genus of AGELENIDAE, which without action by the Commission, would have the name Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836 [see above (5)]. There is no difficulty with the type-species of this genus: only one species was originally included in Coelotes, Clubiona saxatilis Blackwall, 1833 [= Drassus atropos Walckenaer, 1830], which consequently is its type-species by monotypy. 8. The generic name Cavator Blackwall, 1840 [Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., 1 (8) : 66; and Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (1) 6 : 229] also is based on a single originally included species, which automatically becomes its type-species by monotypy: Clubiona saxatilis Blackwall, 1833. Cavator, then, proves to be a senior objective synonym of Coelotes and, following priority, Cavator would be the valid name for the genus in question after suppression of Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836. 9. But the name Cavator has remained completely unused since its intro- duction into literature (there are only some citations in bibliographical indexes). In contrast, Coelotes is a very important name and has been in use continuously, with the exception of the few authors who used Amaurobius (in the sense of C. L. Koch, 1836). There cannot be any doubt that the long-forgotten name Cavator should be suppressed. By this action, in addition to the suppression of Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836 [i.e. stabilization of Amaurobius in the accustomed sense of C. L. Koch, 1837], the name Coe/otes would be retained for a genus containing about 50 nominal Eurasian species, some of them very common. As an example, the combination Coelotes atropos (Walckenaer, 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1830) has been used about 126 times during the period 1900-1961; Amaurobius atropos, only 8 times. 10. Caelotes Blackwall, 1849 [Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (2) 4: 276] is an unjusti- fied emendation of Coefotes and should be placed on the appropriate Official Index on this occasion. 11. The family-group-name AMAUROBIIDAE Thorell, 1870 (On European Spiders, pp. 119, 121, as AMAUROBIINAE) is based on Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837. It is now proposed to place this name on the appropriate Official List, and to place the name CINIFLONIDAE Blackwall, 1840 [Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 18 (4) : 606] on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group-Names in Zoology, for it is based on Ciniflo Blackwall, 1840, a junior objective synonym of Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837. 12. Tosum up, strict application of priority would result in transfer of the well-known and important generic name Amaurobius, and the family-group- name AMAUROBIIDAE, from cribellate to ecribellate (agelenid) spiders. In our opinion such action would be in conflict with the guiding principles of the Code as expressed in its Preamble, and would upset both stability and continuity. The present application, worked out by H. W. Levi and O. Kraus, is strongly supported by the following specialists in Arachnology: H. Exline, (Rolla, Missouri, U.S.A.); W. J. Gertsch (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.); H. Homann, (Gottingen, Germany); G. H. Locket (Stock- bridge, Hampshire, U.K.); A. F. Millidge (Coulsdon, Surrey, U.K.); H. Wiehle (Dessau, Anh., Germany). 13. To summarize, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take the following action: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for purposes of the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy the following generic name: Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836; in Panzer, Deutschlands Insekten, pub- lished by Herrich-Schaffer, Heft 141, 5-6; and in Herrich-Schiffer, Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden, Heft 8, 5-6; (2) to use its plenary powers to suppress for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following generic name: Cavator Blackwall, 1840, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., 1 (8) : 66; and Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (1) 6 : 229; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837, Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems, 1 : 15, (gender : masculine) type-species Clubiona atrox Latreille 1806, by subsequent designation by Thorell, 1870; (b) Coelotes Blackwall, 1841, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 18 (4): 618, (gender : masculine) type-species Clubiona saxatilis Blackwall, 1833, by monotypy; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) fenestralis, Aranea, Strém, 1768, Trondh. Selsk. Skr., 4 : 362; “» «i. (b) atropos, Drassus, Walckenaer, 1830, Faune frangaise, Aranéides, ‘bovaclsv:) Gistilgawers ac Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836, as requested in(1) of this application ; (b) Cavator Blackwall, 1840, as requested in (2) of this application; (c) Ciniflo Blackwall, 1840, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., 1, (8) : 66, and Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (1) 6 : 229, a junior objective synonym of Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837; (d) Caelotes Blackwall, 1849, Ann Mag. nat. Hist., (2) 4 : 276, an unjustified emendation of the name Coelotes Blackwall, 1841; (6) to place on the Official List of Family-Group-Names in Zoology the following name: AMAUROBIINAE Thorell, 1870, On European Spiders, pp. 119, 121, (type-genus Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837): (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group- Names in Zoology the following name: CINIFLONIDAE Blackwall, 1840, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 18 (4) : 606 (type-genus Cinifio Blackwall, 1840). 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TIBICENIDAE VAN DUZEE, 1916 (INSECTA, CICADOIDEA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF PLATYPLEURIDAE SCHMIDT, 1918. Z.N.(S.) 1626 By W. E. China (British Museum (Nat. Hist.) London) The appearance in 1963 of Fascicle VIII of the General Catalogue of the Homoptera (Metcalf Z.P.) has drawn attention again to the great confusion which still exists in the classification and nomenclature of the Cicadas. This confusion has been caused by a change over in the type designation of the genus Cicada Linnaeus, 1758, whereby the family-group name Cicadinae was trans- ferred to another subfamily Gaeaninae Distant. The new name for the original subfamily (Cicadinae Distant) was unfortunately based by Van Duzee, 1916 (Check List of Hemiptera of America N. of Mexico: 55) on the genus Tibicen Latreille in Berthold, 1827, and called Tibiceninae. Seeing that there was already a subfamily Tibicininae Distant, 1905, based on the genus Tibicina Kolenati, 1857, the similarity of these two group-names, differing by only one letter, has resulted in continual confusion. The mis-spelling of one or the other by various authors has misled the cataloguers who, not being specialists, have placed the taxa concerned in the wrong subfamily or family in their catalogue. Mr. Alfred Orian has recently (1964) published a paper (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 6 : 321-328, describing a new genus of cicada from Rodriguez, in which he draws attention to this confusion and gives examples. Some of the most important genera concerned, as type genera of the family- groups, have had a chequered history of identification and mis-identification. Mr. Orian has dealt with some of these but it is felt that a complete statement of the case is badly needed in the interest of future workers who may not have the original works immediately available. 2. Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 436) originally included 42 species in his genus Cicada but only 11 of them were in his group Manniferae which comprised the true Cicadas. In 1801, Lamarck (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébres: 292) cited C. orni Linnaeus as a single example of the genus Cicada Linnaeus. According to Opinion 79 Lamarck’s examples are not acceptable as type-species designations and are invalid. In [1802-1803] Latreille (Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 257) also cited C. orni L. as an example of Cicada Linnaeus and this too is unacceptable as a type-designation. In 1807 Latreille (Gen. Crust. 3 : 152) cited C. haematodes Scopoli, 1763, as an example but this work has been ruled out by the Commission for type-species designations. In any case, C. haematodes Scopoli was not one of the originally included species. In 1810, Latreille (Consid. général : 434) designated Tettigonia plebeia Scopoli as type-species but this again is not an originally included species. 3. In 1857, Kolenati (Melet. Ent. 7:6) validly established the genus Tettigia for Cicada orni L. type-species by monotypy. Although this name had been previously described by Amyot in his Méthod. Mononymique 1847 : 348, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 2. April 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 Amyot’s work has been rejected in Opinion 686. Tettigia must therefore be attributed to Kolenati. In the same work Kolenati validly established the genus Tibicina Amyot for the single species Cicada haematodes Scopoli which is therefore type-species by monotypy. Tibicina also must be attributed to Kolenati. 4. Distant 1905 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 15 : 304) followed Latreille, 1810, in designating C. plebeia Scopoli, 1763, as type-species of Cicada L. 1758, but as pointed out above, this species was not one of the originally included species and the designation is invalid. In 1906, Distant published his Synonymic Catalogue of Homoptera, Part 1, Cicadidae (British Museum, London), which was the first work to deal with the classification of the Cicadidae in a comprehensive, world-wide manner. Distant split up the old family Cicadidae into three subfamilies Cicadinae, Gaeaninae and Tibicininae, based on the structure of the tympanal coverings. Each subfamily was further subdivided into a number of Divisions equivalent to tribes. 5. In 1907, Jacobi (Zool. Anz. 32 : 7) raised Distant’s division Tettigadesaria of the Tibicininae to subfamily rank, the Tettigadinae becoming the fourth subfamily of Cicadidae. 6. The type-species of Cicada Linnaeus, 1758, was validly designated for the first time by Van Duzee in 1916 (Check List of Hemiptera of America N. of Mexico : 56). Van Duzee did so because he thought that Lamarck in 1801 had validly designated the type-species by nominating Cicada orni L., but as shown in paragraph (2) above Lamarck’s designation is not acceptable (Opinion 79). However, Van Duzee’s own citation was valid. The consequent switch of type-species of Cicada Linnaeus from C. plebeia Scopoli to C. orni Linnaeus automatically transferred Cicada Linnaeus from Distant’s subfamily Cicadinae to his subfamily Gaeaninae leaving the sub- family-group Cicadinae Distant nec Van Duzee without a name. For this group, as pointed out in (1) above, Van Duzee, 1916, unfortunately established the name Tibiceninae. 7. In 1919, Schmidt (Stettin ent. Zeitg. 80 : 366) established three new tribes in Distant’s subfamily Cicadinae (=Tibiceninae V. Duz.), Polyneurini, Platypleurini and Talaingini the latter having been removed from Distant’s Gaeaninae. Since he had already used the tribal name Platypleurini in the previous year (Stettin ent. Zeitg. 79 : 378) it will date from 1918. 8. In 1925, Handlirsch (in Schroeder Handb. Ent. 3 : 1116-1117) criticised Distant’s classification and replaced it as follows: He divided the family Cicadidae into three subfamilies (1) Cicadinae (which he attributed to Buckton') comprising Distant’s 1 Both Latreille & Buckton used their terms Cicadariae and Cicadae respectively to cover the whole of the Auchenorrhynchous Homoptera. Leach used the group name Tettigonides for the Cicadas proper but this is invalid being based on a homonym of Tettigonia L. 1758 in the Orthoptera. The first author to establish a valid family-group name Cicadidae for the Cicadas was Westwood, 1840 (Introd. mod. Classif. Insects 2 : 420). 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Tibicininae and Gaeaninae. This group he split into 5 tribes, Hemidictyini, Chlorocystini, Tettigarctini, Tibicinini and Cicadini. (2) Platypleurinae (—Cicadinae Distant) (3) Tettigadinae Jacobi His use of Cicadinae for Distant’s two subfamilies Gaeaninae and Tibicininae together was an innovation, since Van Duzee had retained Tibicininae as a distinct subfamily. In replacing Tibiceninae Van Duzee by Platypleurinae Handlirsch was following Schmidt, 1918 and obviated the confusion which arises by the use of both Tibiceninae Van Duzee and Tibicininae Distant for two different subfamily groups within the Cicadidae. 9. In 1926, Horvath (Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. 16 : 321-40) attempted to clear up the confusion concerning the generic names of the three large European Cicadas. He correctly followed Van Duzee, 1916 in accepting Cicada orni Linnaeus as type-species of Cicada L. but he wrongly designated Cicada haematodes Scopoli, 1763, as the type-species of Tibicen Latreille, 1827. Tibicen Latreille was actually monotypic with the single included species Cicada plebeia Scopoli 1763. This latter species Horvath, 1926, designated as the type- species of his new nominal genus Lyristes which consequently falls as an ob- jective junior synonym of Tibicen Latreille. As shown in 3 above, Kolenati was the first to give a valid name, Tibicina, to the generic concept typified by Cicada haematodes Scopoli. 10. Myers, 1929 Unsect Singers, London pp. 80-85) discussed the classi- fication of the Cicadas and adopted still another arrangement. He raised Handlirsch’s tribe Tettigarctini to subfamily rank and attributed it to Tillyard, but since all categories are coordinate, the subfamily Tettigarctinae must be attributed to Distant (Tettigarctaria 1906). He also retained Tettigadinae Jacobi. Myers used the name Tibicininae Distant for Handlirsch’s Cicadinae but split off Handlirsch’s tribe Cicadini (=Gaeaninae Dist.) which he placed with the Moganniini Distant in the subfamily Cicadinae V. Duzee. (=Gaeaninae Dist.). He followed Handlirsch, 1925, in using the name Platypleurinae for Van Duzee’s Tibiceninae. Myers therefore accepted 5 subfamilies instead of the 3 of Handlirsch : Tettigarctinae, Tettigadinae, Tibicininae, Cicadinae & Platypleurinae. 11. Up to 1927, Kato, a prolific writer on Japanese Cicadidae, used Distant’s three subfamilies, Cicadinae; Gaeaninae and Tibicininae having over- looked Van Duzee’s 1916 change in family-group names. But in 1930 (Bull. Biogeogr. Soc. Japan 2 : 38-39) he replaced Cicadinae Distant, 1906, by Platypleurinae Schmidt, 1918 (Handlirsch 1925) and Gaeaninae Distant, 1906, by Cicadinae Van Duzee 1916. In 1932, Kato (Monograph of Cicadidae) published a new classification of the Cicadas comprising someradical changesnot generally approved and on p. 144 established the family-group name Platy- pediinae. Kato’s works are mainly in Japanese and therefore difficult to study critically. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 12. In 1939, Metcalf (J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1 : 247) inadvertently pub- lished a preview of his new classification of the Cicadidae in an appendix to a technical paper entitled Hints on Bibliographies. The classification was part of an Outline of a Topical Index. Metcalf raised the family Cicadidae West- wood to superfamily rank, Cicadoidea with only two families (1) Cicadidae and (2) Tibicinidae. His Cicadidae was divided into two subfamilies (a) Tibiceninae V. Duzee, 1916 (=Cicadinae Dist. 1889 =Platypleurinae Schmidt, 1919, Handlirsch 1925, Kato 1930) and (b) Cicadinae V. Duzee 1916 (—Gaeaninae Dist. 1906). His Tibicinidae included four subfamilies. (a) Tibicininae Distant, 1906. (b) Tettigadinae (Distant 1906) (Tettigadesaria Dist, 1906 = Tettigadinae Jacobi, 1907, and Handlirsch 1925). (c) Platypediinae. Kato 1932. (d) Tettigarctinae Dist. 1906 (=Tettigarctaria Dist. 1906). 13. In 1954, Kato (Kontyii 21 : 97-99) published a short paper (presumably because his 1932 monograph had been overlooked by western workers) in which he repeated his 1932 classification. Kato raised Metcalf’s Tettigadinae to Tettiga- didae claiming it as a new family. This group must be attributed to Distant, 1906, who first established a supra-generic name (Tettigadesaria) for it. Kato raised the Platypediinae of Metcalf to family rank and correctly claimed it as his family (fam. nov.). He also raised Tettigarctinae Metcalf to family rank but this too must be attributed to Distant, 1906. The principal change was the lumping of the subfamilies Platypleurinae Handlirsch (—Cicadinae Distant) and Cicadinae Van Duzee (= Gaeaninae Distant) to form a new subfamily Cicadinae of the family Cicadidae. Kato retained the subfamily Tibicininae Distant in his family Cicadidae. 14. In 1956, Kato published a book entitled The Biology of the Cicadas (Bull. of the Cicadidae Museum) Tokyo, in which he maintained his 1932 classification and gave keys in Japanese to the tribes. He also gave a phylo- genetic dendrogram to the group. Although Kato avoided the confusion between the subfamily names Tibiceninae and Tibicininae by reducing the Tibiceninae to tribal status under his Cicadinae, the confusion still remained at tribal level. He retained both Tibicenini and Platypleurini as tribes of his Cicadinae. As pointed out in paragraph 13 above, under the Code, Article 36, all categories of the family- group are coordinate. The only family-group name to be attributed to Kato (1932) is, therefore, Platypediidae. 15. In 1962, the appearance of A bibliography of the Cicadoidea by Z. P. Metcalf was the prelude to the publication in 1963 of his General Catalogue of the Homoptera, Fascicle VIII in three volumes. Cicadoidea Part 1 Cicadidae, Section I, Tibiceninae (volume 1) and Section IJ Gaeaninae and Cicadinae (volume 2): The third volume consisted of Part 2 Tibicinidae. The only change by Metcalf in 1963 was the separation of Gaeaninae from Cicadinae. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The changes in the classification are shown in the following table: Metcalf 1939 Kato 1954 Metcalf 1963 Cicadoidea Cicadoidea Cicadoidea Fam. 1. Cicadidae Fam. 1. Cicadidae Fam. 1. Cicadidae Subf. 1. Tibiceninae ) Subf. 1. Tibiceninae Subf. 1. Cicadinae Subf. 2. Gaeaninae Subf. 2. Cicadinae Subf. 3. Cicadinae Fam. 2. Tibicinidae Subf. 2. Tibicininae Fam. 2. Tibicinidae Subf. 3. Tibicininae Subf. 4. Tibicininae Subf. 4. Tettigadinae Fam. 2. Tettigadidae Subf. 5. Tettigadinae Subf. 5. Platypediinae Fam. 3. Platypediidae | Subf. 6. Platypediinae Subf. 6. Tettigarctinae Fam. 4. Tettigarctidae | Subf. 7. Tettigarctinae 16. In preparing Fascicle VIII of the Catalogue of Homoptera after Metcalf’s death at the beginning of 1956 considerable confusion arose in correlating Kato’s 1956 classification with that of Metcalf in which Kato’s subfamily Cicadinae (=Platypleurinae Schmidt 1919 and Handlirsch 1925 + Cicadinae Van Duzee 1916 (=Gaeaninae Distant) ) had been split into three subfamilies, Tibiceninae, Gaeaninae and Cicadinae. Kato (1956) had arranged the tribes of his Cicadinae irrespective of their previous assignment to any one of the old family-groups of Distant, Van Duzee and Handlirsch. In Metcalf’s catalogue when the tribes came to be distributed amongst the three subfamilies Tibiceninae, Gaeanini and Cicadinae Kato’s erroneous arrangement was used and confusion resulted. Platylomiini and Lahugadini were placed in the Gaeaninae although they actually belong to the Tibiceninae. Pomponiaria attributed to Kato, 1932, based on Pomponia Stal also belongs to the Tibiceninae and is completely different from the Tribe Psithyristrini Distant under which it is placed as a subtribe. Terpnosia is also wrongly placed in the Tibiceninae and actually belongs to the Gaeaninae. However, it is not the place here to discuss the relative merits of Kato’s and Metcalf’s taxonomic classification of the Cicadoidea. We are only concerned with the confusion among specialists and students which has been brought about by the mis-spelling of the similar names Tibiceninae and Tibicininae whether of family, subfamily or tribal status. The result of this confusion is well shown in Metcalf’s Fascicle VIII Part 1 : 11 of the General Catalogue of Homoptera (1963). The Tibiceninae* (p. 11) of Distant, 1889, is actually a mis-spelling for Tibicininae and is based on Tibicina Kolenati, type-species Cicada haematodes Scopoli. Tibiceninae Karsch, 1893, is a mis-spelling of Tibicininae and comprises two genera Trismarcha Karsch and Nablistes Karsch both of which are placed by Metcalf correctly later in the Catalogue in the Tibicininae. Tibiceninae Kirkaldy, 1903, is another mis-spelling of Tibicininae and includes only Lacetas Karsch which Metcalf also correctly placed later in * Tibiceninae is wrongly attributed to Atkinson, 1886, but Atkinson wrote ‘“‘Tibicen” which is not a group-name and includes Tibicen and Melampsalta only. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159 the Catalogue in the Tibicininae. Tibiceninae Goding & Froggatt, 1904, is also a mis-spelling of Tibicininae, for these authors state on p. 544 for this subfamily that the “‘ sound organs are entirely uncovered ”’. Tibiceninae Jacobi, 1907, is used in a footnote on page 14 of Jacobi’s paper only to point out that Tibiceninae Distant, 1889, is linguistically inadmissible for Tibicininae. On page 12, Metcalf cites Tibiceninae Kato but this is a reference to Distant’s Tibiceninae, 1889, which as shown above was a mis-spelling to Tibicininae. 17. These examples are enough to show that the existence of two such similar names as Tibicininae and Tibiceninae is a continual future source of confusion in the nomenclature of the Cicadas. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the family-group name Tibiceninae Van Duzee, 1916, in favour of Platypleurinae Schmidt, 1918, type- genus Platypleura Amyot and Serville, 1843; (2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the names: (a) Cicadidae Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. 2 : 420 (Van Duzee, 1915) (type-genus Cicada Linnaeus 1758); (b) Platypleuridae Schmidt, 1918 (established as Platypleurini) (type- genus Platypleura Amyot & Serville, 1843; (c) Tibicinidae Distant, 1905 (established as Tibicininae) (type-genus Tibicina Kolenati, 1857); (d) Tettigadidae (correction of Tettigadesaria) Distant, 1906, Syn. Cat. Homopt.1, Cicadidae : 109 (type-genus Tettigades Amyot & Serville, 1843); (e) Platypediidae Kato, 1932, Mon. Cicadidae : 144 (type-genus Platypedia Uhler, 1888); (f) Tettigarctidae Distant, 1906 (correction of Tettigarctaria) (type- genus Tettigarcta White, 1845); (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the names: (a) Tibiceninae Van Duzee, 1916 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (type-genus Tibicen Latreille in Berthold, 1827); (b) Cicadinae Distant, 1889, Mon. Orient. Cicad. : 3 (type-genus Cicada Distant, 1906, nec, Linnaeus, 1758). (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Cicada Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : feminine) (type-species Cicada orni Linnaeus designated by Van Duzee, 1916); (b) Tibicen Latreille in Berthold, 1827, in Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thierr. : 426 (gender : masculine) (type-species by monotypy, Cicada plebeia Scopoli, 1763); (c) Platypleura Amyot & Serville, 1843, Hist. nat. Ins., Hémipt. : 465 (gender : feminine) (type-species, Cicada stridula Linnaeus, 1758, designated by Distant, 1906); ls 7 Pee a Sa AI Witwer PURCHASED 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) Tibicina Kolenati, 1857 (gender : feminine) (type-species by mono- typy, Cicada haematodes Scopoli, 1763); (e) Tettigades Amyot & Serville, 1843 (gender : masculine) (type-species by monotypy, Tettigades chilensis Amyot & Serville); (f) Platypedia Uhler, 1888, Ent. Amer. 4 : 23 (gender : feminine) (type- species designated by Distant, 1906, Cicada areolata Uhler, 1861); (g) Tettigarcta White, 1845, in Eyre, J. Exped. Disc. cent. Australia, 1, App. : 433, Tab. 4, figs. 4 & 5 (gender : feminine) (type-species by monotypy, Tettigarcta tomentosa White, 1845); (5) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Tettigia Kolenati, 1857 (type-species by monotypy Cicada orni Linnaeus, 1758) (an objective synonym of Cicada Linnaeus, 1758); (b) Cicada Distant, 1906, nec Linnaeus 1758 (objective synonym of Tibicen Latreille in Berthold, 1827); (c) Lyristes Horvath, 1926 (type-species Cicada plebeia Scopoli, 1763, by original designation) (objective synonym of Tibicen Latreille in Berthold, 1827); (6) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) orni Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cicada orni (type- species of Cicada Linnaeus, 1758); (b) plebeia Scopoli, 1763, Ent. Carn. : 117, 345, as published in the bino- men Cicada plebeia (type-species of Tibicen Latreille in Berthold, 1827); (c) stridula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cicada stridula (type-species, designated by Distant, 1906, of Platypleura Amyot & Serville, 1843); (d) haematodes Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cicada haematodes (type-species by monotypy of Tibicina Kolenati 1857); (e) chilensis Amyot & Serville, 1843, as published in the binomen Tettigades chilensis (type-species by monotypy of Tettigades Amyot & Serville, 1843); (f) areolata Uhler, 1862, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 13 : 285, as pub- lished in the binomen Cicada areolata (type-species of Platypedia Uhler, 1888); (g) tomentosa White, 1845, as published in the binomen Teftigarcta tomentosa (type-species of Tettigarcta White 1845). 1 Tettigonia Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.: 679) as a junior homonym of Teftigonia Linnaeus, 1758 (Orthoptera), has already been placed on the Official Index (Name No. 138) by Opinion 299. Its type-species is Cicada tibicen Fabricius, 1775 nec Linnaeus, 1758, designated by Kirkaldy 1900. This species has been renamed Tibicen linnei by Smith and Grossbeck, 1907. The true Cicada tibicen Linnaeus, 1758, is a South American species of the genus Diceroprocta Stal (= Cicada Distant, 1906 nec Linnaeus, 1758). 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, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., 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) Decisions Addendum to Opinion 643 __... Opinion 696 (Parthenope Weber and Daldorfia Rathbun) Opinion 697 (Doto Oken, 1815) Opinion 698 (Lystrophis Cope, 1885) .. Opinion 699 (Gryllus campestris Linnaeus, 1758) eae Opinion 700 (Dasiops alveofrons Moffit & ares, a Opinion 701 (Pisidia Leach, 1820) Opinion 702 (Stereomastis Bate, 1888) Opinion 703 (Pterophorus Schaffer, 1766) New Cases Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797 (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to the Official List (Henning Lemche) _... Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867, and Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Gastropoda): Two generic names proposed for protection under the plenary powers (Henning Lemche) Flabellina Voigt, 1834 (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names (Henning Lemche) Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (Gastropoda): Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Henning Lemche) 2 Nudibranch Gastropod genera proposed for the Official List (Henning Lemche) Yoldia MGller, 1842, and Portlandia March, ‘1857: Proposed desig- nation of a type-species under the plenary powers with rejection of Yoldia arctica MGller, 1842 (T. Soot-Ryen) Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 (Brachiopoda): Proposed addition to the Official List with Terebratula schlotheimii von Buch, [1834], as type-species (Herta Schmidt) Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838 (Aves): Proposed validation under the plenary powers ca i J. T. Marshall, Jr., and Robert K. Selander) : : ; 123 130 133 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Proposed use of the plenary powers (a) to designate a type-species for the genera Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, and Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827, and (b) for the suppression of the generic name Smerdis Leach,. 1817 (Crustacea, Stomatopoda) (L. B. Holthuis and Raymond B. Manning) Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Nicholas S. Obraztsov) Baetis Leach, 1815] (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (D. E. Kimmins) ... Megalopta Smith, 1853 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers (Charles D. Michener and J. S. Moure) se Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837, and Coelotes Blackwall, 1821 (Araneae): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers (Herbert W. Levi and Otto Kraus) ee TIBICENIDAE Van Duzee, 1916 (Insecta, Cicadoidea): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of PLATY- PLEURIDAE Schmidt, 1918 (W. E. China) ... Comments Comment on proposed use of the plenary powers in connection with certain names of Tanager (Kenneth C. Parkes) < Comments on the proposal to place Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758, Trombidium tiliarium Joh. Herman, 1804, and Tetranychus urticae C. L. Koch, 1836 (Acarina) on the Official List (G. L. van Page 137 144 146 148 150 154 83 Eyndhoven; Wm. L. Putman; Donald E. Johnston et al.) 85, 107 Comment on the counterproposals of G. L. van Eyndhoven relative to the validation of Acarine names (H. B. Boudreaux) .. - Objection to, and revision of, the proposal relating to Krohnia Langerhans, 1880 (Chaetognatha) (Norman Tebble; R. Alvarado & I. Moreno) Comment on the a eae validation of Boriomyia Banks, 1905 (F. M. Carpenter) . ; ee Be = : © 1963. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment 88 90 91 Volume 21. Part 3 Tth August, 1964 pp. 161-240 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 13 AUG 1964 The Official Organ of PURC 4h% 5 ted THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications Uae th in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ake es son eee Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 161 (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 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1. 1964 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Acting Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cuina (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoolggiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (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 RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JAczEwsKki (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitaét zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OBRUCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) ae Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. MuNRoE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. Borcusentus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) Dr. W. E. Cnrina (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting Secretary) Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. Stoit (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (President) Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. Carl L. Huss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Rwe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 21, Part 3 (pp. 161-240) 7th August 1964 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 fo its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin:— (1) Designation of a type-species for Lingula Bruguiére, [1797] (Brachiopoda) Z.N.(S.) 1598. (2) Validation of the generic name Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, 1850 (Hydrozoa). Z.N.(S.) 1610. (3) Validation of a neotype for Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1767 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1617. (4) Designation of type-species for Purpura Bruguiére, 1789 and Muricanthus Swainson, 1840; validation of Ocenebra Gray, 1847; validation of THAISIDAE Suter, 1913 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1621. (5) Suppression of Certhia chrysotis Latham, 1801 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1653. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Acting Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on 9 June 1964. Zoological Nomenclature 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPORT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE to the XVIth International Congress of Zoology, Washington, 1963 The following is, in substance, the Report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to the XVIth International Congress of Zoology, through the Section on Nomenclature of that Congress. This Report consists of two parts (1) the Report of the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature between 1958 and 1963 and (2) the minutes of the meetings of the Commission prior to and during the Congress at Washington. ; This Report was duly approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its meeting on 23 August 1963. I REPORT ON THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD 1958-1963. By W. E. China (Acting Secretary, /nternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (1) The period in question begins in London with the Closing Address of Sir Gavin de Beer, President of the XVth International Congress of Zoology, on 23 July 1958. The President pointed out that an Editorial Committee had been set up to prepare for publication the Text of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature which had been prepared and agreed upon by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature. The President also informed the Plenary Session that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had recommended that its work in future should be conducted on the basis of a centralised office with a permanent salaried secretary and staff without prejudice to its location or the nationality of its staff; that immediate action be taken to reduce the bulk and cost of the publications and that steps be taken for the establishment of an International Association for Zoological Nomenclature. The Commission also recommended that its own By-laws be re-examined with a view to amending them in the light of existing conditions and a By-laws Committee was set up to carry out this task. All these recommendations were approved by Congress during the Final Plenary Session. (2) As you all know, the work of the Editorial Committee leading up to the publication of the Code in November 1961, is ably recorded by Commissioner Stoll, Chairman of the Committee, in his Introduction to the Code. The Commission must always be grateful for the painstaking efforts of the Editorial Committee and indeed to all those who took an active part in work leading to the publication of the Code. Over 4,000 copies have now been sold and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964. i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 translations have been made in Japan, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Poland, Spain and Mexico. (3) The Draft Constitution prepared by the By-laws Committee, Dr. K. H. L. Key, Prof. H. Boschma and Prof. Ernst Mayr (Chairman) was submitted to the Commission on 26 August 1959, and was duly published in the Bulletin Vol. 19, pp. 358-364 followed by an Addendum containing suggested additions and amendments by the President of the Commission, Prof. J. Chester Bradley, supported by Dr. A. do Amaral, Vice-President and the Hon. Secretary, Mr. N. D. Riley. A working draft of the proposed By-laws based on a combination of the original draft and the President’s suggested amendments, (Doc. A) has been prepared and circulated to those present to assist in the discussion which will follow later. (4) Mr. R. V. Melville, who had been appointed Assistant Secretary of the Commission and Assistant Manager of the Trust on the retirement of Mr. Hemming, played a leading part in the affairs of the Commission after the Congress. As Secretary of the Editorial Committee, he was largely responsible for advising the Committee on the numerous decisions of the Colloquium and as Assistant Secretary of the Commission under Mr. Secretary N. D. Riley he was responsible for the routine management of the Secretariat involving the prepara- tion of Applications for publication in the Bulletin, the organization of voting by the Commissioners and the promulgation of their Opinions. In December 1959, he returned to his palaeontological work on the Geological survey of the U.K. His place was taken by the present Acting Secretary, then Keeper of Entomology at the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) in succession to Mr. Riley. Melville continued to co-operate in editing the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature and especially in seeing the new Code through the press. Eventually he left the Geological Survey in 1960 and went to Paris as Scientific Attaché at the British Embassy. (5) In 1959, the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) allocated accommodation in the Museum for the Commission’s Office. Not only was this a financial gain more than equivalent to the £250 a year rent previously paid by the Trust for modest accommodation in London, but the unique library facilities and wide range of specialist advice available, were of the utmost value to the Secretariat. Great saving in time and correspondence resulted and altogether the generosity of the Museum Trustees was equivalent to an estimated annual subvention of $2,000. (6) Steps were taken under Messrs. Riley and Melville to implement the recommendation by the XVth Congress that the bulk and sale price of the Bulletin should be reduced. From 1959 onwards the separate publication of the Opinions and Declarations series ceased and it was incorporated into the Bulletin, the annual price of which has been reduced from £88 in 1958 for Applications, Comments, Opinions, Declarations, Directions and Matter for discussion at the XVth Congress to £18 in 1962 for similar coverage. Naturally if the annual cost is to be fixed then the number of Applications, Comments, Opinions etc. published each year must be kept within bounds. In 1962, starting with Vol. 19, part 5, the size of each part of the Bulletin was increased from 64 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature pages to 80 pages without increasing the price. It is hoped by more economies still further to increase the number of cases published each year for the same cost to the subscriber. (7) In view of the great changes that have been made in the style of the Commission’s publications it has been felt that the formation of an International Association for Zoological Nomenclature recommended at the X Vth Congress in 1958 was now un-necessary. Lord Hurcomb, Chairman of the International Trust, had warned the Commission in July 1958, (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 15 (40), Document B. p. xxxiii) of the danger of disrupting the present organisation and Sir Gavin de Beer, President of the XVth Congress, had pointed out to the Commission, financial difficulties involved in such a scheme. The Executive Committee of the Commission therefore decided to go ahead with the existing system, where the Commission is financed by the International Trust, which has proved so successful. I think that the Commission will agree that the continuation of the present arrangement should be recommended to Congress for approval. (8) Personnel: (1) Losses through death. It iswith great regret that we have to record that since its Session in London in July 1958, the Commission has suffered the loss through death of: (a) their Honorary Life President, Dr. Karl Jordan, who died at the great age of 97 on 12 January 1959. An obituary was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (17 : 259-266); (b) Commissioner Prof. F. S. Bodenheimer (Israel) who died most unexpectedly in London on 4 October 1959; (c) Commissioner Prof. Béla Hanko (Hungary) who also died suddenly in Toronto, on 16 November 1959; (d) Commissioner Dr. Angel Cabrera (Argentina) who died at La Plata on 7 July 1960, aged 81; (2) Losses through resignation: During the period under review the Commission suffered the loss of two Commissioners by resignation: On 9 June 1961, Commissioner Prof. J. R. Dymond (Canada) tendered his resignation which was accepted. Prof. Dymond had for a long time intimated his intention of doing so but had been persuaded to stay on beyond his time. On 23 October 1962, Commissioner Dr. Max Poll (Belgium) tendered his resignation which was accepted with regret by the Executive Committee. Prof. J. Chester Bradley has also submitted his resignation both from the Pre- sidency and as Commissioner to take effect from the end of this Congress; It is convenient to report here the case of Commissioner Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Czechoslovakia). For some time the Secretariat received no com- munication from him and in 1962 it learnt that Dr. Prantl had been imprisoned. He was placed on extended leave of absence while steps were taken to determine whether or not his imprisonment was due to political reasons since, according to the Constitution, such imprisonment did not warrant expulsion from the Commission. All attempts to find out the reason for Prantl’s imprisonment having failed it would be realistic if the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 Commission were to decide to replace him, since a Commissioner to be effective must be a persona grata with his own government. (3) Elections to the Commission during the period 1958-1963. Elections of of Commissioners during the period under review were: (a) Dr. Dmitri Obruchev, (Professor of Palaeontology, Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R.) 5 November 1958; (b) Dr. Tohru Uchida, (Professor of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan) 24 March 1959; (c) Dr. G. O. Evans (British Museum (Nat. Hist.) London, Acarolo- gist) 31 May 1960 (to replace Commissioner Prof. P. C. Sylvester- Bradley who resigned); (b) Prof. Dr. Raphael Alvarado, (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Invertebrate Zoologist) to represent Spain (31 May 1960); (e) Dr. E. G. Munroe, (Research Officer, Entomology Research Institute, Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa) nominated by the National Research Council and the Royal Society of Canada to replace Commissioner Prof. Dymond (9 June 1961); (f) Dr. N. S. Borchsenius, (Assistant Director, Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R. Leningrad, Coccidologist) nominated by the Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R. 28 September 1961; (g) Prof. Dr. E. Binder (Natural History Museum, Geneva, Switzer- land, malacologist) nominated by the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences (21 May 1962); (h) Dr. W. E. China, C.B.E., Assistant Secretary to the Commission and formerly Keeper, Dept. of Entomology, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) London, (Hemipterist) elected Commissioner-at- large by the Executive Committee. The position now is that there are 26 Commissioners representing 18 different countries with 2 Commissioners-at-large, Prof. Ernst Mayr and myself. (4) Change of Secretaryship: On 30 June 1962, Mr. N. D. Riley C.B.E., Honorary Secretary of the Commission, expressed a wish to resign and Dr. W. E. China, Assistant Secretary, agreed to take his place as Acting Secretary until a new Honorary Secretary could be elected by the Commission at the present Congress. (5) Retirement of Commissioners: According to the Constitution, the senior third of all Commissioners are due to retire at the end of this Congress. These may offer themselves for re-election if they wish, and if the Commission agrees. 9. Publications: Since the last Congress, 110 Opinions, 2 Directions, 238 new applica- tions from zoologists and 127 comments have been dealt with and published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In addition, 50 Opinions and 2 Declarations were published in the Opinions and Declarations series before that series was brought to a close. 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Although this is considerably less than in the preceding five years under Mr. Secretary Hemming’s direction the cost to the subscriber has been correspondingly less. It has become obvious that there is a limit tothe number ofapplications which can be published if the annual cost is not to be oppressive. The Declarations which according to the Constitution must be reported to Congress are: (a) No. 40, which was issued on 15 October 1958, declared that ‘‘ Generic names having the termination ‘-ides,’ ‘-ites,’ or ‘-oides’ are to be treated as being masculine in gender.” Although technically not issued until after the XVth Congress, Declaration 40 was reported to the Congress by Assistant Secretary, R. V. Melville, and was ultimately inco. porated in the New Code in Article 30(a) (4) (ii) on page 33. It does not need the approval of the XVIth Congress. (b) No. 41 which was issued on 15 October 1958, declared ** Where in a work written in the Latin language a Latin word is used in such a way as to be capable of bearing the interpretation that it is there employed as a generic, specific or subspecific name duly formed in accordance with the provisions of the Régles, the word in question Is to be so interpreted, save where such an interpretation is clearly excluded by the content.” This Declaration although actually issued after the XVth Congress was reported to that Congress by Mr. R. V. Melville, Assistant Secretary. The Colloquium agreed that Declaration 41 should be incorporated into Article 6, Sect. | of Prof. J. Chester Bradley’s draft English text of the revised Code. Article 6, Section | is equivalent to Chapter 4 in the New Code and Declaration 41 should have been incorporated in Article 11(b). This does not appear to have been done and the Commission must recommend to Congress that Declaration 41 should be approved or disapproved. Il MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COM- MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, WASHINGTON, 1963. The Commission met in public session in the Main Ball Room of the Shore- ham Hotel on Monday the 19, Tuesday the 20 and Wednesday the 21 August and in private session on Thursday 22 August. The following nineteen (19) members of the Commission were in attendance: Alvarado (Spain), Vice President do Amaral (Brazil), Binder (Switzerland), President Bradley (U.S.A.), Brinck (Sweden) Acting Secretary China (at Large), Evans (U.K.), Holthuis (Netherlands), Key (Australia), Kiihnelt (Austria), Lemche (Denmark), Mayr (at Large), Miller (U.S.A.), Munroe (Canada), Riley (U.K.), Stoll (U.S.A.), Tortonese (Italy), Uchida (Japan), Vokes (U.S.A.). 1. The President (in the Chair) in welcoming guests, pointed out that action was confined to the Commission, and while guests could speak they could not vote, although straw votes might be taken to give the feeling of the meeting. 2. Alternate Commissioners were elected to represent absent Commissioners as follows: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167 Mr. Sabrosky (U.S.A.) as alternate for Dr. Borchsenius (U.S.S.R.). Dr. Brongersma (Netherlands) as alternate for Dr. Boschma (Netherlands). Mr. Whalley (U.K.) as alternate for Mr. Hemming (U.K.). Dr. Klausewitz (Germany) as alternate for Dr. Hering (Germany), Dr. Szarski (Poland) as alternate for Dr. Jaczewski (Poland). 3. The Report of the Secretary on the work carried out during the inter- Congress period, having been circulated, was adopted without being read. 4. Reports of Committees. (b) Committee to Study Parataxa (Moore (Chairman), Sylvester-Bradley, Walton and Yochelson). [See Appendix 2]. The Report was presented by Prof. R. C. Moore, and it was pointed out that Professor Ee €. Sylvester-Bradley, a member of the Committee, was in dis- agreement with the recommendations. The Report was adopted. (c) Committee on Resolutions (China, (Chairman), do Amaral, Miller and Holthuis). [See Appendix 3]. Resolutions of appreciation of, and thanks for, the services of Mr. N. D. Riley, Mr. R. VY. Melville, Prof. J. Chester Bradley, the Editorial Committee of the Code and Mr. C. W. Sabrosky were read by the Secretary. The resolutions were adopted with acclamation. 5. Amendments to the Code. (a) Dr. Key put forward a motion: “that, in view of the supreme importance of developing and main- taining confidence among zoologists in the stability of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the Commission should recommend to the Sixteenth Congress no amendments to the Code, other than such example, by the issue of appropriate interpretive Declarations.” This motion was opposed by the President who gave the following reasons: (i) The By-Laws state that amendments will not be considered unless proposed 12 months in advance of a meeting, the implication being that if proposed 12 months or more in advance such amendments will be considered : 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (ii) amendment of the Code is one of the duties of the Commission as laid down in the By-Laws and this duty cannot be avoided; (iii) the invitation to zoologists to attend the meetings of the Commission had had a large reponse because the general zoological public was interested in the proposed amendments, and therefore the Com- mission had a duty to consider those amendments. Dr. Key explained that it was not his intention to prevent discussion of the proposed amendments, but only to establish general criteria by which such proposals should be judged. Dr. Key’s motion was supported by Dr. Stoll, who observed that niceties of wording should not be considered as amendments in open meeting, but should be put before the Commission by a postal vote, and issued as Declarations after proper consideration after the Congress. A letter of support for the motion from Mr. Hemming and a letter of opposition from Mr. dos Passos were read by the Secretary. Professor Bradley pointed out that, according to the Code, Declarations may not be interpretive statements, but are amendments of the Code, made to meet a particular case. A straw vote amongst the guests showed that they were not in favour of Dr. Key’s proposal. The President ruled that Dr. Key’s motion was out of order. Dr. Key, seconded by Dr. Miller, dissented from this ruling. The Chair was overruled by 11 votes to 9. Dr. Key’s motion, when put to the vote, was defeated by 12 votes to 7. (b) Published proposals. Case 1. Request for a clarification of Article 40 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 337). Professor Mayr commented that if the motion were adopted there would be a major change in the Code as decided at London and Copenhagen, and Dr. China that if this proposal were adopted, many names would have to be changed. The motion was withdrawn in favour of a motion by Dr. China that: ‘** Well-known and commonly used family-group names should prevail irrespective of age of type-genera or of priority of group-name. Whena disagreement arises over current usage the problem is to be submitted to the Commission for a majority vote.” It was decided by the Commission that this proposal be referred to the Secretariat for further study with a view to a possible Declaration. Case 2. Request for a change in the Code provisions on family-group names (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 338-344). It was explained by Mr. Sabrosky that the provisions dealing with availability of family-group names had in the new Code been made retroactive by 30 years. Mr. Riley observed that a simple way of dealing with the problem would be to add to Article 13a a paragraph (iv) that “ The provisions of this section apply to family-group names published after 31 December 1965.” The pro- posals of both Dr. Temple and Mr. Riley were defeated. Case 3. Concerning the Statute of Limitation (Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 345-352, 20 : 79-80). It was decided that proposals of amendment of Article 23b should be con- sidered before proposals for the deletion of that Article. (i) Professor Bradley withdrew his published motion and substituted the following: oa) ——— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 “ If a zoologist discovers that a name, usually used for a taxon and otherwise valid, is an objective junior synonym of another name which no author had adopted during the fifty years preceding the discovery of the synonymy, he should apply to the Commission to invalidate the senior synonym by the use of its plenary powers for the purpose of priority but not of homonymy. “This amendment shall not affect any action already taken and published under the provision which it replaces.” Professor Mayr pointed out that the Bradley proposal restricted the applica- tion of Article 23b to objective synonyms and the use of the plenary powers. All the valuable part of the steps taken in Copenhagen and London were thus lost and, moreover, the plenary powers of the Commission would also appear to be restricted by this wording. The practical result of the adoption of such a motion would be complete rejection of Article 23b as it stands at present. Professor Bradley, in reply, expressed his willingness to delete from his motion the words “ by the use of its plenary powers.” (ii) Professor Smith’s proposal was discussed and Professor Bradley pointed out that it restricted the action of Article 23b to cases where the junior synonym had been used for 50 years—in his opinion a questionable reading. (iii) Dr. Key moved that the Commission be asked to adopt, subsequent to the Congress, an interpretive Declaration on Article 23b, taking into considera- tion the following draft: ““(1) The expression “ unused as a senior synonym ”’ implies that a junior synonym was in existence throughout the period concerned (otherwise the senior name could not be designated a ‘“‘ synonym ”’), although the state of synonymy need not (and ordinarily would not) have been recognized as such. (2) Use in the “ primary zoological literature ’’ should be taken to mean application of the name in question to a particular taxon in a zoological publication. It does not include citation of the name in synonymy, or mere listing of the name in any abstracting publication, index, catalogue, check-list, or nomenclator. (3) The expression “ for more than fifty years ’’ should be read to mean “for more than fifty years during which a junior synonym had been used on ten or more occasions in the primary literature for the taxon concerned ; (5) The word “ discovers ’’ must be rigidly construed: i.e., it implies that the name discovered after 1960 had remained unused during the whole of the 50-year period immediately preceding its ‘ discovery.’ (5) Use of a nomen oblitum in the primary literature in violation of Article 23b does not qualify as use for the purpose of the Article. (6) Article 23b(i) clearly gives the Commission the authority (without invoking its plenary powers) to suppress a nomen oblitum for the purposes of the Law of Priority, the Law of Homonymy, or both, or alternatively to validate it. However, it should not be read as imposing an obligation on the Commission to replace a rejected nomen oblitum on the appropriate Official Index.” It was suggested by Dr. Eisenmann that “ check-lists and catalogues ” 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature should be removed from paragraph (2) of this draft; that “ after 1960” be added between “use” and “ nomen oblitum ” in paragraph (5); and that “ by three or more authors ” be added at the end of paragraph (3); (iv) A further possible wording of Article 23b was introduced by Mr. Sabrosky: “If an author discovers that a name, unused and not adopted for a given taxon during the preceding 100 years, is actually the senior synonym of an important name in current use, he shall treat the long unused name as a forgotten name (nomen oblitum), not to be used [except for the Law of Homonymy].” Dr. Munroe considered (1) that any period of time incorporated within the Statute of Limitation would be wrong for some groups of animals. The period could possibly be varied in different groups; (2) that rather than insert a reference time from the present it might be better to insert a date, such as 1910, or 1860— this to be revised from time to time. Dr. Holthuis agreed with Mr. Sabrosky’s proposed 100 years limit, but considered that names should be brought before the Commission for rejection. Dr. Miller moved that it would be well to broaden Dr. Key’s motion to include consideration of the proposals of Mr. Sabrosky and Dr. Holthuis. The Secretariat could draft a substantive proposal from all these. Dr. Miller later withdrew his motion when it was pointed out that while Dr. Key’s proposal was designed specifically to operate within the present form of Article 23b, Mr. Sabrosky’s was a definite proposal for amendment of the Article. Dr. Key’s motion was rejected by 11 votes to 10. Mr. Sabrosky withdrew his proposal. (v) Dr. Lemche moved that the Secretariat be charged to test Article 23b as explained by Dr. Key and refer back to the Commission as to how that Article should be amended and modified by means of a Declaration. This proposal was accepted by the Commission by 14 votes to 7. The motion for the deletion of Article 23b was then put by the Chair and was defeated by 11 votes to 10. Case 4. Amendments proposed to facilitate the adding of family-group names to the Official List [Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 353-354). The proposal was rejected on the grounds that the conservation of family- group names was already covered, in as much as this was desirable, by Articles 23d and 40 of the present Code. Case 5. Request for clarification of Article 59 on Secondary Homonyms (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 41-43). (i) The motion for deletion of Article 59c was defeated. (ii) A motion put by Dr. Herschkovitz for the deletion from Article 59c of the words “‘ after 1960 ” was defeated. (iii) Of the two alternative opinions on what constitutes secondary homony- my offered by the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of America, the Commission gave its opinion that Alternative B was the meaning of the Code in Articles 57 and 59b, and instructed that an interpretive Declara- tion should be prepared to this effect. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 Case 6. Request for revision of the 1961 Code to include directives relative to nomina dubia (Bu//. zoo/. Nomencl. 20 : 44) and Case 7. Request for revision of certain definitions in the 1961 Code (Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 45-48). Since no definite proposals for amendment of the Code had been submitted in either case, no action was taken. Case 8. Request for extension and consolidation of the first-reviser principle in revision of the 1961 Code (Bu//. zoo/. Nomencl. 20 : 49-51). (i) Having discussed the motions of Professor Smith and Professor Mayr on the subject of names given to hydrids the Commission gave its opinion that: The word “ available ’ in Article 17(2) with respect to the name of a hybrid refers to homonymy, but that such a name must not be applied to either of the parental species. The Secretariat was instructed to prepare an interpretive Declaration to this effect. (ii) Having considered the question of Dr. Holthuis with regard to the restriction of type localities (circulated) the Commission gave its opinion that: The first published designation of a lectotype from among the syntypes of a species supersedes all previous restriction of the taxonomic species, such as may result from a restriction of the type locality. The Secretariat was instructed to prepare an interpretive Declaration to this effect. Case 9. Request for inclusion in Article 79 of the 1961 Code of a provision for suppression of names for purposes of the Law of Homonymy alone (Bu/l. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 52). The Commission rejected the motion on the grounds that it was unnecessary and undesirable to attempt to specify in the Code all the possible ways in which the Commission might use its plenary powers. Case 10. Request for revision of Articles 68 and 69 on type-fixation for genera (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 53-54). No action was taken. Case 11. The status of names published in an index (Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 55). The proposal was rejected. Case 12. Request for reconsideration of categories of types of species and subspecies recognized by the International Code (Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 56-60). The proposal was rejected. Case 13. Request for amendment of the International Code to prescribe the treatment of a species-group name that is both noun and adjective (Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 61-62). The Secretariat was charged to prepare a Declaration in accordance with the proposals of Follett and Dempster. Case 14. Proposal for reconsideration of the hierarchy of nomenclatural status of generic and trivial names as recognized in the Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Bu/l/. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 63-66). No action was taken. Case 15. The status of infrasubspecific names (Bu//. zool. Nomenci. 20: 67-70). The proposal was defeated after a very full discussion. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Case 16. A name first published as a synonym is not thereby made available. (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 70). The motion was accepted in principle. The following wording, submitted by Mr. Sabrosky and Dr. Herschkovitz at the request of the Commission, was later adopted as an amendment to Article 11d of the Code: ** A name first published as a synonym is not thereby made available unless prior to 1961 it has been treated as an available name with its original date and authorship, and either adopted as the name of a taxon or used as a senior homonym.”’ “Un nom publié pour la premiere fois comme un synonyme n’est pas utilisable de ce fait, 4 moins que, avant 1961, il n’ait été traité comme un nom utilisable avec sa date et son auteur originels, et soit adopté comme le nom d’un taxon soit employé comme, un homonyme plus ancien.” Case 17. Neotypes (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 71-72). Dr. Munroe put forward proposals for the less drastic revision of Article 75 as follows: (1) delete ‘‘ exceptional circumstance ” in Article 75a and 75a(i) and relate Article 75a(i) to the phrase ‘‘ necessary for stability in nomenclature ” in Article 75a; (2) the phrase “‘does not arouse objections” in Recommendation 75a should be softened ; (3) A provision allowing a neotype to replace a lost lectotype should be included in Article 75c. Mr. dos Passos’ motion was defeated. A motion of Dr. Munroe that the Commission agrees in principle that Article 75 is too rigorous, and refers the Article to the Secretariat for redrafting as a Declaration was carried. Case 18. Request for amendment of the International Code to provide a single gender for all generic names ending in -ops. (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 73) The Secretariat was charged to prepare a Declaration providing that all generic names ending in -ops are to be masculine in gender. Case 19.- Continuity—Article 39a (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 74). In accordance with the proposals of Dr. Holthuis and the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of America, Article 39a was deleted from the Code. Case 20. Citation of an objective synonym of one of the originally included species as type of a genus (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 75). The proposal was defeated. Case 21. Proposal for clarification of Article 33 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 76). The Commission considered that the words ‘‘ demonstrably intentional ” in Article 33a were sufficiently clear, and that it would be undesirable to lay down particular criteria as to what demonstrates intent. The proposal was rejected. Case 22. Miscellaneous Proposals (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 77-79). Document 22/1. The proposals were rejected after discussion. A motion by Dr. Hershkovitz to delete the Example to Article 23e(iii) was also rejected. Document 22/2. The Commission agreed that a committee be appointed to examine the Code with reference to all provisions concerning citation with a view to making them recommendations. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 Document 22/3. (i) Defeated under Case 3. (ii) Withdrawn. (iii) Proposal defeated. (iv) Proposal defeated. (v) Withdrawn. (vi) Proposal defeated. Document 22/4. Professor J. Chester Bradley (in a document circulated to the meeting) proposed the following amendments to the Code: (i) to add to Article 61 a second paragraph to read, ‘‘ Types are to be recognized only for nominal taxa the names of which are available.” (ii) to insert the word “ available ’’ before “‘ name ”’ in line 2 of Article 67(i), and to add here or at another appropriate place “ If a zoologist pro- posed a new generic name expressly as a replacement for a prior name, but the latter name is not available under the provisions of Article 11 et. seq., then that zoologist has established either a nomen nudum, or a new nominal taxon, according to whether he has provided the data necessary to make the name available.” The proposals were rejected as unnecessary on the grounds that an unavail- able name does not constitute a nominal taxon. (c) Proposals presented to the meeting. (i) In a paper circulated to the meeting, the Standing Committee on Orni- thological Nomenclature of the International Congress presented the following proposal for the amendment of the Code: “ Article 31 should become a mere Recommendation, with the words “must end’ changed to ‘ should usually end.’ Article 31a should be omitted altogether. In Article 32a(i), b and c, all references to emendation for failure to comply with Article 31, should be omitted by substituting for ‘ 31 ’ the number S30e = The Chairman used his casting vote to receive this motion, which was carried. Article 31 of the Code should now therefore read: Recommendation 31. Species-group names formed from modern personal names. A species-group name, if a noun formed from a modern personal name, should usually end in -i if the personal name is that of a man, -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of a woman, and -arum if of women [see Article 11g(i)(3) and Appendix D III].” Recommendation 31. Noms du groupe-espéce formés sur des noms modernes de personnes. Lorsqu’un nom du group-espéce est un substantif formé sur un nom moderne de personne, il devrait habituellement finir en -i si le nom de personne est celui d’un homme, en -orum si c’est celui de plusieurs hommes ou d’hommes et de femmes ensemble, en -ae si c’est celui d’une femme, et en -arum si c’est celui de plusieurs femmes [voir Article 11g(i)(3) et Appendice D III]. Article 31a is deleted. The words “ Articles 26-31 ”’ throughout Article 32 should be substituted by ** Articles 26-30.” (ii) A proposal presented by Carlton M. Herman, editor of Wildlife Disease, concerning the status of microfilm and microcards under Article 8 was tabled. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (iii) A proposal presented by Professor Bradley concerning the status of decisions taken under previous Codes was tabled. (iv) The Commission took note that Article 11b of the Code was a substantive change from the corresponding provision in previous Codes and directed that the Secretariat should prepare a Declaration providing that a name which is not an arbitrary combination of letters, but which is treated as a Latin word, should be available. (v) The Commission agreed on a motion of Mr. Sabrosky that the Code Articles 77 and 78 should be amended by a Declaration to admit interpretive statements to the class of Declarations. (vi) Various proposals presented by Miss Lois K. Smith (Canada) just before the meeting commenced, were received too late for consideration. 6. Translations of the Code. (a) The Commission requested that Dr. J. Forest should prepare the French text of amendments which had been made to the Code at the meeting. Dr. Forest agreed. (b) A motion that the German text of Dr. O. Kraus and the Spanish text of Dr. A. Alvarado were to be regarded as “ authorized translations *’ of the Code was unanimously adopted. The Vice-President of the Commission, Dr. A. do Amaral, was authorized to translate the Code into Portuguese. 7. The Constitution. The Report of the By-Laws committee appointed by the X Vth International Congress of Zoology was carefully considered by the Commission. The Con- stitution adopted as a result of this consideration is appended to this report [Appendix 4] and will eventually be published as an annexe to the Code. The Commission considered that at some future date Chapter XVII of the Code should become a part of the Constitution, so that the Constitution did not appear to derive its authority from the Code but vice versa. 8. Other Business. (a) Official Indexes. The Commission agreed with a motion of Dr. Key that “‘ the Commission shall not place any name on an Official Index where there is any risk that the name may be revived.” (b) Completeness of Decision. The Commission agreed with a motion of Dr. Key that “‘ the Commission should not insist on ‘completeness’ in decisions where this might involve interested parties in substantial and considerable work or appreciably delay a Ruling.” (c) The Commission’s By-Laws. The Commission agreed that Dr. Mayr should prepare a draft of the Commission’s By-Laws and circulate this to all Commissioners for their comments. When comments had been considered and the draft, if necessary, revised, the Commission should vote to adopt the draft which would then come into force and would be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (d) Official Lists. The Commission agreed that some suitable method should be found of publishing annual supplements to the Official Lists and, possibly, to the Official Indexes. (e) At its closed meeting on 22 August the Commission expressed its intention: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175 (1) of issuing a Declaration emending Art. 11b to read, ““ The name must be either Latin or latinized or treated as such, or, if an arbitrary com- bination of letters, must be so constructed that it can be treated as a Latin word; (2) of issuing a Declaration to amend the Code Articles dealing with Declara- tions so that a Declaration may be both interpretive of, and amendment to, the Code. 9. Election. Under the existing By-Laws of the Commission one-third of the seats on the Commission automatically fall vacant at the close of each Congress. Under this Rule the seats to be vacated were occupied by the following ten (10) Com- missioners: do Amaral, Bradley, Vokes, Stoll, Holthuis, Key, Miller, Prantl, Kiihnelt, Mayr. After careful consideration the Commission nominated the following for election or re-election to the Commission by the Congress: do Amaral, Vokes, Stoll, Holthuis, Miller, Mayr, Ride, Kraus, Hubbs, Sabrosky, Forest, Simpson. The Commission did not hold election of officers, but postponed action until the new Constitution is in force. 10. Appreciation. At the close of its meetings the Commission expressed greetings to its former Secretary, Mr. Francis Hemming, and, having heard of his recent illness, the hope that his recovery would be rapid and complete. Commissioner Mayr, speaking on behalf of the Commission, expressed his immense gratitude to the retiring President, Professor J. Chester Bradley, for all he accomplished during his very difficult years of office. Commissioner Mayr’s appreciation was received with acclamation. Appendix I REPORT OF THE NATIONAL REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE 18 AUGUST 1963 The Committee was unanimously of the opinion that national representation was not a valid reason for election of a Commissioner, and that acceptance of such a basis would open the way to grave abuses. Commissioners should con- sider themselves representatives of science and not of nations, and representation of workers on different groups of animals is more important than representation of different nations. At the same time it is obviously undesirable that the Commission should be dominated by nationals of any one country or small group of countries. National representation should be taken into account only in this negative sense. There are wide differences in the activity of different countries both in zoology as a whole and in systematic zoology; it is therefore reasonable to expect that some countries will be more heavily represented on the Commission than others and that the proportion of such representation will change as the distribution of scientific activity changes. There is, however, no 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature simple and objective means of measuring the relative activity in zoology of different countries, nor is such activity necessarily exactly proportional to the number of individuals qualified for membership of the Commission. The Committee therefore agreed that a formula based, for example, on number of publications over a given period would not be a safe guide for deciding whether national representation on the Commission was in balance at any particular time. The Committee accordingly recommends adoption of the following prin- ciples: (1) The primary criterion of membership in the Commission should not be nationality but should be competence in the field of nomenclature, or, in special cases, competence in some field of general zoology with a demonstrated working knowledge and understanding of the rules and problems of nomenclature. In particular, a retiring commissioner ought not automatically to be succeeded by one of the same nationality. (2) Subject to (1), the citizens of a single nation or of a small group of nations should not constitute a majority of the Commission. (3) Subject to (1), the membership of the Commission should represent a reasonable proportion of the nations contributing to the zoological literature and especially to that of systematic zoology. (4) Subject to previous provisions a nation contributing heavily to the zoological literature, and especially to that of systematic zoology, should in general have more members of the Commission than one contributing less. (signed) L. B. HOLTHUIS HENNING LEMCHE EUGENE MUNROE (Chairman) Appendix 2 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER PARATAXA Dear Dr. China: In response to your letter of inquiry sent to me under the date of 20 June 1963, I submit to you herewith the original and a carbon of a “‘ Report on the Proposal of Parataxa.” This is entirely agreed to by committee members, Walton, Yochelson, and Moore, and not specifically voted against by committee member Sylvester-Bradley who (on 31 October 1962) said that the draft of the report seemed to him illogical in suggesting the “‘ dual classification in nomenclature is unnecessary because of the highly subjective nature of synonymization.” He recommended that Professor F. H. T. Rhodes (Swansea) should be co-opted as a member of the committee; this was not done. Sincerely yours, (signed) RAYMOND C. MOORE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177 REPORT ON THE PROPOSAL OF PARATAXA The concept of parataxa, a special taxonomic category restricted to frag- ments or life stages which in themselves are inadequate for identification of whole-animal taxa, was first proposed in Bulletin 15 of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. A significant part of this volume was devoted to the opinions of various specialists on the proposal. At the 1958 colloquium of nomenclature preceding the 15th International Zoological Congress, it was ruled by the chair that discussion of this proposal would be deferred, as discussion of the Bradley draft of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature must take priority. Later, it became clear that the colloquium would be hard pressed to complete the business in hand. Because the parataxa proposal had raised considerable comment, both for and against the concept, the chair appointed a committee consisting of R. C. Moore, P. Oman and J. Roger, to give a brief report on the proposal. An informal test vote in the colloquium taken at the time this first com- mittee was appointed was overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal. At the time of the committee report, a second vote was also opposed to parataxa but by a less wide margin. The committee report agreed that even though parataxa might not be an acceptable solution, the problem of nomenclature of fragments was a pressing one, particularly in the study of various discrete, highly incomplete skeletal remains, such as conodonts, preserved as fossils. The effort to find a satisfactory solution should be given further study. The present committee was appointed by Professor Jean B. Baer in June 1962, to prepare a report which would serve to guide the forthcoming Nomen- clature Section of the 16th International Zoological Congress in regard to the matter of parataxa. At about the same time this committee was appointed, Volume W of The Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology was released. Among other items, this volume contains a classification of conodonts and discussions by four authors on the problem of conodont nomenclature. In the opinion of a majority of the present committee Moore’s statement on p. W92-W97 provides an adequate solution to the apparent problem of dual nomenclature of (1) discrete conodonts and conodont assemblages, (2) discrete cephalopod aptychi and aptychus-conch associations, (3) and similar fragmentary fossil remains. Moore pointed out that any supposed identity of discrete forms with those found associated together within an assemblage must, of necessity, be highly subjective, and in view of this great subjectivity in identification, application of Article 24(b)(i) [The Law of Priority applies when any part of an animal is named before the whole animal], is not warranted. It is also the opinion of a majority of the committee that this logic may be applied to other groups of animals considered under the original proposal for parataxa. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Recommendation Therefore, it is the opinion of a majority of the committee that dual classifica- tion and nomenclature applied to animals, including those represented by frag- mented remains, are unnecessary. Accordingly, it is recommended that further consideration of the proposal for parataxa should be abandoned. Respectfully submitted, RAYMOND C. MOORE (Chairman) PETER C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY ARTHUR C. WALTON ELLIS L. YOCHELSON (signed) RAYMOND C. MOORE Appendix 3 REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS 1 RESOLUTION At the urgent request of the Executive Committee, extended after the close of the London meeting in 1958, Commissioner Norman Denbigh Riley C.B.E., agreed to resume the post of Honorary Secretary so suddenly and lamentably vacated because of the ill-health of Commissioner Hemming. Due to personal commitments in other affairs Commissioner Riley was most reluctant to take on this added burden of responsibility. The Commission is therefore all the more grateful that he not only did accept the position, but continued to discharge its duties wisely and with competence until, having finally seen the new edition of the Code through the Press on behalf of the Editorial Committee, he was able to arrange for the continuation of his work by an able successor. The Commission now expresses its deep gratitude to Mr. Riley for what he has accomplished. It signifies at the same time its regret that he eventually found it necessary to relinquish the position of Honorary Secretary. 2 RESOLUTION When on the eve of the London Congress in 1958 Mr. Francis Hemming found it necessary to intimate that on the advice of his medical attendants he would not be able either to participate in the Colloquium which had been called to settle the terms of the revised text of the International Code or to continue to act as Secretary after the close of the Congress, a situation of the greatest difficulty arose. What was required was a specialist familiar with the problems of zoological nomenclature, well known in his own speciality and personally acquainted with the leading members of the meeting shortly to take place who would be able and willing to take charge of the organisation of the work of the Colloquium and its meetings and after the close of the meeting, both to assist in editing the text approved by the Congress, while at the same time maintaining, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179 so far as possible, the ordinary work of the secretariat of the Commission. It was therefore a matter of the greatest good fortune that it was found possible to secure the consent of the British authorities for the loan to the Commission for one year of the services of Mr. Richard V. Melville, a specialist on the staff of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. The warmest thanks are due also to Mr. Melville for consenting to accept this onerous task, virtually at the eleventh hour. No better choice could have been made: for Mr. Melville was keenly interested in zoological nomenclature and as a specialist in Jurassic invertebrates had already submitted a number of applications to the Commission and was thoroughly familiar with its work. Moreover, he had himself attended the Colloquium on nomenclature held at Copenhagen in 1953 and was thus acquain- ted both with the specialists who would be taking part in the London Colloquium and also with the matters which would be placed before that meeting for decision. Mr. Melville attacked his task with great enthusiasm and vigour and achieved a notable success. After the close of the Congress Mr. Melville set himself to organise the secretariat of the Commission on a new basis, it being necessary to find accommodation of its own for its office, consequent upon Mr. Hemming’s resignation of the Secretaryship. At the same time Mr. Melville was able to arrange for the resumption of the publication of new applications in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Concurrently with the discharge of these exacting tasks Mr. Melville prepared a preliminary synthesis of the decisions on the Code taken by the London Congress, for the consideration of the Editorial Committee of which he acted as Secretary. On completion of his period of secondment, Mr. Melville returned to his official British employment, being shortly afterwards appointed to the newly established Scientific Advisory Section of the British Diplomatic Service, his headquarters being in Paris. The Commission desires to record its great appreciation of the public-spirited way in which Mr. Melville entered its service at a moment of particular difficulty and to express their gratitude for the energy and success with which he carried out the multifarious duties entrusted to him. 3 RESOLUTION Professor J. Chester Bradley was elected a member of the Commission in March 1944, in succession to the late Dr. Witmer Stone of the Academy of Natural Sciences, of Philadelphia. The time was one of exceptional difficulty for all international bodies owing to the World War then raging, which both dis- rupted communications between the members and raised great obstacles in the way of publication of the work of such bodies. Immediately upon joining the Commission Professor Bradley threw himself enthusiastically into his new task. For this he was particularly well fitted by the active interest which before the war he had shewn in the promotion of stability in zoological nomenclature, having himself taken a leading part in seeking, in conjunction with other specialists, the stabilisation of some of the most important generic names in the Hymenoptera. The proposals which he then submitted were later approved by the Commission 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and constituted its first major step in what later was to become its settled policy for preventing the disturbance of well-known and long-established names. After the war Professor Bradley turned to the problem of the reform of the Code, a subject which was to be the principal field of his work, first as a member, and later as President, of the Commission. In the winter of 1957/8 he partici- pated in the preparation of the proposals to be laid before the Paris Congress in July 1948, and at that Congress took a leading part in the discussions which led to the adoption of a large number of proposals for the reform of the Code. On the Presidency of the Commission falling vacant through the death of Dr. James Lee Peters of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, Professor Bradley was elected as his successor. In his new capacity Professor Bradley redoubled his attention to the question of the reform of the Code, submitting numerous proposals for the consideration of the Colloquium held at Copenhagen in 1953, including, in particular, detailed recommendations for the regulation of types and lectotypes. At the conclusion of the Copenhagen meeting Professor Bradley was invited, on the proposal of Secretary Francis Hemming, to undertake the task of building up an entirely new text of the Code which would take account of the decisions reached at Copenhagen as well as those taken in Paris in 1948. Professor Bradley accepted this onerous task which was to form his major preoccupation in the immediately following years. Professor Bradley’s draft, which was published in 1957 (Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 14) formed the basis of the discussions at the London Congress in July 1958, which culminated in the adoption of the revised Code published in 1961, and earned for him the passing of a vote of thanks by the London Congress by acclamation. Professor Bradley was particularly well fitted for the duties of President of the Commission. His firm conviction of the need for international co-operation in the field of zoological nomenclature, his sound judgment, his strong sense of fairness, coupled, where necessary, with firmness, and finally his friendly dis- position combined to earn for him the respect and affection of those with whom his work brought him in contact. His occupancy of the Presidency was one of exceptional importance, comparable only with that of Professor Raphael Blanchard fifty years earlier. Both men devoted their main attention to the international regulation of zoological nomenclature, Professor Blanchard being the principal author of the Code ultimately adopted in Berlin in 1901, Professor Chester Bradley playing a similar role in the preparation of the draft of the revised Code adopted by the London Congress in 1958. Now that the time has come for Professor Bradley to lay down the Office of President, the Commission desires to place on record its high appreciation of the eminent services which he has rendered, its grateful thanks for the outstanding contribution which he has made in the field of zoological nomenclature and finally to express the warm regard and affection in which he is held by the members of the body over which he has presided with such distinction. Resolution 4 The Commission wishes to express its deep appreciation of the services rendered by Messrs. Stoll, Dollfus, Forest, Riley, Sabrosky and Wright in preparing the final text of the Code for publication. This involved three years Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 of hard work on this difficult project and taxonomic zoologists owe them a debt of gratitude which it is difficult to express in a few words. Resolution 5 The Commission wishes to take this opportunity of thanking Mr. Curtis D. Sabrosky for the very valuable service he has given in attending to the many practical details involved in the preparation for this meeting of the Commission in Washington. (signed) W. E. CHINA (Chairman) A. DO AMARAL A. H. MILLER L. B. HOLTHUIS Appendix 4 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Article 1. Status and Functions of the Commission. Status, Duties and Powers of the Commission are derived from the Inter- national Congresses of Zoology as stated in Chapter XVII of the Code. Article 2. Membership. (a) Number—The Commission shall consist of 18 or more Commissioners. The number at any given time shall be determined by the International Congress, or by the Commission acting on its behalf. (b) Qualifications. The Commissioners shall be eminent scientists, irres- pective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature. (c) Representation of Diverse Interests. As far as practicable, the composi- tion 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 Commission may elect alternates from among zoologists attending the Congress. Such alternates shall not serve beyond the duration of the session. 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (ii) An alternate Commissioner shall possess the status of any other Com- missioner, with all his rights, privileges, duties and obligations. Article 3. Term of Service of Commissioners. (a) Regular term. The term of that one-third of the Commission who have had the longest service since they were last elected shall terminate at the close of each Congress. (b) Prior termination of Membership. The membership of any Commis- sioner shall terminate: (i) on the date of his 75th birthday ; (ii) if he tenders his resignation in writing to the Secretary, when this resignation is accepted by the Council; (iii) 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. Article 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. From among the nominations 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 published. Such vacancies may be filled by vote of the Com- mission, on nominations by the Council, as specified in the By-Laws. (c) Announcement of Results. Notice of the election of new Commissioners shall be immediately published. Article 5. Duties of Commissioners. (a) At Meetings. 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 presiding officer. (b) Between Meetings. 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. (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. Article 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 By-Laws. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 Article 7. Council. The President, the Vice-President, the past President, and sufficient elected Commissioners (ordinarily 2) to bring the total to five 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 Articles and to supervise the work 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. Article 8. Election of Officers and Councillors. Election of Officers and Councillors shall be conducted by secret ballot as specified in the By-Laws. Article 9. Secretariat. The Council shall appoint a Secretary, who may be either a Commissioner serving in an honorary capacity, or, finances permitting, a salaried employee. It may also, finances permitting, employ an assistant secretary and clerical staff, whose duties shall be determined by the Secretary subject to approval by the Council. Article 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 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 com- mittee expires simultaneously with the term of the President who appointed it. The incoming President may re-appoint any committee in existence at the time of his predecessor’s retirement. Article 11. Sessions. (a) A session of the Commission shall be held in association with each International Congress of Zoology. It shall consist of such meetings as may be convenient, and may commence prior to the opening of the Congress or con- tinue after its close. Between sessions the business of the Commission shall be transacted by post. (b) No meeting of the Commission shall be valid unless six Commissioners (excluding alternates) are present. Article 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 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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 at least three zoological serials, including one published in Europe, and one in America. (c) Conditional Votes. A Commissioner, who instead of casting an un- conditional vote, states that he wishes to support the majority view shall be deemed to have voted in that sense. (d) Negative Votes. 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. Article 13. Financial Arrangements. The Commission when not prepared to raise or administer its own funds is empowered for such purposes to enter into a beneficent relationship with a body such as the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, that undertakes to act in accordance with the policy of the Commission and the Congresses. The Commission may terminate such a relationship at its discretion. Article 14. Editorial Duties of the Commission. The Commission shall issue, and finances permitting, may itself publish various communications, 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) 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. (c) Maintenance of “ Official Lists’ and ‘“* Indexes.” The Commission shall compile and maintain the undermentioned Lists and Indexes: (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; (vi) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (vii) Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomen- clature; (viii) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomen- clature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 Article 15. 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. Article 16. Amendments. Changes in the Constitution can be made only by the Congresses, on recommendation by the Commission, in the same manner as amendments to the Code (see Code Art. 87). Article 17. 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 authority to modify these By-Laws by a 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. Article 18. Inauguration. 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 member- ship 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 control the routine operations of the Commission until one month after the formation of the Council has been completed. 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CONCURRENCE WITH P. J. P. WHITEHEAD IN PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS ATHERINA JAPONICA HOUTTUYN, 1782 AS A NOMEN DUBIUM. Z.NA(S.) 569 By Carl L. Hubbs (University of California, San Diego, La Jolla) The subject proposal by P. J. P. Whitehead (Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 20, pt. 4, July, 1963 : 281-284) states the case clearly and conclusively. An Opinion imple- menting the three stated propositions would adequately amplify Opinion 93 and would contribute to stability in the nomenclature of certain widely known fishes. Two minor points in the proposal, though not affecting the three propositions to be voted on, are sufficiently confusing to warrant comment. The first point is the assertion that Anchoviella Fowler, 1911 is a synonym of Stolephorus Lacépéde “* if restricted solely to Indo-Pacific species (as in Fowler, 1941, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. No. 100 : 696).”’ Fowler did not so restrict Anchoviella in the paper cited; he included American species (listed as type species of generic synonyms) and, in Whitehead’s opinion (and mine), misplaced the Indo-Pacific species in a strictly American genus; Jordan, in drafting Opinion 93, likewise confused the Indo- Pacific species that are commonly referred to Stolephorus with Anchoviella. Further- more, such subjective generic synonymies should not be stated in a way that might be construed as a fact. The second point involves the recommendation that a clarifying phrase (“ if such be assumed ”’) be inserted in proposition (3), to read: (3) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, each having validity notwithstanding the apparent priority, if such be assumed, of Atherina japonica Houttuyn, 1782: Both of these points emphasize the contrast between the application of the Code and the systematic judgment of each zoologist. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN NAMES OF TANAGER. Z.N ov pév yep te KaK® lo Gra eaKeEr (Odyssey 1: 411) (€) aipatcevta rérer, Sewvdc 8’sio Sra iSéa0at CMa ae (f) ov0’cio dra idé00u evavtiov.Ei 8’éotéov by Cras BSF) Indeed, should the prosaic form éW have been used in these hexameters, the Sth foot in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and the 2nd in (f) would all have been made up of three short syllables thus completely breaking the rhythm of those beautiful verses, a fault unimaginable in Homer. This argument holds good for the remaining example given by H. G. Liddell & R. Scott (Greek-English Lexicon. Ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1951.2: 2.042), viz., Hesiod—Opera et Dies : 62, where the dactyl &2« 2 would also have become a tribrach, and this is another impossibility, now on the part of Hesiod. In connexion with the poetic form ©, two other questions require separate examination :— (I) the inflexional plural form; (II) the gender and meaning. (1) Plural—Admittedly, OW, as a 3rd declension noun, has two plural forms:— the normal &neo (nom.; &mao, acc.); and the abnormal éna (nom. and acc.) which is found in Plato-Cratylus: 409C:— tt té Sra KVAOTPEMELV (“ because it (the bright light) causes the eyes to turn away ”’). (Il) Gender and meaning—The gender varies according to the number and meaning of that noun. (a) In the singular:— while denoting face, aspect, appearance, it is generally considered feminine; but, while meaning eye, view, sight, it is employed as masculine. (b) In the plural (in which case both the normal form @neo and the abnormal form dru have only the meaning of eyes, views) the normal form is masculine, whilst the abnormal form is neuter in the only known example existing in the literature and this is just Plato’s (in Cratylus : 409C) above quoted expression. Finally, two more points must be emphasized with a view to facilitating the general comprehension of such an intricate matter, to wit:— 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) In Nomenclature no plural form has application, since a generic name, by definition, must be a noun in the nominative singular. Therefore, our choice becomes confined or restricted, lying now, as it does, only between the feminine singular and the masculine singular as denoting the gender to be ascribed to any composite noun under consideration to define a genus. (b) Should the final term -ops of the generic name have the connotation of ‘eye’ or “ sight ” as the outstanding character chosen for defining an animal genus, then its gender may be considered masculine. Otherwise, that is, where it connotes “‘ aspect’ or “‘ face’ as the chosen generic character, then the gender of the composite noun is feminine. Comment Fortunately, only in very rare instances will the “‘ eye” character be used to define a genus since it is so liable and likely to change so often and so deeply, following death and preservation of animals (— and virtually all taxonomic zoological work is based on preserved specimens -—), that, for practical purposes, we can arrive, through successive eliminations, at establishing the following general rule:— where the final term of the generic name is -ops (either from jy = dps or from oy = dps), the composite noun, corresponding to that generic name, is feminine, particularly where such a termination (-ops) conveys the idea of “aspect” or “face”. This apparently represents the great majority of the cases to be dealt with in Zoological Nomenclature. Therefore, in as much as the masculine gender represents the exception in this case, it would be linguistically incorrect to use it as the basis of the gender rule for names ending in -ops. In order to make the matter still easier for those not versed in such linguistic complexities, it could even be ruled that the word a (-dps), being but a poetic form of a (-dps), need not be considered in gender determination for Zoologi- cal Nomenclature purposes. This would leave for consideration, as the final term -ops in generic names based on Greek composite nouns, only the word 6 (-dps). But this is no problem, since 6, meaning either “ face” or “‘ eye’, is strictly feminine. The divulgation of the fact that even the gender of ey (meaning aspect) is feminine is generally imputed to Gaisford (in Etymologicum Magnum, 1848). This assumption notwithstanding, that very gender is given in such old editions of renowned lexicons as the following :— 1. Henricus Stephanus—Thesaurus Graecae Linguae. Ed. F. Didot, Paris 1572, vol. 8, p. 2150 2. Fridericus Sylburgius—Etymologicum Magnum. Ed. H. Commelini, Heidelberg 1595, p. 139 (col. 4). Concerning modern dictionaries, particularly any of those easily available at scientific institutions according to national preference, the following (besides the noted H. G. Liddell & R. Scott—/oc. cit.) may be quoted as giving dps (4, singular) only the feminine gender :— 1. Bailly, A.—Dict. Grec-Frangais, Ed. Hachette & Cie, Paris 1902, p. 2193 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 2. Boisacq, E.—Dict, Etymol. L. Grecque, Ed. C. Winter, Heidelberg 1950, p. 1085 3. Demetrakos, D.—Meéga Lexikon t. Hell. Gloss., Ed. D. Demetrakos, Athens 1950, vol. 9, p. 8056 4. Hofmann, J. B.—Etymol. Worterb. d. Griechischen, Ed. Oldenbourg, Miinchen 1949, p. 432 5. Rocco, L.—Vocabol. Greco-Italiano, Ed. D. Aleghieri & S. Lapi, Genova 1943, pp. 1384, 2074 6. Yarza, F. S.—Dice, Grieco-Espafiol, Ed. R. Sopena, Barcelona 1954, pp. 1001, 1547. At present it seems quite impossible to ascertain the veracity of certain documents related to ancient Greek (so as to prove or disprove various state- MYTHOLOGICAL NAMEs There remains for examination the gender to be attributed to those ops- ending names of mythologic or historic Origin such as C ecrops, Cercops, Cyclops, 1. Buttmann, Ph. K.—Lexicologus o. Beitr. z. griech. Wort-Erklarung. Ed. Berlin 1867, p. 67 2. Stephanus, Henricus—loc. cit., vol. 8, p. 2150. MAIN POINTS (1) A generic name (singular, by definition) cannot be based on the plural of any etymon. (2) A rule in nomenclature cannot be based on the poetic form (usually representing a licence or exception) of any etymon. COMMENTS ON THE GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES ENDING IN -OPS. Z,INAS.) 1572 By C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, EEC. S.A.) I find that there are 56 generic names ending in -ops used in our Diptera catalog, out of 3411 genus-group names cited (including synonyms) and this is a fairly sizable sample. Names ending in -ops will be found to be common among the Insecta in general. Of these 56, 22 clearly refer to the eyes (Chrysops, Chlorops, Lasiops, etc.) and 28 to face or aspect, with 6 uncertain. Thus those based clearly on eyes form a good sized Proportion, though not a majority, and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964, 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature this hardly fits do Amaral’s statement (under ““Comment’’) that “ only in very rare instances will the ‘eye’ character be used to define a genus”. I went back to the original proposal for each name, and note that the exact derivation from the Greek is rarely given, though the generic description often makes clear the basis for the name (e.g. Lasiops because of the hairy eyes). I am also impressed by the masculine uses in Greek—Cyclops and Merops, for example, and common nouns such as e/ops, a large fish, and konops, a gnat (this conops referring to face and not to eyes, by the way). The two latter were surely not poetical or mythological uses. Elops is not a true compound with -ops, but the fact that this too is masculine reinforces rather than diminishes the argument for uniform treatment of -ops names as masculine. If the Greeks intentionally used -ops names as masculine, are we not justified in following them in our nomenclature? Even if their -ops names were derived from -opsis, feminine, are we required to go back on the usage from which we take our names (Cyclops, Merops, etc.) and follow the gender of the word from which masculine -ops was derived? Is this a dangerous principle? Perhaps there are other words that have also changed gender in derivation? Are we opening a Pandora’s box? The short -ops, normally meaning sound or voice, is probably never the basis of a generic name. It was once suggested that it might have been used in Aves, but Dr. Alexander Wetmore and I once checked a long list of bird names, and they do not refer to voice (e.g., Triops, Ostinops, Zosterops, Tetragonops, Stigmatops, Loxops, Scythrops, Cyanops, Ortyops, Ixops, Gymnostinops). Usage is thoroughly mixed and hopeless, and an arbitrary decision seems the only way out. As a sample of usage, the deer flies, genus Chrysops, were clearly named by Meigen from the eye color: ‘‘ von Chrysos Gold und Op Auge zusammengesetzt ’, and he used Chrysops as masculine. Yet here is a sample of modern usage: Feminine: Predominant North American usage 1935 to date (Brennan, 1935, revision of genus; Philip, 1947, Nearctic catalogue); Schuurmans Stek- hoven (1926, Tabanidae of Dutch East Indies); catalogue of Diptera of Chile (Stuardo, 1946); Mackerras (1955, distribution and classification of Tabanidae of world); Oldroyd (1957, horseflies of Ethiopian Region); Edwards, Oldroyd and Smart (1939, British Blood-sucking flies). A large amount of modern influential usage. Masculine: Kloet and Hincks (1945, Check list of British Insects); Olsoufiev (1937, Tabanidae in Fauna USSR); usage of Séguy of Paris Museum in several major works (e.g. 1950, La Biologie des Diptéres). Surcouf (1921, Tabanidae, in Genera Insectorum); Kréber (1925, Tabanidae in Lindner, Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region); Enderlein (1936, Diptera, in Die Tierwelt Mittel- europas). All are major and significant works. Actually Meigen, the author of Chrysops is himself a sample of confusion. He used Chrysops (gold eye) as masculine, but Chlorops (green eye, also a fly) as feminine. An example of the confusion that is certainly not a mnemonic aid is in the use of names in Diptera based on konops. Konops, a gnat, is masculine, and names for gnat genera such as Leptoconops and Styloconops have been used as Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 masculine. But the Linnaean genus Conops was used as feminine by Linnaeus. Since it was given to a large fly, not a gnat, it may be presumed to have been derived from a “ cone-head ”, or “ conical face ” meaning which fits. But then we would have the incongruous (on the face of it) situation of Conops, Physo- conops, Gyroconops, etc. being feminine, and Leptoconops, Styloconops, etc. being masculine. Certainly in the Insecta, the use of -ops Meaning eye or view, with masculine gender, is by no means the “ exception *’ as do Amaral has Stated. There are By Jasper Griffin (Balliol College, Oxford) Classical Adviser to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature At the moment, Article 30 of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature lays down that the gender of names ending in -ops should vary, according to which of two Greek words was its model: names derived from ow, “ voice ”, being feminine, and words derived from ow, “ eye’, being masculine. It appears that all parties to the correspondence are agreed that this situation is both words had separate families of compound words depending on them, distinguished by the length or shortness of the vowel 0. Consequently, the argument that the gender of the Greek word 6, which is feminine, has a unique claim on our attention, must surely fail. Second, the gender of aw, “ eye”, the Greek word which seems to be considerably the more prolific of the two in Zoological nomenclature. It does not emerge satisfactorily from the ancient authors. The word was poetic and rare. In the early poets, it is never so used as to show the gender. Hence it became a matter of dispute among the late Greek grammarians, and we find both the masculine and the feminine upheld in extant grammatical works of ancient origin. In all probability, neither rested on any solid foundation. I therefore agree with Mr. Sabrosky when he says, “ An arbitrary decision seems the only Way out”. Weare at liberty, that is, to choose either gender. None the less, I think there are sufficient reasons why the masculine should be preferred. The Greeks themselves formed compounds with the word oy fairly freely, and these compounds shew an overwhelming preference for the 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature masculine gender. When such compounds as glaucops, “‘ owl-eyed”’, or euops, “* fair of face’, are used with feminine nouns, they appear in a separate form ending in -opis. The situation is the same in the case of personal names. There occur 16 personal names ending in -w, and 23 in -o, in B. Hansen, Riicklaufiges W6rterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, (Berlin, 1957), where the gender can be determined. Not one is feminine. To take an example of a pair both of which occur, the masculine name Charops is answered by the feminine name Charopeia.* And above all, such generic names as occur are masculine; thus Cyclops, ‘“‘round-eye”’, and Aijithiops, ‘ burnt-face”’, an Ethiopian. Moreover, not all Greek words ending in -ops are connected with either ow or oy. Thus the word epops, “‘ hoopoe’’, appears to be merely onomato- poeic, while conops, *“* mosquito’, is derived from the name of the Egyptian town Canopus, (H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches W6rterbuch, in progress). The Greeks made both these words masculine, also, to conform with the normal gender for words with this ending. It appears, then, that the masculine gender was the regular one for Greek words ending in -ops, whether derived from Sw or not, and regardless of the original gender of &w itself. I therefore agree with the proposal that all names ending in -ops should be regarded as masculine. By Afranio do Amaral (Director, Instituto Butantan, S. Paulo, Brasil) In my previous article on Case No. 18, written in an impersonal and simpli- fied manner endeavouring to render the matter easily comprehensible, I touched only lightly on a few philologic aspects that I deemed to be worth consideration. Having now been nominally cited in the comment Mr. J. Griffin was asked to prepare for publication in this Bulletin; and having, in the meantime, indirectly learned of the existence of letters Prof. Grensted wrote to the Secre- tariat on this very Case but to the content of which I did not have access, I am bound to write the present complemental Note not only to confirm my previous findings and conclusions but briefly to clarify, through an objective, unbiased analysis, some arguments that have since been adduced, in the hope of thus touching, for the benefit of your readers, on all the important aspects wherewith those documents may have dealt. In so doing, I shall try orderly to consider the main question involved in such a complex subject. Poetic form—In his comment, Mr. Griffin was so kind as to admit that “the wordt was poetic and rare. In the early poets, it is never so used as to shew the gender”. My thesis, my linguistic main contention, which aimed at the enlightenment of nomenclaturists, has thus been confirmed. However, may I now add that, in my unauthoritative view, ‘the dispute among the late Greek grammarians ” resulted from the fact that such a word was, for a few * See further P. Chantraine, La Formation des Noms en Grec ancien, (Paris 1933), pp. 257-260. + Ops. Pate Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 centuries, used as a defective noun having no singular nominative form that could settle the question for good and all. The nominative form Ops must have appeared in those Grammarians’ productions as a mere inference from other case forms (dpa, dpas, etc.) created at Homer’s remote period for metric con- venience. century A.D., thus corresponding to the end of the Graeco-Roman period of Greek literature. It is far, both in time and quality, from complying with the Code’s (art, 29(a) (i)) requirement, since it could not be (and has never been) considered a classical “ ancient Greek ” publication. Note: Several zoologists and nomenclaturists (including myself), called to expound their opinion on the gender attributable to ops, ““ eye”’, had to resort to zoo-statistical indications to uphold their preference about the masc. or the feminine gender. Although the available statistics show the eye-meaning exam- ples to represent the minority (exception), it has been found that the -ops meaning has not been, in a great many zoological generic names, clearly stated by their authors or cannot any longer be the object of an accurate, reliable and complete computation. Fortunately for us, that finding, relative to the inexistence of the nominative singular ops, “ eye”’, in “ ancient Greek ” Temoves that difficulty and clearly establishes the impossibility of dps as a consequent in zoo-generic names being considered masculine. Nominative form—Moreover, since that noun had no nominative singular form in ancient Greek, that very word cannot be invoked as a part of any genus- group name, which the Code (art. 11(f)) requires to be a noun in the “ nomina- tive Singular ” or be treated as such. Opsis—6ps—The connexion between these two nouns may be seen, for in- stance, in the proper name Aethiops, the consequent of which comes from opsis, “ face’, apud Scheller (Riddle transl.) Tot. Latinitatis Lexicon, Oxford, 1875. Ops—ops—This connexion may be traced, in the evolution of their simplified etymon op, through the Greek and other Indo-European languages. It is considered in Greek as a case of quantitative alternacy, which is manifest in the inflexion that root shows, e.g., in one of the three etyma intervening in the formation of the corresponding verb orad “to see”: fut. opsomai vs. aor. Opsamen; pass. fut. ophthesomai vs. pass. aor. Ophthen. Gender—Concerning proper and common names, I may say that, in the light of the fundamental conception of “ gender ” (A. Meillet—Introd. Etude Comparat. Langues Indo-Européennes, Paris, 1937), Greek nouns ending in “ops are masculine when they define beings (men, heroes, deities, myths, animals) that are considered male. Otherwise, they are feminine. This all lexicographers, including modern ones, to names in -ops (Cercéps, Dolops, dryéps, elléps, etc.), in spite of ops (meaning “eye” and “ aspect’) being Strictly feminine in Greek. As to Cerdps and Doléps it would really be aston- 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ishing in face of the essential connotation of “ gender’? should any competent linguist consider these names as feminine on account of their termination. Vice-versa, a name in Ops (in the hypothesis of this being masculine when meaning ‘“‘ eye”) such as Glaucdps, ‘‘ blue-eyed’, would be feminine when defining a female deity. This gender argument, therefore, is out of the question. It is inapplicable to clarify the present nomenclatural issue. Note: In the case of the proper noun Merdps, which is masculine, the con- sequent comes from the simplified etymon oks (ops) meaning “ voice”’, dps being strictly feminine also with that signification. A deeper analysis of the facts involved in these examples of gender discloses dps to have come from two different roots: OK* (>OP), Lat. dc-ulus, Gr. dps-is and WOK* (>-‘OKS), Lat. vox, both of which admit quantitative alternacy inflexion. Their approach- ing under dps seems to have been realized through the flexional forms osse (>okje) of the former and ossa (>oksa) of the latter. Moreover, that alternacy lies within the boundaries of another well-known linguistic phenomenon, called vocalism variation (F. Sommer—Hb. Latein. Laut—u. Formenlehre, Heidel- berg, 1948), which has also been invoked to explain the 6ps—ops connexion. Dictionaries—To the list of easily available lexicons (in several modern languages) all giving dps (sing.) as a fem. noun, as cited in my previous article, the following may be added: Pape, W.—Griech.—Deutsch. Worterbuch, Brunswig, 1880. In my list I have included the principal lexicons that are considered “ stan- dard dictionaries ’’ on Greek, as required by the Code (art. 30(a) (i). Summary—tThe fundamental glottologic and nomenclatural aspects of this question may now be briefly summarized, thus: 1. The term ops with the “‘ eye ” connotation cannot, under the Code, be invoked in Zoological Nomenclature because its “‘ nominative singular ” form did not exist in ‘“‘ ancient Greek ”’. 2. The only etymon correctly to be attributed, under the Code, to -ops ending generic names is dps, which is strictly feminine with the triple connotation of “‘ eye’, “ aspect ’’ and “ voice ”’. 3. This linguistic and logic conclusion seems to satisfy the aspiration of all Commissioners and zoologists at large, with whom I have corresponded of late, after a simplified ‘‘ decision to assign a single gender to all such names regardless of the linguistic derivation of these names ” (Holthuis’ own words) or “‘a Ruling that makes things as easy to handle as ever possible ” (Lemche’s expression), as a way “ to avoid the wholly unnecessary effort of remembering which one is masculine and which one is feminine ’’ (Follett’s feeling). Final remarks—This simplified solution has the great advantage of not being arbitrary. It is scientifically correct. In view of the growing opposition the work of the Nomenclature Commission is encountering, as voiced from many a quarter, it seems to be unwise and untimely for us again to give a demonstration of absolutism and, based on false premises, make use of the nT OTR shee I OE EY ee BE ee eS * Simplified, for use of non-specialists, respectively from OKw and WOKw (A. Meillet & J. Vendryes — Tr. Gramm. Comparat. Langues Classiques, Paris, 1948) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 plenary powers against the reinstatement of Copenhagen Rule (b) (III) arising out of Proposal 84, Provision 7, which was linguistically correct and entirely unbiased. It must be remembered that the present Nomenclature has already been called “a kind of a monster; virtually there is no longer a zoologist who could easily locate and interpret the rule he intends to apply’. Zoological Nomenclature has already passed sufficiently stormy and dangerous trials— such as those arising from national rivalry, interpretation of liberum veto, application of the priority law and, lately, the questions over nomina conser- vanda and nomina oblita—to be risked by our Commission through the unjusti- fied use of the plenary powers in this case. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LINGULA BRUGUIERE, [1797] (BRACHIOPODA, INARTICULATA); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1598 By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) The well known inarticulate brachiopod genus Lingula Bruguiére, [1791], type-genus of the family-group taxon LINGULIDAE Menke, 1828, is seemingly based on a misidentified type-species and in accordance with the Code (Arts. 41 and 65) the case is submitted to the International Commission with an appeal for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species which will ensure stability of usage of the generic name. 2. The generic name Lingula was published by Bruguiére in the “‘ Tableau Encyclopédique et Méthodique des Trois Régnes de la Nature. Vers, Coquilles, Mollusques et Polypiers ”, pl. 250. This work was issued in several parts, but according to Sherborn and Woodward, (1906, p. 581), the section consisting of plates 190-286 was published in 1797. Neither definition nor description of Lingula was provided, but the name is available from that date since it was accompanied by three illustrations (Bruguiére, [1797], pl. 250, fig. la, 1b and Ic). There were no originally included species. 3. In the “ Tableau Encyclopédique et Méthodique, etc. Liste des objets ”’, p. 151 (published in 1827 according to Sherborn and Woodward, 1906, p. 581) fig. 1 of pl. 250 (published 30 years earlier) is said to be of Lingula anatina. This has probably led some authors (e.g. Hall and Clarke, 1892, p. 5; Goryansky, 1960, p. 174) to regard Lingula anatina Lamarck as the type-species of the genus. However, under the Code, Art. 69(a) (ii) (2) the type-species is Patella unguis Linnaeus, by subsequent monotypy, Cuvier, [1797], p. 435. Cuvier spelt the generic name Ligula on page 435, but this appears to have been an “ incorrect subsequent spelling ” rather than an “ emendation ” for the name is correctly spelt in the index to the work on page 705. Patella unguis has been accepted as the type-species of the genus by many workers including Thomson 1927, p. 124 and Cooper, 1944, p. 285 and has commonly been regarded as a synonym of Lingula anatina (Thomson, 1927, p. 124; Goryansky, 1960, p. 174). 4. Patella unguis was erected in 1758 by Linnaeus (p. 783) who also cited references to two figures, ‘“‘ Rumph. mus. t. 40. f. L’ and “ Pet. gaz. t. 32 f.9”’. The citation of these two references has been the cause of considerable confusion for one figure (Petiver, 1704, Tab. XXXII, fig. 9) is of a species of Lingula from the Philippines, the other (Rumphius, 1705, pl. XL, fig. L) is of a gastropod, which in current usage would be referred to the genus Scutus de Montfort, 1810 (Lamy and André, 1941, p. 190). Although this situation has been realised since at least 1855 (Hanley, 1855, p. 425) the binomen Patella unguis has con- tinued to be employed for both gastropod and brachiopod. 5. Hanley (1855, p. 425) claimed that there were no specimens of Lingula in the Linnean cabinet and that the “ marked type” of Patella unguis in that collection was a gastropod. Hanley clearly regarded this specimen as what today would be called a lectotype and Lamy and André (1941, p. 190) accept Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 this specimen, which still exists in the Linnean Collection of the British Museum (Natural History), as the “ type ” of Patella unguis. 6. Cuvier ({1797], p.435) in designating Patella unguis as the type-species of Lingula “‘ mis-identified ”’ the species, regarding it as a brachiopod, for under the Code, the genus Lingula Bruguiére, [1797], types-species Patella unguis Linnaeus, is a gastropod and a senior subjective synonym of Scutus de Montfort, 1810. 7. To prevent the confusion which would arise from strict application of the Code and to preserve the continuity of meaning of the nominal family-group taxon LINGULIDAE, it is desirable that the plenary powers be used to designate a type-species in harmony with the present usage of the generic name Lingula. The most suitable species is seemingly Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801, p. 141, which previously has erroneously been regarded as the type-species. 8. In view of the 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 Lingula Bruguiére, [1797], made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b) having done so, to designate Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 as type- species of the foregoing genus; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Lingula Bruguiére, [1797] (gender : feminine) (type- species by designation under the plenary powers under (b) above: Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801); (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: anatina Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Lingula anatina (type-species of Lingula Bruguiére, [1797]; (4) to place the following name on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology: LINGULIDAE Menke, 1828 nom. correct. Gray, 1840, ex LINGULACEAE Menke, 1828 (type-genus Lingula Bruguiére, [1797]). REFERENCES BRUGUIERE, M. [1797]. Tableau Encyclopédique et Méthodique des Trois Régnes de la Nature. Vers, Coquilles, Mollusques et Polypiers, pls. 190-286. Cooper, G. A. 1944. ‘ Phylum Brachiopoda’”’, in SHiMER (H. W.) and SHROCK, (R. R.). Index Fossils of North America, pp. 277-365, pls. 105-143. Cuvier, G. [1797]. Tableau Elémentaire de l’Histoire Naturelle des Animaux, pp. 1-710, pls. I-XIV. 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. HANLEy, S. 1855. Jpsa Linnaei Conchylia, pp. 1-556, pls. I-V. LamMarRCK, J.B. P.A.DEM.pDeE. 1801. Systém des Animaux sans vertébres, pp. 1-432. Lamy, E.and ANDRE, M. 1941. Notes sur les espéces lamarckiennes de brachiopodes vivants. Journ. de Conchyliogie, 4th Ser., Tome XXXVIII, Vol. LXXXIV, pp. 183-196. LINNAEus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, 1 pp. 1-823, 10th edit. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Montrort, D. pe. 1810. Conchyliologie Systématique et Classification Méthodique des Coquilles. Tome II, pp. 1-676. PetiverR, J. 1704. Gazophylacii Naturae Artis. Decas Quarta, pp. 49-62, Tab. XXXI-XL. Rumpuius, G. E. 1705. D’Amboinsche Rariteitkamer, pp. 1-340, pls. I-LX. SHERBORN, C. D. and WoopwarbD, B. B. 1906. ‘* On the dates of publication of the Natural History portions of the *‘ Encyclopédie Méthodique’”’. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. XVII, pp. 577-582. THomson, J. A. 1927. Brachiopod Morphology and Genera (Recent and Tertiary). N.Z. Board Sci. and Art. Manual, 7, pp. 1-338, pls. 1-2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 AXOPORA MILNE EDWARDS & HAIME, 1850 (HYDROZOA, MILLE- PORINA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1610 By H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission to validate, under its plenary powers, the generic name Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime [1850], by suppressing the generic name Holaraea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849. 2. Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849 (C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 29 : 259) founded the genus Holaraea, giving as an example the species Alveolites parisiensis Michelin [1847] (/conogr. zoophyt. : 166) which thereby became the type of the new genus. Thesame authors ([{1850], Monogr. Brit. foss. Corals: lix) described the genus A xopora with the typical species Geodia pyriformis Michelin, ([1847] : 178). In 1851 (Arch. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 5 : 151) Milne Edwards & Haime placed Holaraea in the synonymy of Axopora. 3. Apart from the two publications by Milne Edwards & Haime cited above the name Ho/araea seems to have been used as an accepted generic name in only one publication, namely d’Orbigny, 1850 (Prodr. Paléont. 2 : 405) who spelled the name Holaroea. 4. In the period between 1851 and the present time the name Axopora has been used as the recognised generic name of the group of fossil corals dealt with here in at least thirty-four publications, as cited by Boschma (1963, Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet., Amsterdam B 66 : 107-117); the name Ho/araea occurring in some of the publications as a synonym only. 5. Boschma (1951, Zool. Verh. Leiden 13:2) founded the family AXOPORIDAE to include the genera Axopora and Diamantopora Weissermel, 1913 (Beitr. geol. Erf. deutsch. Schutzgeb. 5: 108). To avoid confusion on account of a possible resurrection of the name Holaraea, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Holaraea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime [1850] (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Geodia pyriformis Michelin, [1847], on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name pyriformis Michelin, [1847], as published in the binomen Geodia pyriformis (type-species of Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, [1850]) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name AXOPORIDAE Boschma, 1951 (type-genus Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, [1850]) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the generic name Holaraea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964. 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PARATYLENCHUS ELACHISTUS STEINER, 1949 (NEMATODA): PROPOSED REJECTION OF A NEOTYPE SPECIMEN. Z.N.(S.) 1615 By A. C. Tarjan (Florida Citrus Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Florida, U.S.A.) and A. Morgan Golden (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) The present authors request that the neotype for Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949 (Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Fla. (1942) 4—B: 72-117), designated by Tarjan 1960 be rejected. This request is based on the discovery of an old slide, in the collection of the Nematological Investigations, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland, containing several original specimens of P. elachistus. The species name on the slide is in Steiner’s handwriting, and the host data and other data were the same as given in the original publication. Both authors are convinced that these specimens are the syntypes on which the original description of this species was based. The lectotype female selected from the syntypes is the one which most closely resembles Steiner’s original published figure (see Tarjan & Golden, 1964, Nematologica 9 : 472). Measurements of this specimen fall within the ranges prescribed by Steiner for this species. The lectotype on Slide T—46t and accom- panying paralectotypes are mounted in glycerine and are in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Nematode Collection, Beltsville, Maryland. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to set aside the specimen of Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949, designated by Tarjan 1960 as neotype of that species; (2) to place the specific name e/achistus Steiner, 1949, as published in the binomen Paratylenchus elachistus, as defined by the lectotype designa- ted by Tarjan & Golden, 1964, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964. a Sa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 CANCER SETIFERUS LINNAEUS, 1767 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): PROPOSED VALIDATION OF NEOTYPE SELECTION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1617 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) A controversy among carcinologists about the correct names of two of the economically most important shrimps of the world, threatens to start a most regrettable confusion in the nomenclature of these two species. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to take steps to prevent this confusion. Until 1936 the name Penaeus setiferus (Linnaeus, 1767) was given to a commercially extremely important shrimp, which was found in East American waters between New York and S. Brazil. In 1936 Burkenroad (Annaes Acad. Brasil. Sci. 7(4) : 315-318) discovered that two species actually had been confused under the name Penaeus setiferus: a northern species inhabiting the coast of the U.S.A. and Mexico, and a southern species inhabiting the West Indian Islands (including Cuba and Jamaica) and the coast of S. America. Burkenroad retained the name P. setiferus for the northern species and gave the new name P. schmitti to the southern. He later (Burkenroad, 1939, Bull. Bingham oceanog. Coll. 6 (6) : 17) confirmed this by selecting a specimen of the northern species from off Matanzas Inlet, Florida, to be the neotype for Cancer setiferus L., 1767. In my opinion Burkenroad’s action is perfectly correct, and most laudable, since the northern form was at that time the best known of the two, being the subject of a highly important fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and therefore it had been mentioned very often (under the name P. setiferus) in taxonomic and applied literature; apart from a few mentions in taxonomic literature the southern form had so far received very little attention. When after World War II the fishery for the southern form started to develop, it was always indicated by the name Penaeus schmitti. Gunter (1962, Gulf Research Rep. 1 (3) : 107-114, 118-121; 1962, Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 15 : 103-110) contested the correctness of Burkenroad’s nomenclature: he believed that the name P. setiferus (L. 1767) should be given to the southern species and the name P. fluviatilis Say, 1817, to the northern, as in his opinion the type specimen of Cancer setiferus L. came from South America or the West Indies. Consequently Gunter thought Burkenroad’s neotype selection to be in violation with the provisions of the Code. My own views, which oppose those of Gunter’s have been given in a paper (1962, Gulf Research Rep. 1 (3) : 115-118), which thanks to Dr. Gunter’s kindness was published simul- taneously with his first two papers on the subject. The crucial point in this question is whether or not Burkenroad’s neotype designation is valid. In Burkenroad’s (1939, Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 6 (6) : 17-25) paper all 6 conditions set by the Code for a neotype selection are fulfilled: (1) Burkenroad (1939) refers to his previous (1936) publication in which Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964. 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature he recognized P. schmitti as distinct from P. setiferus and where he listed the differences between the two; (2) of the designated neotype specimen the cata- logue number is given so that recognition of the specimen is ensured; (3) the unsuccessful efforts to locate the type specimen are mentioned; (4) a discussion is given showing that the neotype, as far as Burkenroad was able to make out, belongs to the same species as the holotype; (5) the neotype locality ‘ off Matanzas, Florida ” lies within the type locality ‘“‘ America” so that the fifth requirement is also fulfilled; (6) the neotype is the property of the Bingham Oceanographic Collection of Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, a recognized scientific institution. It is point (5) which is contested by Gunter, who believes to be able to prove that the type of Cancer setiferus L., viz., the specimen described and figured by Seba (1761, Locuplet. Rer. nat. Thes. 3: pl. 17 fig. 2) is the southern form. Seba’s description and figure give not the least clue as to whether it is the southern or the northern species, both are rather poor and give not enough details to make such a distinction possible. The only locality given by Seba is ‘“‘ America,” which does not help either. Gunter expressed the opinion that Seba’s specimen more likely belongs to the southern species in view of the fact that Seba lived in Amsterdam, and the Dutch had at that time possessions in the West Indies and South America. [agree here with Gunter, but this is only a possibility and not a certainty, since Seba obtained material from sailors of ships that came to Amsterdam from all over the world; furthermore Seba had many correspon- dents including at least one in North America. The possibility that his speci- men of “ Astacus fluviatilis, Americanus”’ belongs to the northern form is therefore not precluded. The fact that Linnaeus (1767) gave the locality of his species as “* Habitat in Indiis *’ is not very important, as the type locality is the locality where the holotype is found (here Seba’s ‘‘ America ’’) and not the locality mentioned in any subsequent paper, even if this paper contains the original description. Linnaeus’ indication probably means “ East and West Indies”. At that time a large portion of the American continent was included in the term “* West Indies *’ (so, in the “‘Compendium and Description of the West Indies’, a translation of a 17th century manuscript by A. Vazquez de Espinosa, (1942, Smithson. misc. Coll. 102 : 108), St. Augustine, Florida is mentioned, a locality very close to the neotype locality of Penaeus setiferus). The full published discussion of this case makes it clear that neither group has been able to convince the other of the correctness of its viewpoint, and as the question involves the switching of a name from one economically very important species to another, it seems urgent that an action by the Commission restores the stability and uniformity of the nomenclature of this group. This action should be, in my opinion, the recognition of Burkenroad’s neotype selection for Cancer setiferus L. As some zoologists deny the validity of Burkenroad’s selection, it is perhaps best, in order to leave no room for doubt, to validate this selection under the plenary powers. The generic name Penaeus Fabricius, 1798 and the family name Penaeidae Rafinesque, 1815, are already placed on the appropriate Official Lists (as no. 498 and no. 35 respectively), so that no action has to be taken regarding them. fo i a ee gat Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 The concrete proposals that I now place before the Commission are that they should: (a) use their plenary powers to validate the selection by Burkenroad (1939, Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 6 (6) : 17) of the 3 specimen (carapace length 38 mm, total length 165 mm) numbered B.O.C. 237 (taken off Matanzas Inlet, Florida, on 2 April 1934, at 8-10 fathoms, with an ottertrawl, by Mr. M. B. Bishop) to be the neotype of Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1767; (b) place the following names on the Official List of Species Group Names in Zoology: (i) setiferus Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1054), as published in the combination Cancer Setiferus, and as identified through the neotype selection validated under (a) above; (ii) schmitti Burkenroad, 1936 (Annaes Acad. Brasil. Sci., 7 (4) : 315) as published in the combination Penaeus schmitti. OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER PLENARY POWERS OF A NEOTYPE FOR CANCER SETIFERUS L. 1767 (CRUSTACEA DECAPODA). By Gordon Gunter (Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, Mississippi, U.S.A.) When Linnaeus (1767) described Cancer setiferus he referred to a colored figure of Seba (Vol. III, 1761) labeled ‘ Astacus fluviatilis, Americanus,” which has been accepted as the type ever since. Linnaeus also gave the habitat as “ in Indiis ’’ and it has always been accepted as the American Indies until quite recently, because of the reference to “ Americanus.” After all these remarks pertain to a warm water marine shrimp. Americanus could apply to polar seas or the Rocky Mountains or the South American Cordilleras. Thus Linnaeus’ in Indiis is a perfectly natural and reasonable restriction, which is extremely important, and not unimportant as Holthuis would have it. Contentions to the contrary are unreasonable, and they are Suspect on the grounds that they are for the purpose of manipulating the Code for ulterior motives to bring about desired ends, as indicated below. Linnaeus’ name Cancer setiferus has been accepted traditionally as the original (1790, J. F. Gmelin ed.) listed Cancer setiferus from South America and India; Olivier etc., 2 : 1-532, atlas, 1-32, pls. 1-42), de Saussure (1858, Mémoire sur divers crustacés nouveaux du Mexique et des Antilles, etc. 1(1). Geneve et Bale), Heller (1865, Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte ** Novara” um die Erde, etc. Zoologischer Theil. Crus- taceen. Penaeidae. 2 (3) : 121-123), Bate (1881, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 5, 8 : 169— 196), Rathbun (1897, Ann. Inst. Jamaica, 1 : 1900; Proc. Washington Acad. Sci., 2 : 6) Say (1817, Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 1 (6) : 235-353) made the first pub- lished reference to a penaeid shrimp from North America when he described the northern species of white shrimp as Penaeus fluviatilis. His description was valid and the name has not lapsed. Either H. Milne Edwards (1837) did not know of Say’s description or he ignored it and Stated that P. setiferus, of which he had specimens Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964. 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature from the Island of Guadeloupe in the West Indies, was also found on the coast of Florida. The custom of referring to the North American white shrimp as P. setiferus seems to date from that time. Nevertheless, the name was applied to the West Indian or South American shrimp nine times up to 1900 and to the North American species only four times. The latter references are: DeKay (1844, Zoology of New York, etc., Pt. VI, Crustacea. P. iv + 70. Albany), Gibbes (1850, Proc. Am. Assoc. Advan. Sci. 1 : 168-201), Stimpson (1871, Ann. Lyceum Nat. Hist. New York, 10 : 92-136) and Kingsley (1879, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 30 : 329-330). When Burkenroad (1936, Amn. Acad. Brasil. 8 : 315-318) showed that the northern and southern species were separate he apparently ignored the literature, or was not fully acquainted with it, and its clear indication that the name of the southern Atlantic white shrimp is P. setiferus. Thus he described the southern species as new under the name Penaeus schmitti. Under the Rules prevailing then and the present Code that name is only a synonym of P. setiferus. Burkenroad’s next action (1939, Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 6 (6) : 1-62) was to raise questions about the locality designation of Linnaeus as the American West Indies, the first time in over 172 years that it had come up, and attempt to set up a neotype of P. setiferus from Matanzas Inlet on the north coast of east Florida. Had this been validated it would have had the effect of transferring the name P. setiferus to the northern white shrimp, saving the name P. schmitt, and posthumously over- slaughing Thomas Say. However, no request for neotype validation was presented to the Commission and only now the Commission is being requested to take action under plenary powers. I realize that it is quite the vogue to insinuate that the Father of Systematics did not know the east from the west and had very hazy geographic ideas. I do not accept these ideas quickly and always suspect that authors who make these remarks have some axe to grind. That question does not come up here, but instead, we are asked to believe that Linnaeus did not know the difference between the Indies and North America. The fact of the matter is that Linnaeus clearly indicated that Penaeus setiferus was a West Indian species, and a long list of following workers found the species there, where Linnaeus said it was to be found, and also in South America. Those details are set forth above. On the other hand, the ideas of Burkenroad and Holthuis concerning the in- adequacy of Linnaeus’ locality are tenuous and imaginative and have no substance. Their arguments are based on the simple statement of Seba, “* Americanus.” When taken together the statements of Seba and Linnaeus are rather definite. I (Gunter, 1962a, Gulf Research Reports 1 (3) : 106-114, 118-121) stated that the Dutch had holdings in the West Indies and none in North America. Holthuis (1962, Gulf Res. Reports 1 (3) : 115-118) countered with the idea that Seba had contacts in Virginia: (In the present petition the remark has been modified, it appears, to the statement that Seba had ‘“‘ at least one in North America ” of correspondents). However, Virginia is north of the range of penaeid shrimp except for strays. Furthermore, Virginia and the Carolinas were well enough known localities to be used by Linnaeus and Seba, as witnessed by the host of names carolinus, virginica and variations to be found on any list of North American fauna and flora. In fact, an examination of the fish names in the latest North American checklist (Jordan, Evermann and Clark, 1930, Rep. U.S. Comm. Fisheries, Part Il, pp. 1-670) indicates that Linnaeus was more likely to use virginica for south Florida species than indicus. Holthuis has also advanced the argument that a good part of Florida was con- sidered to be the Indies in former days. Florida was Spanish territory in those days and Dutch collectors were rare there, if not entirely absent. Additionally, Dr. Thomas O’Grady pointed out to me that Seba made collecting voyages to the West Indies. Thus, the arguments about the indeterminancy of the combined locality statements of Seba and Linnaeus are sort of imaginative grabbing at straws. Doctor Holthuis’ request for a ruling under plenary powers should be rejected because: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 (1) Burkenroad was not the “ first revisor’? in 1939 when he tried to set up a neotype; if he ever was first revisor in this case it was in 1936. He did not remain a first revisor indefinitely and his designation was made in a later publication (1939). Thus his neotype designation does not satisfy Article 75 (a) of the Code. (2) Burkenroad’s ‘“ neotype ” lies outside of the range of the original species of that name, according to the clear indications of a long line of workers from Linnaeus down to modern times. Thus, his neotype designation does not satisfy the conditions of Article 75 (c)(5) of the Code. The burden of proof lies on Burkenroad and Holthuis to show that Matanzas Inlet, Florida lies within the range of Cancer setiferus. No proofs except some doubtful hypotheses have been forthcoming. (3) Burkenroad’s neotype designation does not satisfy the “ exceptional circum- stances ” condition of Article 75 (a) of the Code. No ‘“ complex zoological problem, such as the confused or doubtful identities of closely similar species ’’ is involved. The two species of Atlantic American white shrimp are disjunct in distribution and there is no question concerning their dis- tinction. The only “ exceptional circumstances ” in Burkenroad’s neotype designation are the facts that it does not conform to the Articles of the Code in three important particulars, and its validation would have the effect of rescuing his synonym (Penaeus schmitti) and making it the proper name for the southern white shrimp. (4) This is a trivial question concerning only one species, or at the most two. The Commission should not be asked to act on such matters for as a precedent it opens the door to innumerable others concerning the American species of Linnaeus. (5) Taxonomic workers have many obligations. Among them is the obligation to give just credit to previous workers. Thomas Say first mentioned and described the North American white shrimp and he deserves vindication. (6) The Commission should not be called upon to rectify the simple mistake of a worker who described an animal previously described, through inattention to the literature, as I have pointed out (Gunter, 1962, Proc. Gulf and Caribbean Fish. Inst. 15th Ann. Sess. pp. 103-110), or possibly due to a cavalier attitude, which apparently comes to people who assume a proprietory air after working for a while on restricted groups of animals. Some General Remarks The argument between Doctor Holthuis and me derives, I believe, from basic attitudes toward the Code rather than a mere consideration of the proper names of two shrimp species. Savory (1962, Naming the Living World. English Universities Press. xiii + 128 pp. London) has pointed out that biologists may be divided into three groups on the basis of their attitudes towards the International Codes. One group, mostly non-specialists, looks with a jaundiced eye upon the whole procedure and makes little attempt to follow taxonomic rules. A second group follows the rules generally, but not always. A third group believes in rigid application of the rules in all circumstances. Actually there is a fourth group of competent taxonomists who yearn for a new system entirely, and who have proposed a sort of Dewey Decimal System and more recently a uni- nominal system (Michener, 1963, Systematic Zoology 12 (4) : 151-172). Taxonomists can do nothing about the first group except teach them a little bit from time to time. As I pointed out before (Gunter, 1963, Bull. zool. Nomenclature 20 (3) : 174) Holthuis used the uniform root penaeus several years ago for several penaeid shrimp, incorrectly under the rules, and Boschi (1963, Bol. Instit. Biol. Marina (3) : 1-39) has followed him, apparently. At present Holthuis has a petition before the Inter- national Commission for uniformity in these names, which I supported. But this is after the fact, so to speak, and the papers of Holthuis and Boschi contain erroneous 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature names under the Code, which Holthuis certainly must have recognized before they were printed. Thus, I believe that Doctor Holthuis belongs to the second group of taxonomists, who follow the Code when they wish. The trouble with that attitude is that what the taxonomist does is determined by judgment, rather than by the Code, and the judgments of men differ. I do not sympathize with Holthuis’ attitude and I belong to the third group of taxonomists which believes that the Code should be adhered to strictly; it is improving all the time and any step away from it is a much greater move towards chaos than the small inequities we find under it. The Code, like the law, is for everybody and any violation undermines it. By Robert M. Ingle (Florida State Board of Conservation Marine Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida) I have followed the arguments about the proper name of the North American white shrimp (Gunter, 1962, Gulf Research Reports 1 (3) : 107-114, 118-121; Holthuis, 1962, Gulf Research Reports 1 (3) : 115-118; and Gunter, 1962, Proc. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 15th Ann. Session, November, 1962, pp. 103-110) with considerable interest. It is apparent to me that Gunter’s contentions are correct and the proper name of the North American white shrimp is Penaeus fluviatilis. We intend to use this name in works emanating from our Laboratory. We work with commercial shrimp on both Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida and we are not at all impressed with the overturn of shrimp names as suggested by Holthuis (1962, Gulf Research Reports 1 (3) : 115-118) and in his present petition. The commercial shrimpers do not bother with the scientific names of shrimps and they are known by the vernacular names of whites, pinks, and browns. The suggestion of Holthuis in the above petition is not proper or correct with regard to the use of the commercial shrimp names. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Though I realize that arguments in a nomenclatural dispute can be continued ad infinitum, I should like to give you my reactions to Dr. Gunter’s objection to my proposal concerning Cancer setiferus L. 1. As to the type locality of Cancer setiferus, this is per definition the locality where the type specimen, i.e. Seba’s specimen, was collected. Of this locality we do not know anything in print or otherwise. It has been sufficiently shown that (a) Seba got material from all over the world, (b) the type specimen is no longer extant, and (c) the indications published by Seba are not sufficient to prove whether his specimen belonged to the northern or southern form. Until 1939, when Burkenroad designated a neotype, no restriction of the type locality has ever been published; the mention of localities for the species by later authors, like Linnaeus, Gmelin, H. Milne Edwards, etc. do not constitute type locality restrictions. Therefore I cannot see how Burkenroad’s neotype selection can be incorrect under the Code. In my personal opinion, there is no need for an action by the Commission under their plenary powers, and I only asked for it in order to put those minds at rest who could not be convinced that Burkenroad’s action is valid. Actually, as I see it, the name setiferus can only be used in the sense suggested by Dr. Gunter under a suspension of the Rules by the plenary powers of the Commission. I do not deny the possibility and perhaps even the greater probability that Seba’s specimen belongs to the southern form, but its exact provenance (otherwise than that it is American) cannot be proved and therefore Burkenroad’s neotype selection from a technical nomenclatural viewpoint is a valid one. 2. As to usage, Dr. Gunter stated that before 1900 the name setiferus was applied nine times to the southern form and four times to the northern. The nine times evidently are the records by Linnaeus (1767), Gmelin (1790), Olivier (1811), H. Milne Edwards (1837), de Saussure (1858), Heller (1865), Bate (1881), and M. J. Rathbun (1897, 1900). The first three authors all base their record on Seba’s specimen as do also the authors Houttuyn (1769, Nat. Hist. 13 : 434), Statius Miiller (1775, Natursyst. 5 : 1133), Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 Herbst (1793, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 3 : 106), and Olivier (1791, Encycl. méth. Hist. nat. 6 : 343), who are not mentioned by Dr. Gunter. Their locality indica- tions are various like America, South America, India, West Indies. Perhaps there are more old handbooks in which Linnaeus is cited, and which thus could be added to Dr. Gunter’s list. As far as the other authors cited by Dr. Gunter are concerned, H. Milne Edwards (1837) gave us the only locality for the species ““ L’embouchure des fleuves de la Floride’’, which is definitely northern. Dr. Gunter evidently included Milne Edwards in his list because Bate (1881) saw in the collection of the Paris Museum what he supposed to be H. Milne Edwards’s specimen of this species labelled Guadeloupe. There are a few more authors, who before 1900 reported the species from S. America or the West Indies: Von Martens (1872, Arch. Naturgesch. 38 (1) : 141, 142; 1876, Preuss. Exped. Ost.-Asien, Zool. 1 : 38), Sharp (1893, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Phila., 1893 : 126), Von Ihering (1897, Rev. Mis. Paulista 2 : 156), Doflein (1900, S. B. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. 30 : 126). This would make a total of 17 records (18 if H. Milne Edwards is included) 7 of which are based on Seba’s animal of which the southern provenance is not certain. The four records of the northern form published before 1900 referred to by Dr. Gunter are: De Kay (1844), Gibbes (1850), Stimpson (1871), and Kingsley (1879). However, Dr. Gunter forgot to include H. Milne Edwards (1837) and Bate (1881) who reported the species from Florida and De Saussure (1858), who mentioned it from Mexico, though these authors were included among those reporting the southern form; Bate and De Saussure actually dealt with both species. Other authors mentioning the northern form not cited by Dr. Gunter are: Gibbes (1848, Tuomey’s Rep. Geol. S. Carolina, App. : 294), Kingsley (1878, Bull. Essex Inst. 10 : 53; 1899, Amer. Nat. 33 : 719), Howard (1883, South Carolina : 294), R. Rathbun (1883, Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 2: 140; 1844, in: G. Brown Goode, Fisher. Fishery Industry U.S. 1 : 821), Herrick (1887, Mem. Denison sci. Ass. 1 (1) : 46), Evermann (1892, Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 11 : 90), Smith (1892, Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 11 : 273), Collins & Smith (1892, Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 11 : 102), Sharp (1893, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Phila., 1893 : 126), Doflein (1900, S.B. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. 30: 126). My count here comes up to 19, while probably more uses can be found in fishery literature, with which I am not too well acquainted. The many late records of the species in the American fishery literature coincide with the increasing importance of the shrimp industry in the United States at the end of the last century and throughout the present (cf. Johnson & Lindner, 1934, Jn- vest. Rep. U.S. Bur. Fish. 21), which industry grew more and more rapidly after 1900 (producing 7-4 million pounds in 1897, its production was up to 96 million pounds in 1934). Therefore it is rather misleading to take only the references from before 1900. According to my bibliography after 1900 the name setiferus has been used for far more than 100 times for the northern form and less than 20 times for the southern. As to the name fluviatilis, which is proposed by Dr. Gunter to replace the widely used name sefi- ferus for the northern species, this has, according to my notes, not been used by any author in the period between its original publication by Say in 1818 and its re-introduc- tion by Dr. Gunter in 1962. In my opinion there is therefore no good reason for the Commission to undertake any actions for assigning the name setiferus to the southern form on the basis of usage; on the contrary, stability would be furthered by keeping to the Rules and thus by accepting Burkenroad’s neotype selection. 3. Say in his description of Penaeus fluviatilis refers to ‘* Astacus fluviatilis Americanus ”’ of Seba and even borrowed Seba’s first adjective for the specific name of his new species. Evidently, Say was not aware that Linnaeus had already given a name to the species, otherwise he might have adopted the name setiferus himself. In fact, by selecting Seba’s specimen as the lectotype of Penaeus fluviatilis Say (a perfectly legal action as no lectotype has so far been selected for Say’s species) Penaeus fluviatilis Say, 1818, would become an objective junior synonym of Cancer setiferus L., 1767. Incase the Commission should adopt my proposal concerning the name Cancer setiferus, I definitely make this lectotype selection, then at the same time requesting the Com- mission to place the name fluviatilis Say, 1818, on the Official Index of Rejected and 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. In case Dr. Gunter’s ideas are validated it is necessary to select one of Say’s own specimens (if still extant) as the lectotype of his species. 4. That Linnaeus’s indication **‘ in Indiis’...has always been accepted as the American Indies until quite recently ’’ is not quite correct. It actually means the two (i.e. East and West) Indies as can be seen by the fact that Linnaeus himself (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 626) under Cancer vocans used the term “ in Indiis”’ for a species of which he cited references by Catesby from the Bahama Islands and Rumphius from the Moluccas. Gmelin (1790) changed Linnaeus’s term “ in Indiis ” for Cancer setiferus to ‘in America australi & India.” 5. Aneotype selection has not to be bere by the Commission, so that Burken- road’s action in establishing a neotype without consulting the Commission is not a violation of the Code. 6. The fact that Seba had a contact in Virginia does not necessarily mean that all the material that he obtained from that contact person had to come from Virginia. Say in his original description of Penaeus fluviatilis remarked that the species was (rarely) brought to the Philadelphia market, still farther north of the usual range of the species. 7. The information that Seba actually visited the West Indies is entirely new to me. Dr. H. Engel, director of the Zoological Museum at Amsterdam, who is the leading authority on Seba, and has spent a lifetime in collecting information on this interesting Amsterdam apothecary by consulting Dutch and other archives, quite positively informed me that to his knowledge there is not a single indication showing that Seba ever made a voyage to the West Indies. Seba was a burgher of substance, who acquired his collections by buying his specimens (mostly from sailors), by exchange and cor- respondence. 8. As to Dr. Gunter’s points 1 to 6 I may remark the following: (1) Burkenroad’s 1939 paper was indeed a revisionary work. Nowhere in the Code is it stated that a neotype should be set up by a “‘ first revisor,” whatever that means in this case. (2) As pointed out above, the type locality of the species is ““ America ” and it has never been restricted before 1939. Burkenroad’s restriction to Matanzas Inlet, Florida, therefore is perfectly legal. (3) Two species had been confused for more than a century when Burkenroad in 1936 showed them to be distinct. To solve this ‘‘ complex zoological problem ” of *‘ the confused or doubtful identity of closely similar species ”’ Burkenroad’s neotype selection was certainly justified. (4) Since two species of great economic importance are concerned here, the nomenclature of the two forms is not a trivial matter. (5) Thomas Say confused the two species as badly as did any of the other workers before 1936, unless one accepts Seba’s specimen to be of northern origin. 9. Dr. Gunter accuses me that I belong to that group of taxonomists who only follow the Code when it is convenient to them. I can assure him that I have always tried to follow the Code strictly, and that any time that I found that a strict application of the Code would lead to undersirable situations, I have applied for a suspension of the Code. There would not have been any necessity for the, I am afraid rather many, applications that I submitted, if I really ignored the Code whenever it did not suit my purpose. Dr. Gunter further reproaches me that in the question of the uniform root penaeus of generic names of Penaeidae, I wilfully used, in a publication of 1959, this uniform root against the Code, while only “ after the fact, so to speak ” I submitted a proposal to validate my violation of the Code. Actually, however, the situation is such that in 1956 this question of a uniform root for the Penaeid generic names was already before the Commission and the late Mr. Francis Hemming approached me then for my view point on this matter, expressing himself a general preference for uniformity here. In the belief that a uniform root would have a good chance, and because at that moment there existed a diverse usage of this root, I adopted the uniform “ penaeus ”’ root in my paper, basing myself on Article 80 of the Code. I agree that somewhere in my paper I should have explained the situation and can only regret this oversight. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 PURPURA, OCENEBRA, AND MURICANTHUS (GASTROPODA): REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STATUS. Z.N.(S.) 1621 By A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) Several questions have arisen in my revision of the gastropod superfamily Muricacea for the “* Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ” that seem to require decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Three of these are here grouped as a single petition because the problems involved are somewhat related and are relatively straightforward. I. Status of Purpura While I was preparing the preliminary draft of this petition, a comment by Drs. J. Chester Bradley and Katherine V. W. Palmer was published (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 251) relative to Z.N.(S.) 1088, on Ceratostoma. 1 have therefore rephrased my statements so as to discuss the requests that they made to the Commission. The “‘ Purple-shells ’’ of the ancients, so often mentioned by authors, were any of several mollusks from which a colorfast dye could be obtained, mainly a species of the family Muricidae, Murex trunculus Linnaeus, 1758, from the eastern Mediterranean, a form not included acceptably in the nominal genus Purpura until late in the eighteenth century, and then only fleetingly. Linnaeus did not recognize Purpura as a genus but placed the species under Murex. In the ensuing half-century, from 1758 to 1799, the name Purpura was used in several different senses, the earliest appearances (Martini and Chemnitz, 1777; Martyn, 1784; and Meuschen, 1787) being in works now rejected as non-binominal. Bradley and Palmer conclude that (and in this I agree) the introduction of the name by Bruguiere, 1789, was not in such a way as to fix the type-species; the proposal was, at best, of a genus without named species. They would invoke subsequent monotypy under Article 69a (ii) (2) of the Code, the type being fixed by Lamarck, 1799, as Buccinum persicum Linnaeus, 1758. This, however, overlooks a very different usage of the generic name by Bruguiére himself in 1792, when he proposed in an entirely acceptable manner the nominal species Purpura tubifer (J. Hist. nat., Paris, 1 : 28, pl. 2, figs. 3-4). This Eocene fossil was refigured by Montfort in 1810 and made the type-species of the new genus Typhis. Hence, the device of subsequent monotypy would not preserve Purpura in its accustomed sense, and it would jeopardize a well-known and uncontroversial name, Typhis. I conclude, therefore, that action by the Commission, under the plenary powers, is required. Two alternatives are possible: (a) Fixation of the type-species of Purpura Bruguiére, 1789, arbitrarily as Buccinum persicum Linnaeus, 1758, in accordance with current practice. (b) Suppression of the name Purpura on the ground that its use is and has been equivocal. In support of the latter alternative the following arguments may be advanced: (i) During the last half of the eighteenth century the name was used in at least five different senses, generically, in what would now be regarded as two Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature separate families. Usage during the nineteenth century was fairly uniform, mostly in the sense that would result from alternative (a) above; this was in Muricidae only if the family was interpreted broadly, in Purpuridae when sub- divisions were made. Early in the present century confusion was re-introduced with Dall’s revival of the Martyn names, for the Purpura of Martyn would fall in Muricidae in the strict sense. The inconsistencies that resulted continue to plague authors; for example, a recently published local guide book by a highly respected zoologist, one that has obviously been given careful preparation, cites Purpura twice on one page, representing two very different senses (“‘ Purpura foliata”’ and “ Purpura lapillus”’, page 104 of Seashore Life of the San Fran- cisco Bay Region, by Joel Hedgpeth, University of California Press, 1963). Such is the confusion in the literature that this ambiguity can readily occur. Suppression of the name will not, of course, expunge it from published literature, but it would require future authors to clarify their terminology. Subsequent names are available for the taxa now allocated to Purpura: Haustrum Perry, 1811} (type-species, by subsequent designation by Iredale, 1915, H. zealandicum Perry = Buccinum haustorium Gmelin, 1791) for the group of B. persicum, of which the two type-species are conceded to be congeneric; and Plicopurpura Cossmann, 1903 (type-species by original designation, Purpura columellaris Lamarck, 1822) for a closely related or taxonomically subordinate tropical American group. Oddly enough, all of the species in the erstwhile Purpura Auctt. are Indo-Pacific, South Pacific, or tropical American in distribution, none being Mediterranean. The total number of species involved is small—well under ten, perhaps not more than five. Suppression of Purpura, therefore, would not have widespread effects. (ii) Purpura of authors is morphologically very close to Thais Réding, 1798 (ex Bolten MS) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Iredale, 1915: T. lena R6ding = Murex fucus Gmelin, 1791 = Nerita nodosa Linnaeus, 1758). The acceptance, early in the present century, of the Museum Boltenianum as an available source of generic names (I.C.Z.N. Opinion 96) and the revival of Purpura Martyn by Dall as a genus in Muricidae had as a result the replacement of the family name Purpuridae by Thaisidae Suter, 1913 (or its emended form Thaididae, which is classically more correct), and the latter has been almost universally applied ever since. Now that priority for family-group names is required under the Code, Purpuridae—which has long priority—would have to be reinstated and Thaisidae (or Thaididae) would have to be abandoned, for the two groups cannot be separated taxonomically even at the subfamily level. This would serve no useful purpose and could well increase the confusion. 1 In compliance with Article 23b of the Code, one must point out that two specific names in the genus Haustrum Perry, 1811 (Conchology: pl. 44) are nomina oblita: Haustrum pictum, figure 2, is stated to be from the East Indies. It is unmistakably the West Central American Purpura planospira Lamarck, 1822. Haustrum dentex, figure 3, stated to be from ‘‘Nootka Sound”, is likewise a tropical West American form, P. columellaris Lamarck, 1822. American malacologists seem not to have noticed these figures, and the names have never been utilized. The Commission is hereby asked to suppress both in the interests of stability. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 The course that would result in least disruption of established nomenclature would be alternative (a) above, provided that at the same time all family-group names based on Purpura were suppressed. I would therefore petition, for the reasons given under (ii) above, that the Commission designate, under the plenary powers, Buccinum persicum as the type-species of Purpura Bruguieére. Il. Tritonalia vs. Ocenebra Bradley and Palmer (op. cit., 253) inject into the discussion of Ceratostoma the wholly unrelated question of the earliest generic name for the group of species typified by Murex erinaceus Linnaeus, 1758, whether it be Tritonalia Fleming, 1828, or Ocenebra Gray, 1847. They do not accept Winckworth’s thesis that Fleming in renaming the homonymous Triton as T; ritonalia automatically renamed its earliest usage in Mollusca. Rather, they argue that Fleming was referring only to his own usage of the name Triton. Because Fleming did not cite authorities for genera, one cannot Say positively either that he intended to propose a new taxon or that he considered Triton Montfort, 1810, could include the species he enumerated. As Montfort’s figure of Triton tritonis(Linnaeus)is not a clear one, a worker unfamiliar with the large tropical shell it represents could well assimilate to the genus the much smaller forms that Fleming cited. True, under modern standards of classification these two groups represent different families; but standards change. Evidence of the broad interpretation of the Triton of that time is supplied us by Herrmannsen, compiler of the “ Indices Generum Malacozoorum”, who, as late as 1849 (vol. 2 : 605), synonymised both Triton Montfort, 1810, and Tritonalia Fleming, 1828, with the earlier but preoccupied Tritonium Link, 1807. Aside from all this there is a very practical consideration. For the past thirty years authors have increasingly accepted Winckworth’s interpretation, and few modern workers are utilizing Tritonalia with Murex erinaceus as type-species. To revert to it now and to reject Ocenebra Gray as a synonym would provide a good case for those who sneer at systematists for their name-changing. A few workers have gone so far as to use Tritonalia to replace Triton, thus displacing the well-known Charonia Gistel. This action, though logical, could be a cause of confusion. In the interests of stability and in harmony with most current practice, therefore, the Commission is asked to suppress Tritonalia Fleming, 1828, as an equivocal name, because the intention is not clear as to which usage of Triton it was intended to replace. III. Status of Muricanthus In 1833 Swainson (Zool. I/lustr. (2) 3 : pl. 100) proposed the subgeneric name Centronotus for Murex (C.) eurystomus Swainson, new species, which he said had been wrongly called M. saxatilis Linnaeus by authors. The figured specimen is a muricid gastropod of the group Hexaplex Perry, 1811, probably not separable, subgenerically, from the type-species of the genus, H. foliacea Perry = Murex cichoreum Gmelin, 1791. However, the name Centronotus was preoccupied—as Swainson himself soon realized—by Centronotus Schneider, 1801, in Pisces. 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Swainson in 1840 (Treatise Malac. : 296) proposed the generic name Muri- canthus with two species, M. radix [Gmelin, 1791]—for which he cited a figure in his Zoological Illustrations, pl. 113—and M. melanomathos [Gmelin, 1791]. The first of these two species was designated as type by Herrmannsen in July, 1847 (Indices Gen. Malacoz. 2 : 69), and this selection has been accepted by later authors, the name Muricanthus being well entrenched in current usage. How- ever, as has been pointed out to me by Emily H. Vokes (in /itt.), Swainson stated in a footnote that Muricanthus was a new name for the preoccupied Centronotus, a fact that has generally been overlooked. Under Article 67 (i) of the Code its type-species is not subject to subsequent designation and must become that of Centronotus. Authors have generally considered the type of Centronotus to have been fixed by monotypy, as Murex eurystomus (for example, Clench, 1945, Johnsonia 1 (17) : 42). If this is true, then strict application of the Rules would make Muricanthus fall as a synonym of Hexaplex. If it could be shown that plates 100 and 113 of Swainson’s Zoological Illustrations appeared simul- taneously, the type of Centronotus would be fixed by subsequent designation by Gray 1847 (Nov.) (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. : 133), as Murex radix, for Swainson used the name Centronotus on both plates. Swainson’s tabular summary of parts shows that plate 100 appeared in part 22 and plate 113 in part 25, but I have not been able to find any statement as to dates of publication other than Sherborn’s in the Index Animalium, that plates 96-136 appeared in 1833. Because of the uncertainty as to the type-species of Centronotus and because no useful purpose would be served by declaring Muricanthus an objective synonym of Hexaplex, the Commission is asked to validate Muricanthus Swainson, 1840, under suspension of the Rules, with the type-species Murex radix Gmelin, 1791, in accordance with accepted usage. IV. Proposals Summarizing the several requests the Commission is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Purpura Bruguiére, 1789, and having done so to designate Buccinum persicum Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type-species of that genus; (b) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Muricanthus Swainson, 1840, and having done so to designate Murex radix Gmelin, 1791, to be the type-species of that genus; (c) to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) the family-group names PURPURACEA Menke, 1828; PURPURIDAE Broderip, 1839; PURPURINAE Swainson, 1835; (ii) the generic name Tritonalia Fleming, 1828; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Purpura Bruguiére, 1789 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Buccinum persicum Linnaeus, 1758; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 (b) Ocenebra Gray, 1847 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Murex erinaceus Linnaeus, 1758; (c) Muricanthus Swainson, 1840 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Murex radix Gmelin, 1791: (d) Charonia Gistel, 1848 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Murex tritonis Linnaeus, 1758: (e) Thais Réding, 1798 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion by Iredale, 1915, Murex fucus Gmelin, 1791: (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) persicum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buccinum persicum (type-species of Purpura Bruguiére, 1789): (b) erinaceus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex erinaceus (type-species of Ocenebra Gray, 1847): (c) radix Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Murex radix (type- species of Muricanthus Swainson, 1840): (d) tritonis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex tritonis (type-species of Charonia Gistel, 1848); (e) nodosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nerita nodosa [Note: the oldest available name for the type-species of Thais Réding, 1798]; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Tritonalia Fleming, 1828 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above): (b) Triton Montfort, 1810 (a junior homonym of Triton Linnaeus, 1758): (c) Centronotus Swainson, 1833 (a junior homonym of Centronotus Schneider, 1801); (5) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pictum Perry, 1811, as published in the binomen Haustrum pictum (a senior synonym of Purpura planospira Lamarck, 1822, to be rejec- ted as a nomen oblitum); (b) dentex Perry, 1811, as published in the binomen Haustum dentex (a senior synonym of Purpura columellaris Lamarck, 1822, to be rejected as a nomen oblitum); (6) to place the family-group name THAIDIDAE (correction of THAISIDAE) Suter, 1913 (type-genus Thais Réding, 1798) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (7) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology; as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above: (a) PURPURACEA Menke, 1828: (b) PURPURIDAE Broderip, 1839: (Cc) PURPURINAE Swainson, 1835. 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTHIA CHRYSOTIS LATHAM, 1801 (AVES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1653 Submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Chairman: Finn Salomonsen) Certhia chrysotis Latham, 1801, Index Ornith., suppl.: 38, New South Wales. The name in question refers to some Australian species within the large and complicated genus Meliphaga (Meliphagidae), but has always been regarded as indeterminable; cf. Mathews, 1924, Birds of Australia 9 : 454-456, where the history of this name is discussed. Latham’s name blocks two junior homonyms, but they have both received substitute names which have been generally in use for the species in question, Viz. : Meliphaga chrysotis Lewin, 1808, Birds of New Holland: pl. 5, for which Swainson in 1837 (Classification of Birds 2 : 326) gave the new name Prilotis lewinii, which is now commonly used for the said species. Philedon chrysotis Lesson & Garnet, 1828 (March), in Duperrey, Voy. ** Coquille’ (6) : p. 21 (Zool. 1 : 645), for which Lesson as early as June 1828 (Manuel d’Ornith. 2 : 67) substituted Myzantha flaviventer as a new name. In order to avoid future confusion it is therefore urged that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name chrysotis Latham, 1801, as published in the binomen Certhia chrysotis, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (2) place the above mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. G. C. A. JUNGE, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden. A. H. MILLER, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. F. SALOMONSEN (Chairman), Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen. E. STRESEMANN, Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin. Appendix This application was originally submitted in 1958 by the then Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature in an application which also asked suppression of a number of other names. The proposal was read to the session on nomenclature of the XIIth. International Ornithological Congress held in Helsinki in 1958, and no objection was made by any of the assembled orni- thologists. For reasons not pertinent to this application, the paper of which it was part was withdrawn. Since the previous Standing Committee approved the application without objection from the Ornithological Congress, the present Standing Committee resubmits it. CHARLES VAURIE, The American Museum of Natural History (Chairman S.C.O.N.). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 3. August 1964. A sesh 9 3) 13 AUGI964 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, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientic Assistant: Margaret Doyle, 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) Page Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the XVI International Congress of Zoology, Washington, 1963... 162 Gender of generic names ending in -ops (A. do Amaral: C. W. Sabrosky; J. Griffin) ; 212 Decisions Opinion 704 (Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846) ... se fa ges fe Opinion 705 (Blissus Burmeister, 1835)... BA wie ae ie nal OS Opinion 706 (Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862)... Me - a sighs WROD Opinion 707 (Asterias nodosa Linnaeus, 1758) _ ... ae ose soo by SEO Opinion 708 (Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801)... ae ae be 5554 Opinion 709 (Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843) ... : a Sas ae 210 New Cases Lingula Bruguiére, [ 1797] (Brachiopoda): Proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers (A. J. Rowell) ide sg mae pt Ce Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime 1850,(Hydrozoa): Proposed validation under the plenary powers (H. Boschma) aN ie = Aue pean Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949 (Nematoda): Proposed rejec- tion of a neotype specimen (A. C. Tarjan & A. Morgan Golden) ... 226 Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1767 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Proposed valida- tion of a neotype selection under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis) 227 Purpura, Ocenebra, and Muricanthus (Gastropoda): Request for clarifica- tion of status (A. Myra Keen) as eS oot oe io Ba Certhia chrysotis Latham, 1801 (Aves): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature) oat ae vii 483 ae 240 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Page Concurrence with P. J. P. Whitehead in proposal to suppress Atherina japonica Houttuyn, 1782, as a nomen dubium (Carl L. Hubbs) ... 186 Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers in connection with certain names of Tanager (Alexander Wetmore, Robert W. Storer, Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature) cats wea | Comment on the proposed suppression of the name Pleuronectes grohmanni Bonaparte, 1837 (Enrico Tortonese) a pee nay foe Comments on Thamnophis sirtalis (Hobart M. Smith; Ernst Mayr) ... 189 Comments on the proposed validation of Psylla Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta Hemiptera) (R. E. Balch, G. R. Underwood & I. W. Liat Ds Fr, Schremmer; W. Wurmbach, G. Lampel) ie 5 (i. ee Comment on the proposed designation of a i aaa for Dacslopusia Norman, 1903 (Per Brinck) ate Le 193 Comments on the a a validation of Bordinayin Banks, 1905 (Elis G. MacLeod; D. E. Kimmins; W. Eglin) ee ae 193 Objections to the proposed validation under plenary powers ofa a parr for Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1767 (Gordon Gunter; Robert M. Ingle) 229 A second edition of THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ADOPTED BY THE XV INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY was published in May 1964 This edition includes the amendments made by the XVI International Congress of Zoology. Bound copies, price £1 Os. Od. each, post free, can be obtained on application to the PUBLICATIONS OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 14 BELGRAVE SQUARE, LONDON, S.W.1. Applications should be accompanied by the appropriate remittance © 1963. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Volume 21. Part 4. 16th October, 1964 pp. 241-320, 2 plates 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: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature fs ree: i pay arek Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 24] (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 ; 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1. 1964 / Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Acting Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cuina (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘“‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954 Dr. Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning LemcueE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ruitey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JACZEwSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OBRUCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) atone Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March eee io ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) ay Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. BorcusEntus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) ae W. > CuIna (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting ecretary Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. Stoit (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. L. B. Hoxtuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (President) Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Riwe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) - \ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 2 Sao Le ae Volume 21, Part 4 (pp. 241-320, 2 plates) 16th October 1964 et OA 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) Suppression of Mus canguru Muller, 1776 et al. and Jaculus giganteus Erxleben, 1777; validation of Macropus major Shaw, 1800 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1584 (2) Designation of a type-species for Curimata Bosc, 1817 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1590 (3) Designation of a neotype for Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 (Cephal- opoda) Z.N.(S.) 1160 (4) Suppression of the specific name Echinus rosaceus Linnaeus, 1758, 1764, 1767 and Gmelin, 1788 and of the generic name Echinanthus Leske, 1778 (Echinoidea) Z.N.(S.) 1616 (5) Suppression of Nana Schumacher, 1817 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1622 (6) Validation of Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1627 (7) Emendation to Astraeus of the generic name Asthraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1628 (8) Validation of Rhyncogonus Sharp, 1885 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1629 (9) Validation of Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933 (Conodont). Z.N.(S.) 1633 (10) Validation of Cnemidophorus septemvittatus Cope, 1892 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1634 (11) Suppression of Procyon brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, and Procyon obscurus Wiegmann, 1837 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1640 c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Acting Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on 11 June 1964 Zoological Nomenclature 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 710 ENHYDRUS LAPORTE, 1834 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Enhydrus MacLeay, 1825, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (b) the work entitled Coleoptera und Lepidoptera. Ein Systematisches Ver- zeichniss, published in 1823 by Georg Dahl, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Enhydrus Laporte, 1834 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Gyrinus sulcatus Wiedemann, 1821 (Name No. 1600); (b) Helochares Mulsant, 1844 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designa- tion by C. G. Thomson, 1859, Dytiscus lividus Forster, 1771 (Name No. 1601). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) sulcatus Wiedemann, 1821, as published in the binomen Gyrinus sulcatus (type-species of Enhydrus Laporte, 1834) (Name No. 1991); (b) lividus Forster, 1771, as published in the binomen Dytiscus lividus (type-species of Helochares Mulsant, 1844) (Name No. 1992). (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) Enhydrus Rafinesque, 1815 (an incorrect spelling for Enhydris Latreille, [1802]) (Name No. 1703); (b) Enhydrus MacLeay, 1825 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No. 1704); (c) Enhydrus Dahl, 1823 (published in a work suppressed under the plenary powers for nomenclatorial purposes) (Name No. 1705); (d) Epinectus Dejean, 1833 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 1706); (e) Helophilus Mulsant, 1844 (a junior homonym of Helophilus Leach, 1817) (Name No. 1707); (f) Helophygas Motschoulsky, 1853 (a junior objective synonym of Helo- chares Mulsant, 1844) (Name No. 1708); (g) Epinectes Régimbart, 1877 (a junior objective synonym of Enhydrus Laporte, 1834) (Name No. 1709); (h) Prothydrus Guignot, 1954 (a junior objective synonym of Enhydrus Laporte, 1834) (Name No. 1710). (5) The family-group name PROTHYDRINAE Guignot, 1954 (type-genus Prothydrus Guignot, 1954) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 404. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 (6) The following entry is hereby made on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number 71: Dahl (G.) 1823. Coleoptera und Lepidoptera. Ein Systematisches Ver- zeichniss. Wien. (suppressed under the plenary powers for nomen- clatorial purposes). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 398) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in July 1960 by Mr. J. Balfour-Browne and Dr. Per Brinck. The application was sent to the printer on 22 September 1960 and published on 14 April 1961 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 137-139. 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 : 5 1-56) and to seven entomological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. Georg Ochs. An objection to the rejection of Dahl’s “ Coleoptera und Lepidop- tera” was recieved from Dr. T. J. Spilman. On December 1, 1961 Voting Paper (61) 38 was issued to Commissioners concerning the proposals of Mr. Balfour-Browne and Dr. Brinck. In the course of voting on the application, Commissioner Holthuis stated that he believed Dahl’s work to be an available publication under the Code, and insisted that it could be rejected only by the use of the plenary powers. A notice to this effect was published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 144 and V.P. (61)38 was cancelled. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers to suppress Dahl’s work of 1823 was given in the latter part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications and to seven entomological serials. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 October 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)31 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 138-139 and 19 : 144 (Paragraph 10(1) on page 138 of volume 18 to be corrected to read: “to use its plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Enhydrus MacLeay, 1825, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy’”’). At the close of the prescribed voting period on 24 January 1964 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-eight (28), received in the following order: China, Hemming, Brinck, Hering, Holthuis, Vokes, Bonnet, Tortonese, Hubbs, Riley, Boschma, Stoll, Lemche, Uchida, Mayr, Simpson, Borchsenius, Miller, do Amaral, Jaczewski, Alvarado, Binder, Forest, Obruchey, Mertens, Kraus, Ride, Evans. Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe Commissioner Sabrosky returned the following comment with his negative vote: “ The solutions offered in the application (as amended) are possibly un- necessary and potentially dangerous, and I ask that the case be re-examined. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ‘**T agree with Holthuis that Dahl (/823) is an available publication. The objection of my colleague, T. J. Spilman, was on the same basis. He assures me that Dahl’s introduction shows that it was intended as a catalogue or check list, as well as a price list (in part). “This being admitted, it is dangerous to suppress the work unless all included new genera have been investigated to see whether suppression would cause any difficulty for them. Suppression of the entire work merely to save Enhydrus Castelnau may be poor economy. Let us not create problems that we know not of. Enhydrus ** There is nothing in the application to suggest that Enhydrus is an important name that would merit action under the plenary powers. Guignot (1954) was perfectly justified under the Rules in renaming a primary homonym, and his action should not be upset without real justification. The Coleopterorum Catalogus, Gyrinidae (1910) listed only four species of Enhydrus in the world, all Neotropical, and Blackwelder (1944), in cataloguing Neotropical Coleoptera, likewise lists only four species. Does this small number justify plenary action? I doubt it. ** The application contained no information as to whether a type-species has ever been selected for Enhydrus Dahl. Or if so, what is it and how does it complicate the picture, or does it? If not, can one be chosen among the many originally included species so that Enhydrus Dahl would be a synonym of some older name? It would probably be desirable, because of confusion in the aquatic Coleoptera between Gyrinidae and Hydrophilidae, for the name to disappear completely. *‘ Incidentally, MacLeay’s Enhydrus should not be suppressed under the plenary powers. If Dahl’s paper is accepted as an available publication, the MacLeay’s Enhydrus is just what MacLeay said it was, merely a later use of Enhydrus Dahl (ex Megerle).” Secretary’s Note: During the course of preparation of this Opinion it was discovered that the family-group Name ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882, proposed by the applicants for addition to the Official List is a homonym of ENHYDRINAE Gray, 1825, already placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in Direc- tion 53. The latter name is based on the mammal genus Enhydra Fleming, 1822. The question of a substitute for ENHYDRINI Régimbart will be dealt with in another application to the Commission. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Enhydrus Dahl, 1823, Col. u. Lepid.: 34 Enhydrus Laporte, 1834, Etud. Ent. (2): 110 Enhydrus MacLeay, 1825, Annul. Jav. 1 : 35 Enhydrus Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature: 77 Epinictes Régimbart, 1877, Ann. Soc. ent. France (5) 7 : 105 Epinectus Dejean, 1833, Cat. Coléopt. (ed. 2): 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 Helochares Mulsant, 1844, Palp.: Errata et Addenda to page 132 Helophilus Mulsant, 1844, Palp.: 132 Helophygas Motschoulsky, 1853, Hydrocan. Russ.: 11 lividus, Dytiscus, Forster, 1771, Nov. Spec. Ins.: 52 PROTHYDRINAE Guignot, 1954, Bull. Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 90 : 45 Prothydrus Guignot, 1954, Bull. Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 90 : 45 sulcatus, Gyrinus, Wiedemann, 1821, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 4 : 119 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: -For Helochares Mulsant, 1844: C. G. Thomson, 1859, Skand. Coleopt. 1 : 18. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)31 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in that Voting Paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 710. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 2 March 1964 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 711 CULEX AEGYPTI LINNAEUS, 1762 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): VALIDATED AND INTERPRETED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as published in the binomen Culex aegypti is hereby validated; (b) it is hereby directed that the nominal species Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, be interpreted by reference to the neotype specimen described by Mattingly, Stone and Knight, 1962. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified ; (a) aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as published in the binomen Culex aegypti, and as interpreted under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name No. 1993); (b) caspius Pallas, 1771, as published in the binomen Culex caspius (Name No. 1994). (3) The generic name Stegomyia* Theobald, 1901 (gender: feminine), type- species, by designation by Neveu-Lemaire, 1902, Culex fasciatus Fabricius, 1805, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1602. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1216) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission in April 1957, though it was not until January 1961 that an agreed application was submitted by Dr. P. F. Mattingly, Dr. Alan Stone and Dr. Kenneth L. Knight. This application was sent to the printer on 31 January 1963 and was published on the 16 July 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 208-219. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to seven entomological serials. The application was supported by Prof. D. S. Bertram, Dr. J. R. Busvine, Dr. B. R. Laurence, Dr. M. G. R. Varma, Dr. G. A. H. McClelland, Dr. W. E. Macdonald, Mr. P. K. Rajagopalan, Dr. Elizabeth N. Marks, Dr. J. Haman, Dr. A. J. Haddon and Dr. E. C. C. van Someren. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 October 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)33 either for or against the * Tt has been suggested that those unfamiliar with nomenclatural procedure may form the impression that the above declaration prejudices the use of the name aegypti in such combina- tions as Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) or Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus). This is not the case. It remains perfectly proper to employ the name in these combinations or any others that further taxonomic study may render desirable. P. F. Mattingly. Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4, October 1964, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 211-212. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 24 January 1964 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-eight (28), received in the following order: China, Hemming, Brinck, Hering, Holthuis, Vokes, Bonnet, Mayr, Tortonese, Hubbs, Riley, Boschma, Stoll, Lemche, Uchida, Simpson, Jaczewski, Borch- senius, Miller, do Amaral, Alvarado, Forest, Binder, Mertens, Kraus, Ride, Sabrosky, Evans. Negative votes—one (1): Obruchev. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Mr. Francis Hemming (29.x.63): I welcome the settlement proposed for this important and long-standing case. I feel sure that the best method of securing a uniform interpretation is by the establishment of a neotype, as proposed. I think however that in the formal designation of the neotype the species bearing the name aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, should be cited in the original combination Culex aegypti (the combination in which on page 211 it is proposed that this specific name should be placed on the Official List) and not in the combination “* Aedes aegypti” under which it is subjectively cited in Annexe 1 on page 212. Moreover, the course suggested above would harmonise the description (: 212) with the title given (: 214) for this taxon in the explanation of the figures of the neotype. Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (18.xi.63): My vote “‘ for ” is in principle, but with some reservation. In such situations, where it is probable or certain that the first author did not apply the name in the modern sense, I’d much prefer to have his use suppressed by plenary power and to have the species attributed to a more recent author and date. Prof. Dr. A. do Amaral (3.1.64): As a medical zoologist I think this is a very happy and timely solution for an immensely confusing case. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: aegypti, Culex, Linnaeus, 1762, Reise nach Paldstina: 470 caspius, Culex, Pallas, 1771, Reise Prov. Russl. 1 : 475 Stegomyia Theobald, 1901, in Howard, Mosquitoes: fig. 1, page 127. The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Stegomyia Theobald, 1901: Neveu-Lemaire, 1902, Mém. Soc. zool. France 12: 212; The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a species concerned in the present Ruling: For Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762: Mattingly, Stone & Knight, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 ; 212-219, pl. 5, text-figs. 1-5, 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)33 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained 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. 711. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 March 1964 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED STABILIZATION OF MACPROPUS SHAW, 1790. (Z.N. (S.) 1584) (See volume 20, pages 376-379) By T. H. Kirkpatrick (Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane) and J. T. Woods (Queensland Museum, Brisbane) The stabilization of the generic name Macropus Shaw, 1790 (The Naturalists’ Miscellany, Pl. 33 and text), because of its particular and long-standing application to the Grey Kangaroo, is desirable, but to achieve this an alternative to the synonymy of its type species, Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790 (loc. cit.), with Mus canguru Statius Miiller, 1776 (Des Ritters C. von Linné . . . Supplementsband : 62, Niirnberg) is pro- posed. This is necessitated by a suggested alternative identification of the holotype of Mus canguru. As Calaby, Mack and Ride (1962, Mem. Qd. Mus. 14 : 25-31) have pointed out, the holotype of Mus canguru is the 38 pound specimen obtained by Cook’s party, in the collection recorded by Hawkesworth (1773, An account of the voyage... in the Southern Hemisphere... by... Captain Cook 3). The results of Kirkpatrick (in press, Qd. J. Agric. Sci. 20) on the correlation of stages of dental eruption with weights of large macropodids indicate that a Grey Kangaroo, with a cranium such as the Hunterian specimen described by Owen (1853, Descriptive Catalogue of the Osteo- logical Series... Museum... Royal College of Surgeons of England 1 : 322) and figured by Morrison-Scott and Sawyer (1950, Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. 1 : plate 5) would normally weigh 72 + 9 pounds, with an observed range of 72 + 20 pounds. On this basis, it is suggested that this cranium did not belong to the holotype. On the other hand, if the lower cheek-teeth of the skull of the Grey Wallaroo depicted in Nathaniel Dance’s drawing, reproduced by Morrison-Scott and Sawyer (1950, plate 4) are interpreted, as has been done by Kirkpatrick (Joc. cit.) as P; dPs Mi M2, and not P, M, M: M; (by analogy with the designation of the upper cheek-teeth by Calaby et al. (Joc. cit.)), then the animal on this basis would normally have weighed 40 + 7 pounds. It is therefore considered more probable that the Wallaroo skull drawn by Dance belonged to the holotype of Mus canguru, and the Hunterian cranium to the 84 pound animal mentioned in the account of Hawkesworth (Joc. cit.). It might be pertinent to add that a Grey Wallaroo with cheek-teeth as assigned by Calaby et al. (loc. cit.) would normally weigh 61 + 7 pounds. This interpretation of the stage of dental eruption, indicated in Dance’s drawing of the Grey Wallaroo skull, is based on the shape of the premolar and its size relative to the first molariform tooth, the lack of wear on the lower incisors, and the relative depth of the ramus. Unpublished work (R. H. Kirkpatrick) indicates the exposure of cementum on the root of I? is not unusual in prepared skulls of young macropodids with fully erupted incisors. Similarly the portrayed development of the supraorbital Bees, is not considered anomolous for a young male Grey Wallaroo of weight 38 pounds. It is conceded that the obvious imperfections in Dance’s drawing weaken any detailed argument on many of the characters depicted. We would therefore submit to the Commission that: 1. With reference to our interpretation of the original usage of the name Mus canguru Statius Miiller, 1776, for the Grey Wallaroo it would be more desira- able to designate as the neotype a young Grey Wallaroo from the Cooktown area. We nominate the Queensland Museum specimen J.10734, a young male of weight 20 pounds. Jaculus giganteus Erxleben, 1777 (Syst. Régn. Anim. : 409) is to be maintained as an objective synonym of Mus canguru. 2. To conserve the generic name Macropus for the Grey Kangaroo, it will be neces- sary then to designate a Grey Kangaroo as the lectotype of Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790. Among the original syntypic material, the Hunterian specimen figured by Morrison-Scott and Sawyer (/oc. cit.) is available for this purpose, and for a neotype, since the above specimen has been destroyed, Queens- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature land Museum specimen, J.10749, from the Cookstown area, figured by Calaby et al. (1962, pls. 5-7) is designated. 3. As the generic distinction between the Grey Kangaroo and Grey Wallaroo is supported by us, the question of homonymy between Jaculus giganteus Erxleben, 1777, and Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790, is held not to arise. We support the request for a ruling, but now ask the Commission to: (1) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) canguru Statius Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Mus canguru, as defined by our neotype designated in paragraph 1 above. (6) giganteus Shaw, 1790, as published in the binomen Macropus giganteus, as defined by our neotype designated in paragraph 2 above. (2) place the generic name Macropus Shaw, 1790 (gender : masculine), type species, by monotypy, Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) I am frankly puzzled about the recommendation 2(b) in this application. On page 379 the Commission is requested to place the name major Shaw, 1800, on the Official List, and yet in paragraph 7, on page 377, it states that this same name major is an objective synonym of Mus canguru. I do feel that this should be clarified before the Commission can vote on this request. By Henning Lemche (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) It is stated by the applicants that the name Macropus giganteus Shaw is universally accepted as a junior synonym of Mus canguru Statius Miiller—but also that there is no agreement on the applicability of the name Mus canguru. How can a synonymisation be made without knowing what one of the names involved stands for? Also, if I read the application correctly, the much misunderstood name Mus canguru Statius Miiller-—apparently a nomen dubium—is now asked to be validated through a neotype selection so that it can be substituted for the well-known name Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790, type by monotypy of Macropus Shaw, 1790. Why is it that the Commission is asked to reintroduce the specific name canguru Statius Miiller? Is it generally accepted now? : By W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth) 1. (a) Replying to Commissioner Lemche’s query Mus canguru Statius. Miller and Jaculus giganteus Erxleben are objective synonyms (the latter being a replacement name for the former), as are Macropus giganteus Shaw and Macropus major Shaw (for the same reason). M.giganteus and M. canguru are also objective synonyms through the selection of the holotype of M. canguru Statius Miiller as the lectotype of M.giganteus Shaw (Ride, J. Roy. Soc. W. Aust. 1963, p. 126). (b) Our proposal (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20, pt. 5, p. 376) was based on the belief that the animal species described by Statius Miiller as Mus canguru is the Grey Kangaroo and, since its junior objective synonym M. giganteus Shaw is the type species of Macropus, it attempts to achieve stability through selecting an undoubted Grey Kangaroo, collected at the type locality, as its neotype. 2. (a) With regard to the proposal of Kirkpatrick and Woods, Kirkpatrick’s work suggests that it is even more likely that the species originally described as Mus canguru is a Grey Wallaroo (or Hill Kangaroo). The name Macro- pus (or Osphranter) robustus Gould, 1841, has been used invariably for this species. (b) There are two reasons as to why I cannot agree with their solution to the problem. The first is that it upsets the very stable name robustus (see 5 and 6 below); and the second is that whether Kirkpatrick and Woods 3. 6. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 support the generic distinction between Macropus and Osphranter or not, the names Jaculus giganteus Erxleben and Macropus giganteus Shaw are secondary homonyms through their publication as subjective synonyms of Macropus giganteus Zimmerman prior to 1960 (Thomas 1888, p. 15 and other authors) and must be rejected permanently (Art. 59). It would now seem that the Commission has three alternatives if it is to retain Macropus for the Grey Kangaroo. (a) To proceed in an arbitrary fashion to recognize a specimen of the Grey Kangaroo as the neotype of Mus canguru (the original proposal of Calaby, Mack & Ride). (b) To use the plenary powers to set aside the designation by Ride of a lecto- type for Macropus giganteus Shaw in favour of the lectotype and neo- types proposed by Kirkpatrick and Woods, and declare that the citation (by Thomas 1888, p. 15, and other authors) of the names Jaculus giganteus Erxleben (or other usages of gigantaeus) and Macropus giganteus Shaw in synonymy under the generic name Macropus does not result in secondary homonymy between them. (This achieves the result desired by Kirkpatrick and Woods). (c) To use the plenary powers to set aside M. canguru Statius Miiller and J. giganteus Erxlegen and nominate as the neotype of Macropus giganteus Shaw an undoubted specimen of a Grey Kangaroo. Kirkpatrick & Woods and ourselves are agreed that if a Grey Kangaroo is to be used as a neotype, it should be the specimen nominated by Calaby, Mack & Ride (1962, Mem. Qd. Mus. 14 : 25-31). Although the proposals (in 4 above) all result in stability for Macropus, they are not identical in their effect upon the species names. The results of their application would be (a) The Grey Kangaroo would be Macropus canguru Statius Miiller; the Grey Wallaroo would be Osphranter (or Macropus) robustus Gould; (b) The Grey Kangaroo would be Macropus giganteus Shaw; the Grey Walla- roo would be Osphranter (or Macropus) canguru Statius Miiller; (c) The Grey Kangaroo would be Macropus giganteus Shaw; the Grey Wallaroo would be Osphranter (or Macropus) robustus Gould. So that the Commission may decide between these on grounds of usage, I have examined the relevant literature and present an analysis below. Since the Whiptail Wallaby is involved in the case as originally presented (Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 20 pp. 376-379) it is included here. Publications Since Grey Whiptail Grey 1888 A. Kangaroo" Wallaby Wallaroo Purely Taxonomic Works Thomas 1888-1909 giganteus parryi robustus Cat. Marsup. in B.M.(N.H.) and papers Spencer 1896 giganteus —- robustus Horn Expedition Bensley 1902 giganteus parryi robustus Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. Cabrera 1919 giganteus parryi robustus Genera Mammalium 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Publications Since Grey Whiptail Grey 1888 Kangaroo Wallaby Wallaroo 5 Simpson 1930 giganteus parryi robustus Post Mesozoic Mammalia. Foss. Catalogus. 6 Finlayson giganteus parryi robustus 1931-1964 papers 7 Glauert 1933 giganteus a robustus J. roy. Soc. W. Aust. 8 Iredale & major elegans* robustus Troughton 1934 Checklist Aust. Mammalia 9 Troughton major canguru robustus Post 1937 papers 10 Raven 1935-1946 giganteus parryi robustus papers 11 Tate 1948 canguru parryi robustus Macropodidae Bull. Amer. M. Nat. Hist. 12 Morrison-Scott canguru parryi robustus & Sawyer 1950 13. Ride 1957-1964 canguru parryi robustus papers B. Regional and Popular Works 1 Lydekker 1894 giganteus parryi robustus Marsupials: Handbook 2 Lucas & giganteus parryi robustus Le Souef 1909 Animals of Australia 3 Scott & Lord giganteus —— —— 1924 Vertebrates of Tasmania * Prior to 1888 elegans was used in the combination Macropus elegans for more than one species of wallaby. There are: M. elegans Lambert 1807, a nomen dubium which is dismissed as such by all authors since 1888 except Iredale & Troughton who ascribe it to the Whiptail. Recently Troughton has used it for southern populations of the Whiptail (he uses canguru for its northern populations). M. elegans Cuvier 1817, a junior homonym of M. elegans Lambert and a synonym of Kangurus fasciatus Peron & Lesueur, 1807, the banded hare-wallaby. According to Thomas 1888, p. 33, elegans has also been used in combination with Halma- shat = eon synonym of Macropus) for the Eastern Brush Wallaby by Gray 1841 and errard 1862. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 Publications Since Grey Whiptail Grey 1888 Kangaroo Wallaby Wallaroo 4 Wood Jones 1924 giganteus robustus Mammals of South Australia 5 Le Souef, giganteus parryi robustus Burrell & Troughton Wild Animals of Australasia 6 Troughton 1941 major canguru robustus Furred Animals of Australia 7 Carter, Hill & major ——_—_. — Tate 1945 Mammals of the Pacific World 8 Guiler 1960 giganteus ——_ ———_ Marsupials of Tasmania 9 Marlow 1962 major parryi robustus Marsupials of Australia 10 Burton 1962 major ——_ ——_. Syst. Dict. Mammals @} Student texts, etc. 1 Cambridge Nat. both —. ——_ Hist. 1902 giganteus and major 2 Grassé et al. canguru —__— robustus Traité de Zoo!. 1945 3 Haltenorth in gigantea canguru robustus Kikenthal Handbuch der Zool. 1958 4 Parker & canguru —- —— Haswell, Textbook of Zool. 1962 Te Conclusions: (a) Prior to 1934 giganteus, parryi and robustus were universally and uniformly applied. Since that time, canguru has been applied both to the Grey Kangaroo and the Whiptail (and now by Kirkpatrick and Woods to the Grey Wallaroo). (b) robustus is completely unambiguous having been continuously applied to no animal but the Grey Wallaroo from 1888 to the present. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) giganteus and major are unambiguous having been applied to no animal but the Grey Kangaroo. Of these giganteus has been most used. (d) parryi and elegans are unambiguous in the literature since 1888 having been applied to no other animal but the Whiptail Wallaby. Of these parryi has been used by all but one author and prior to 1888 e/egans has been used in an ambiguous fashion. 8. Accordingly, I now submit a revised application in the name of Calaby and myself* requesting the Commission to: (1) Use the plenary powers to set aside: (a) for the purposes of Priority but not Homonymy M. canguru Statius Miiller 1776 and all usages of canguru (and its various spellings kangaru, kanguro, kanguru, caenguru, cangaru, cangura) in the combinations Mus, Yerboa, Jaculus, Zerbua, Didelphis, Didelphys, and Macropus. (b) for the purposes of both Priority and Homonymy Jaculus giganteus Erxleben 1777 and all usages of giganteus in the combinations Yerboa, Jaculus, Didelphis, and Didelphys prior to 1790. (c) and place all theabove names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid species-group names in Zoology. (2) Place the generic name Macropus Shaw, 1790 (gender : masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) Place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: giganteus Shaw 1790 as published in the binomen Macropus giganteus as defined by a neotype, i.e., the specimen nominated as the neotype of Mus canguru Statius Miiller in Calaby, Mack & Ride (1962, Mem. Qd. Mus. 14 : 25-31, pls. V-VIII). Macropus major Shaw, 1800 9. (a) Regarding the enquiry from Commissioner Mayr on our request to have major preserved for use for the Grey Kangaroo of the Sydney District, a brief explanation was included in our original submission but an editorial reshuffle inadvertently led to its omission. We stated that Macropus major Shaw 1800 is in current use for the New South Wales subspecies of the Grey Kangaroo and has been so used for 25 years and we requested the Commission to preserve it for this reason. We should have included a request for the use of the plenary powers here but omitted to do so. (b) The history of this case is that Iredale & Troughton’s 1934 action in making canguru and giganteus nomina dubia (and subsequently applying them to the Whiptail) led them also to use major (actually an objective synonym of Macropus giganteus Shaw) for the Grey Kangaroo. To this they applied a type locality of Sydney, New South Wales. This has been followed by most authors: some even using it in a subspecific sense for the Grey Kangaroo of the Sydney District in combination with canguru (e.g. Tate 1948, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.) or with giganteus (e.g. Haltenorth in Kiikenthal Handbuch der Zool. 1958). We consider it desirable that this usage should be maintained. 10. Accordingly we recommend (as a separate issue from that concerning M. canguru and M. giganteus above) that the Commission: * Mr. George Mack died on 24th October, 1963. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 (a) use its plenary powers. to declare that M. giganteus Shaw and M. major Shaw are not objective synonyms and may have separate type localities and type specimens. (b) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name major Shaw, 1800, as published in the binomen Macropus major (type locality Sydney, New South Wales, as restricted by Iredale & Troughton 1934, and supported by Tate 1948). 11. We request that the action set out in 8 and 10 above should replace Section 15 of our former application. It will be noted that mention of the Family-Group Name MACROPODIDAE has been deleted. This will form the subject of a separate application respecting all family-group names in PHALANGEROIDEA. By E. Le G. Troughton and Donald F. McMichael (The Australian Museum, Sydney). The proposals of Calaby, Mack and Ride are claimed to bring stability to the nomenclature of the eastern Australian Kangaroos. In support of these proposals certain claims are made and certain actions proposed which, in our opinion, are not upheld by the facts of the case, and in some cases are not in conformity with the Articles and Recommendations of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. In- deed, one of the contributing factors to the complexity of the case is largely the result of the action of Ride (1963) which unnecessarily links the generic name Macropus to the specific name canguru Miiller, and we propose alternative actions which will yield results more in keeping with the current taxonomic position and which, at the same time, are in conformity with the actual taxa originally described by the early workers. There are two quite separate matters to be determined. These are: (A) The type species of the nominal genus Macropus Shaw, 1790, and the identity of that species. (B) The identity of Mus canguru Statius Miiller, 1776 (Captain Cook’s Kangaroo). (a) The type species of the nominal genus Macropus Shaw, 1790, and the identity of that species The genus Macropus Shaw, 1790 (which, along with the specific name M. giganteus should probably be attributed to Shaw and Nodder, since the two names appear jointly on the title page and there is no evidence in the work that Shaw alone was responsible for both the names and the conditions which make them available) is unquestionably based on only one nominal species, viz. Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790, as Calaby, Mack and Ride claim (1963, p. 377, par. 6). This species is therefore the type species of Macropus by monotypy. However, it is clear from the original work that Shaw’s species giganteus is a composite, which included all macropods known at the time from eastern Australia. Among these were the Great Grey Kangaroo, clearly illustrated in the plate accompanying Shaw’s first use of the name, and also all the animals seen by Captain Cook’s party. We believe that Ride’s action (1963, p. 126) in selecting as lectotype of Macropus giganteus Shaw “ the holotype of Mus canguru Statius Miiller ”’ complicated the matter, because it unnecessarily linked the generic name Macropus Shaw with the identity of Captain Cook’s Kangaroo, and furthermore his action is not in conformity with Recommendation 74A of the International Code, since: (a) There has, for more than 25 years, been controversy as to the identity of Mus canguru, and even though its holotype was undoubtedly one of the syntypes of M. giganteus and thus available for selection, it does not now exist and it is not known that it was ever illustrated. (b) The name giganteus Shaw and its replacement name major Shaw, 1800, have always been applied to the Great Grey Kangaroo,so that in order to “ preserve stability of nomenclature ”’ a syntype which is undoubtedly a Great Grey Kangaroo should have been chosen by Ride as lectotype. Such a syntype was available, viz. the specimen figured by Shaw (1790, pl. 33). 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature An added reason why this should have been chosen as lectotype is the fact that it is the specimen which Shaw was actually describing. This is born out only by the title of the work, “‘ The Naturalist’s Miscellany, or Coloured Figures of Natural Objects, Drawn and Described from Nature’. (Our italics). This specimen is unquestionably a Great Grey Kangaroo, and must have been drawn from a living specimen obtained at the recently established colony at Port Jackson (Sydney). Numbers of living specimens of the Great Grey Kangaroo were returned to England very soon after settlement as the records prove. We therefore ask the International Commission: (a) To set aside Ride’s selection of the ‘‘ holotype of Mus canguru S. Miiller ’’ as the lectotype of Macropus giganteus Shaw. (b) To designate instead the specimen figured by Shaw (1790, pl. 33) as the lectotype of Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790, for the reasons stated above. If this is done, the specific name giganteus Shaw, 1790, will be available for the Great Grey Kangaroo and Macropus major Shaw, 1800, will be an available, junior objective synonym of M. giganteus Shaw. If it is felt, that in the interests of stability, the name Macropus major should be retained for the Great Grey Kangaroo (since it has been in use since 1934) then the name Macropus giganteus Shaw should be suppressed by the Commission in favour of M. major Shaw, its junior objective synonym. In view of the fact that the name giganteus is also involved in the synonymy of Mus canguru, though in a different combination and with different authorship, the latter course is the one we recommend. (b) The identity of Mus Canguru Statius Miller, 1776, Captain Cook’s Kangaroo Calaby, Mack and Ride (1963, p.376, par. 1) claim that Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790, is universally accepted as a junior synonym of Mus cangaru Miiller. This we emphatically deny, as is quite clear from the fact that the name was specifically excluded from the strict synonymy of Captain Cook’s Kangaroo in Iredale and Troughton’s Checklist (1934, p. 55) because the description was obviously a composite, and the name was not listed in the synonymy of Wallabia canguru (Miller) by Iredale and Troughton (1937, p. 70). The identity of Mus canguru Miiller (of which there can be no doubt that Jaculus giganteus Erxleben and Didelphys gigantea Schreber are synonyms, but neither of which preoccupy Macropus giganteus Shaw) has been the subject of extensive discussion in literature. The arguments of Iredale and Troughton are con- tained in their papers on the subject (1925, 1937 and 1962). We submit that these papers clearly establish that the 381b. animal shot by Cook’s party, which is undoubtedly the holotype of Mus canguru Miller, was in fact a Whiptail Wallaby, of which a manu- script description was written at the time by Solander and which was published by Iredale and Troughton in 1925. We consider that Calaby, Mack and Ride’s conten- tion that the holotype was a Great Grey Kangaroo has been completely refuted by Iredale and Troughton’s evidence. In order to stabilise the nomenclature of this group of animals in accordance with the facts of the case as set out by Iredale and Troughton in their papers, we submit the following comments for consideration by the Commission. We oppose the designation of the Queensland and Museum specimen No. J.10749 as Neotype of Mus canguru Miiller on the grounds that its selection does not conform with Article 75 (c) of the Code, in particular, with paragraphs 4 and 5. These state that a Neotype is validly designated only when it is published with . . . evidence that the neotype is consistent with what is known of the original type-material, from its description and from other sources .. . evidence that the neotype came as nearly as practicable from the original type-locality. It is clear from the papers of Iredale and Troughton that there are compelling rea- sons to believe that a Great Grey Kangaroo is not consistent with what is known of the original type material. Ina previous publication Calaby, Mack and Ride (1962, p. 30) stated that they proposed to ask “‘ that the specimen [whose skull was] given by Sir Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 Joseph Banks to John Hunter and became No. 3703 in the collections of the Royal College of Surgeons ” be declared to be the holotype of Mus canguru Miiller. This was in fact not done in their subsequent application to the International Commission, but it is clear that their selection of Queensland Museum specimen No. J.10749 as proposed neotype is based on the fact that it is a Great Grey Kangaroo of roughly equal age to the Banks/Hunter skull (which is known to have been destroyed). In view of the importance which has been placed on this skull, we wish to present the follow- ing evidence which we believe throws so much doubt on its authenticity as to make it worthless in evidence. (a) The photograph of the skull of a Great Grey Kangaroo (No. 1732 in Owen’s Catalogue of the Royal College of Surgeons Ostelogical Series) published by Morrison- Scott and Sawyer (1950, pl. 5) proves it to represent a mismatched cranium and man- dible, showing that at least two skulls of similar size were available at the time of cataloguing, thus casting doubt on the authenticity of either part. Subsequent numbering of the cranial part (No. 3703) shown in the photograph does not confirm its authenticity since the renumbering took place at the time Flower’s R.C.S. Catalogue (1884) was prepared some 30 years later. (b) No statement as to the actual origin of this Hunterian skull is extant in either Banks’ or Hunter’s handwriting. This view is reinforced by Banks’ statement in a letter to the Comte de Lauraguais in 1771 (Mitchell Library MS, Beaglehole, 1962, pp. 328-329) that “‘ I have put all the Papers relative to ye adventure of it into y* hands of Dr. Hawkersworth [sic] who I doubt not will do justice to ye work ...”. It seems incredible that Banks, aware of Solander’s description of the original specimen, should fail either to mention it or tender any relevant parts in his possession, thus leaving Hawkesworth solely dependent upon his Narrative and the Parkinson drawings for the descriptive matter upon which Mus canguru S. Miiller is indubitably based. What positive evidence is there regarding the origin of the Hunterian skull (Owen’s Catalogue No. 1732). None whatever. The only link between this skull and that which Hunter (in White, 1790) said he was “‘ favoured with ” by Sir Joseph Banks, is the footnote in Owen’s edition of the Hunter papers (1861, p. 250). This specimen may have been the one referred to by Hunter or it may not. We have only Owen’s indica- tion to rely on, without original labels or other verifiable evidence. (c) Even if it were the skull referred to by Hunter, there is no proof that it came from Cook’s voyages. Hunter (in White) simply states in reference to the Kangaroo that “the only parts at first brought home were some skins and skulls’. What he meant by the phrase “ at first brought home ” is obviously debatable, but it could easily and with good reason be interpreted as meaning brought to England after the settlement at Port Jackson. That skins and skulls were sent to England soon after settlement is clearly established from the published Historical Records of New South Wales, where it is shown that numerous specimens (alive and dead) were sent home prior to 1790. Among these were two specimens shipped to Sir Joseph Banks on the “ Golden Grove ”’ in November, 1788 (Historical Records, vol. 1, pt. 2., p. 221) Another fourteen kangaroo specimens, as noted in a memo to Mr. Nepean from the Home Department, reached England in the ““Golden Grove” by November, 1779, (Hist. Records, p. 283) and we know that the French Botanist, Broussonet acknowledged receipt of a kangaroo from Banks as early as July, 1789 (Dawson, 1958, p. 166). Iredale & Troughton have demonstrated that certain major diagnostic characters of the holotype of Mus canguru Miiller are in direct contrast with those of the Great Grey Kangaroo, as evidenced in Solander’s MLS. field description which can legitimately be used as evidence on the diagnostic characters of the Holotype by virtue of Article 75 (c) par. 4., which admits the use of “* other sources ”’ apart from the original descrip- tion. Characters conforming with the identity of the Holotype as a Whiptail Wallaby, in contrast with those of a Great Grey Kangaroo, as already stressed by Iredale & Troughton, are: (a) The rhinarium (or muzzle) according to Solander’s description (as accepted by Raven et al.) was “ bare between the nostrils and the skin covered with very black fine wrinkles ”, a characteristic of the Whiptail Wallaby. In the Great 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Grey, the rostral fur extends down over the muzzle to the philtrum-base so that the rhinarium is closely haired between the nostril rims, a character diagnostic of all members of the Great Grey group. (b) Analysis of Solander’s description of the dentition indicates that the 3rd upper incisor was simply bilobate as in the wallaby. Alternatively, the description does not establish the presence of the anterior “ double-ridge ” on the outer surface of the 3rd incisor, which distinguishes the Great Grey absolutely from all other macropods. (c) The original comparisons of the ‘“‘ slender made ” kangaroo with a greyhound is indicative of the body and tail proportions of a Whiptail Wallaby, rather than those of even a sub-adult Great Grey, while the maximum weight (38 lb.) of the Holotype is within the range of 32-49 lb., recorded for the Whiptail Wallaby. (d) The evenly cylindrical form of the tail, as shown in the Parkinson sketches (Morrison-Scott & Sawyer) and the Hawkesworth figure (basis of the Miiller illustration), conforms to the ‘‘ whip-like ” tail of the wallaby in contrast with the heavily-based and relatively shorter tail of the Great Grey. (See Raven, 1939, Figs. 1-3). (e) The original descriptions of the general colour as “ashy to mouse-grey ”’ conforms with both northern and southern specimens of the Whiptail Wallaby, rather than the grey-brown of the Great Grey. Absence of the Whiptail facial markings in the Hawkesworth figure has no diagnostic significance since there is also no sign of the blackish haired apical third of the tail characteristic of the Great Grey (see Raven, 1939, fig. 3). Iredale & Troughton (1962, pp. 180-181) have also detailed reasons why they con- sider that a Great Grey Kangaroo is not acceptable as Neotype on the grounds that such an animal could not have come “ as nearly as practicable from the original type locality ”’. Briefly this is that, although the Great Grey has in recent years extended its range as the result of clearing of land for grazing, and thus has been collected south of the Endeavour River, it has not been recorded or taken closer than 22 miles from the River. There is no proof at all that it ever lived within the restricted area near Cook’s landing place, bounded by the Endeavour River, where the Holotype was shot by 2nd Lieutenant Gore, on a day’s outing from the ship, on July 14th, 1770. (Beaglehole, 1962, pp. 93-94). Therefore, as an alternative to Calaby, Mack and Ride’s proposals to confirm their selection of a Neotype from a locality beyond the immediate vicinity of the mouth of the Endeavour River, we wish to submit the following counter proposals which, in our opinion are more compatible with the International Code and with the true identity of Captain Cook’s Kangaroo. We therefore: (a) Ask the Commission to set aside Calaby, Mack, and Ride’s designation (1962, p. 30 : 1963, p. 378) of a Neotype of Mus canguru Miller. (b) Ask the Commission to accept instead as Neotype of Mus canguru Miiller a specimen of the Whiptail Wallaby in the Australian Museum, Sydney, registered No. M.4607, which was described by Iredale & Troughton (1937, p. 17) under the name Wallabia canguru (Miller, 1776) from within 12 miles of the town of Cookstown, Queensland. If these proposals are accepted, the valid specific name of the Whiptail Wallaby will be canguru Statius Miiller, 1776. The generic placement of this species has been the subject of discussion in literature, but for the present purpose it is referable to the genus Wallabia Trouessart, 1905. If our proposals in Section A of these submissions are adopted, then the name Macropus major Shaw, 1800, will still be available for the Great Grey Kangaroo, a name which all parties wish to retain. ‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 REFERENCES BEAGLEHOLE, J. C. 1962. The Endeavour Journal of Joseph Banks 1768-1771. Vol. 2, Angus & Robertson and The Public Library of N.S.W., Sydney Cacasy, J. H., G. MAcK and W. D. L. Ripe 1962. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 14 : 25-31, pls. 5-8 — 1963. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 376-379 Dawson, W. R. 1958. The Banks Letters. British Museum (Nat. Hist.) London FLower, W. H. 1884. Catalogue of Specimens...in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Vol. 2. Royal College of Surgeons, London Historical Records of New South Wales. 1892. Vol. 1, Part 2. Phillip 1783-1792. Government Printer, Sydney IREDALE, T., and E. Le G. TROUGHTON 1925. Austr. Zool. 3 : 311-316, pl. 41 — 1934. Mem. Austr. Mus. 6 : 1-122 — 1937. Rec. Austr. Mus. 20 : 67-71 — 1962. Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W. 87 : 177-184, Text figs. 1, 2 Morrison-Scort, T. C. S., and F. C. Sawyer 1950. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Zool. 1 : 44-52, pls. 3-5 MULLER, P. L. S. 1776. Natursystems (Linne). Supplementband: 62, pl. 3, fig. 3 OwEN, R. 1853. Descriptive Catalogue of the Osteological Series—in the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 1, Royal College of Surgeons, London Ripe, W. D. L. 1963. J. Roy. Soc. Western Austr. 46 : 126-128 SHaAw, G. 1800. General Zoology, Vol. 1, pt. 2 SHAW, G., (and F. P. Nopper) 1790. The Naturalist’s Miscellany, or Coloured Figures of Natural Objects; Drawn and Described Immediately from Nature, Vol. 1, pl. 33 and explanation. Nodder & Co., London Wuite, J. 1790. Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, London 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF CURIMATA WALBAUM, 1792. Z.N.(S.) 1590 (see volume 20, pages 390-394) By William R. Taylor (Division of Fishes, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) I wish to call to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that there are additional data that should be considered in acting on the Case ‘“* Curimata Walbaum, 1792 (Pisces): Proposition a l’inscription de ce genre a l’index officiel des noms rejetés’’’. If the decision is made that Curimata Walbaum is a species name rather than a genus name and if Curimatus Oken is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the name of another large group of fishes may be seriously jeopardized. Pertinent uses of the names Curimata and Curimatus, that I have discovered, follow in apparent chronological sequence: (1) Curimata Walbaum, 1792, as “‘ Salmo (Curimata) Marggravii” (already dis- cussed by Géry, Joc. cit.). (2) Curimata Bosc, 1817 (Nouveau Dictionnaire D’ Histoire Naturelle nouv. ed., tom. 9, page 9). The date of publication of this volume was March 1817 according to Sherborn (Index Animalium ed. 2, pt. 1, page xliv, 1922). Bosc’s description follows: *“CURIMATE, Curimata. Sous-genre établi par Cuvier, parmi les Salmones, sous la considération du moindre nombre des rayons branchiaux. Ila pour type le Salmone sans Dents. (B).” A nominal species is not listed; ‘‘ le Salmone sans Dents ” evidently refers to Salmo edentulus Bloch, plate 380 (see Cuvier, Regne Animal ed. 1, vol. 2, page 165, 1817). Salmo edentulus Bloch is also maintained by Géry (p. 390) to be the type species of Curimatus Oken. (3) Curimatus Oken, 1817 Usis oder Encyclopddische Zeitung vol. 1, [section] VIII, [no] 148). The pagination is irregular and not continuous in this portion of volume 1. The name appears in the lower part of the right hand column (Cuvier’s System) of the fifth (not numbered) page of number 148 which is the first page of the addition (zu 148). It is not listed in the column titled ““Okens System.’’ The actual date of publication appears to have been subsequent to April or May 1817 (note signed articles in section VIII, number 136, page 1807, dated May 1817 and number 141, pages 1121-1122, dated 20 April 1817), and probably was in August or later since it is likely that VIII signified the section for the eighth month. The name Curimatus was not accompanied by description, reference to a nominal species, remarks, nor further bibliographic reference. (4) Curimata Cloquet, 1818 (Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles tom. 12, page 240). This publication appeared in December 1818 according to M. Henri Cassini (Opuscles Phytologiques page 147, 1834). Descriptions and synonymies are given for the three included species: Curimata edentulus, Curimata unimacu- latus (equals Characinus curimata Lacepéde equals Salmo unimaculatus Bloch, plate 381, fig. 3), and ‘‘ Curimata Friderici”’. Please note that the synonym Characinus curimata Lacepéde (an absolute synonym of Salmo unimaculatus Bloch) is the type species of Curimata Cloquet, by absolute tautonomy, if Curimata Cloquet is a new name. Curimata Bosc then may have as its type species Salmo unimaculatus Bloch since Bosc did not include nominal species in the subgenus. Salmo unimaculatus is now usually placed in another large genus, Hemiodus Miiller, 1842 (Monatsb. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, page 324) by most workers (see Fowler, Arquivos de Zoologia vol. 6, page 273, 1950, for synonymy). Thus Curimata Bosc, 1817, and Hemiodus Miiller, 1842, may compete as the generic name for a large group of fishes and create further instability. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261 (5) Curimatus Humboldt and Valenciennes, 1821 (Jn A. de Humboldt and A. Bonpland, Recueil d’ Observations de Zoologie et d’ Anatomie Comparée vol. 2, pp. 165-167, dated 1833). The actual publication date of the complete article, Recherches sur les Poissons Fluviatiles de L’ Amerique Equinoxiale, pages 145 to 216 of volume 2, was 1821 as noted in Oken (isis vol. 10, p. 218, 1822) and by Sherborn (Annals and Magazine of Natural History ser. 7, vol. 3, p. 428, 1899). Three species are included in their genus Curimatus: Curimatus amazonum Humboldt, Curimatus taeniurus Valenciennes, and Curimatus edentulus (equals Salmo edentulus Bloch). They appear to be the only ones eligible as the type species of Curimatus Oken. I recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) Table the case, until adequate study can be made of these large and complex groups of fishes (at least three genera, Curimata, Hemiodus, and Prochilodus as presently known may be involved). If the Commission decides that Curimata Walbaum, 1792, is a species name rather than a genus name, in order to maintain stability of the predominantly accepted recent usage, I believe it should: A Use the Plenary Powers and declare that the type species of Curimata Bosc is Salmo edentulus Bloch (as implied from Bosc’s statement “‘ le Salmone sans Dents ”’) and B Place Curimata Bosc, instead of Curimatus Oken, as requested in item (3) (a) on page 393 (Géry, 1963), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and C Place edentulus Bloch, 1794, as published in the binomen Salmo edentulus, type species of the genus Curimata Bosc, 1817, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. OBSERVATIONS AU SUJET DE LA VALIDATION PROPOSEE PAR R. ALVARADO DU NOM DE GENRE ORTHOLITHA HUBNER 1825 (INSECTA LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1585 (see volume 20, page 380) par C. Herbulot (Paris) et D. S. Fletcher (London) Nous ne sommes pas d’accord sur la proposition de R. Alvarado pour les raisons suivantes: 1. La suppression d’un nom de genre par la Commission internationale de Nomenclature zoologique usant des pleins pouvoirs n’est justifiée que dans des cas exceptionnels, lorsque cette action a pour résultat d’éviter des bouleversements sus- ceptibles de provoquer de graves confusions. La proposition de R. Alvarado ne répond pas a cette condition. En effet: (a) Le nom de genre Ortholitha n’est employé d’une facon courante que depuis une cinquantaine d’années alors qu’auparavant pendant plus de cent ans les noms de genre les plus divers avaient été utilisés pour les espéces du genreen question. (b) Aucune des nombreuses espéces africaines décrites comme Ortholitha ou citées sous ce nom (v. notamment L. B. Prout, 1933, in Seitz, The Macrolepidoptera of the World, 16 : 86-88 et A. J. T. Janse, 1933, The Moths of South Africa, 2 : 65-77) n’est congénérique avec les véritables Phasiane paléarctiques (=Ortholitha). Inversement il existe au moins une espéce asiatique apparten- ant au genre en question qui n’a jamais été citée comme Ortholitha dans la littérature. L’adoption de la proposition de R. Alvarado n’empécherait pas qu’il faille aujourd’hui désigner toutes ces espéces par un nouveau nom de genre. (c) Aucun Phasiane (=Ortholitha) ne présente d’intérét du point de vue de la médecine, de la science vétérinaire, de l’agriculture ni d’une maniére générale de la biologie appliquée. 2. La proposition de R. Alvarado—qui consiste 4 supprimer le nom de genre Ortholitha Hiibner [1821] et 4 maintenir le nom de genre Ortholitha Hiibner [1825]— 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature postule que Ortholitha Hiibner [1825] soit un genre différent de Ortholitha Hiibner [1821]. Rien n’est moins sfr. I] apparait bien au contraire qu’en [1825] Hiibner dans son Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge ait entendu, en mentionnant palumbata (=palumbaria), coarctata (=coarctaria), bistrigata et coassata (=duplicata) dans le genre Ortholitha, les ranger dans le genre Ortholitha qu'il avait créé en [1821] dans son Index exoticorum Lepidopterorum pour l’espéce divisata. Les cinq espéces ont en effet le méme aspect général et chacun sait que la classification hiibnérienne était avant tout basée sur l’aspect externe des insectes. A l’appui de cette opinion nous nous permettrons d’invoquer l’autorité de F. Hem- ming qui en 1937 dans son ouvrage sur Hiibner (Hiibner, 2 : 235) cite les deux référ- ences A Ortholitha de [1821] et de [1825] sous le méme rubrique alors qu’il procéde tout différemment lorsqu’il est évident que Hiibner, en employant 4 nouveau un nom de genre qu’il avait déja utilisé, avait purement et simplement perdu de vue la premiére application qu’il avait faite du nom en question. Tel est le cas pour Aethria (l.c. : 147), Axia (l.c. : 161) etc. 3. En tout état de cause la proposition de R. Alvarado d’inscrire sur la liste officielle des noms de genre Ortholitha Hiibner [1825] avec comme espéce type Phalaena plumbaria Fabricius est inacceptable. Il est en effet inexact, comme le prétend R. Alvarado, que palumbata Hiibner et palumbaria Denis et Schiffermiiller soient des “ misspellings ” de plumbaria Fabricius. Palumbata Hiibner [1796-1799] est une ‘“‘emendation” de palumbaria Denis et Schiffermiiller 1775 mais ce dernier nom a été publié l’année méme ou Fabricius publiait son plumbaria et Fabricius ignorait alors le travail de Denis et Schiffermiiller comme ceux-ci ignoraient le travail de Fabricius. Si palumbaria et plumbaria, par une coincidence fortuite, ne différent que par une lettre, leur sens est cependant tout a fait différent. Au surplus il n’est nullement certain qu’ils s’appliquent 4 la méme espéce. La question est difficile mais B. J. Lempke en 1949 (The Entomologist, 83 : 3) l’a tranchée par la négative et son argumentation n’a jamais été remise en cause. Mais méme s’il était établi que palumbata Hiibner et plumbaria Fabricius désignent la méme espéce I’action de Lhomme choisissant mucronata Scopoli 1763 (=plumbaria Fabricius 1775) comme type du genre Ortholitha ne serait pas valable car il eit fallu que Lhomme précise formellement qu’il considérait mucronata Scopoli non seulement comme un synonyme de plumbaria Fabricius mais aussi comme un synonyme de palumbata Hiibner ou de palumbaria Denis et Schiffermiiller, ce qu’il n’a pas fait. Pour la méme raison la désignation (antérieure 4 celle de Lhomme et que semble avoir ignorée R. Alvarado) faite par Hulst in 1896 (Trans. Amer. ent. Soc., 23 : 292) de plumbaria Fabricius comme type du genre Ortholitha n’est pas davantage valable. Il faudrait donc que la Commission, si elle estimait devoir valider Ortholitha Hiibner [1825], prenne proprio motu la décision de choisir comme espéce type du genre palumbata Hiibner (=palumbaria Denis et Schiffermiiller) ou coarctata Hiibner (=coarctaria Denis et Schiffermiiller). En effet, les deux autres espéces citées par Hiibner comme Ortholitha en [1825] ne sont pas des Ortholitha au sens que R. Alvarado voudrait donner 4 ce genre. Mais la Commission peut-elle agir de la sorte sans recourir préalablement 4 une nouvelle consultation des spécialistes du groupe? La solution la meilleure et assurément la plus simple est de laisser les choses en ]’état. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 ON THE HOMONYMY OF THE FAMILY NAME MIRIDAE HAHN, 1833 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA) AND THE TRIBAL NAME MIRINI ASHMEAD, 1900 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1090 By I. M. Kerzhner and V. A. Trjapitzin (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad) In the year 1962 P. H. Timberlake published (Ent. News 73 (3) : 66) the following note: “ The hymenopterous genus Mira was established in 1803, and Ashmead using this genus as the type proposed the tribe name Mirini in the family Encyrtidae in 1900. The name Mira is derived from the Latin adjective mirus meaning wonderful; hence the tribal name Mirini is correctly formed and valid if not preoccupied by the hemipterous name Miridae. “ Fabricius proposed the genus Miris in 1794, but the derivation of the word is uncertain. The establishment of a group name based on Miris was by Hahn in 1833, who called the group Mirides and this was later changed to Mirinae and Miridae. Although the name Miris was possibly formed arbitrarily its structure suggests the Latin third declension, and Hahn’s name Mirides is evidently in the plural nominative case. The stem of Miris, therefore, is mirid and the hemipterous family name should become Mirididae.” P. H. Timberlake, Citrus Experimental Station, Riverside, California. In so far as homonymy of high category names is concerned, the question must be studied and solved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. History of the question and phylological considerations 2. The genus Miris (Hemiptera-Heteroptera, type-species by subsequent designation by Latrielle, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 433— Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758) was described by Fabricius (1794, Ent. syst. 4 : 215) who attributed the masculine gender to this word. But the etymology of the name was not explained by its founder. The majority of the subsequent authors who studied the etymology of the generic names of Heteroptera (Brullé, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins. 9 : 409, Amyot & Serville, 1843, Hist. nat. Ins. Heémipt.: 277 and others) could not explain the origin of the word Miris. Only in the work of Kolenati (1845, Meletemata ent. 2: 95) can we find two suppositions: A Huptc, t50c, 7% (a pvpov), vas aut ampulla unguentaria? verosimillius autem a HUpPOs, ov, 6 myrus (piscis) cum dentibus””. But the words Hupic and pwpoc in the ancient Greek language, apparently, did not exist. (Ipopcuxuit, 1958, Ipesuer peuyeckopycckuii cmoBapb, II). Both suppositions of Kolenati are analysed below. 3. If we accept that the root of this word is taken from one of the classical languages, four more or less probable suppositions are possible: (a) The word “ Miris ” originates from the Latin “ mirus, -a, -um” (wonderful). But representatives of this genus-group do not possess Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964, 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature any remarkable peculiarities in their structure. At least Fabricius did not stress any. (b) The word “ Miris ” originates from the incorrectly transcribed Greek root pdpt-, w0p16- (myri-, myrio-), which means “ containing tens of thousands” or figuratively “‘ numerous, innumerable”. Such a generic name would be reasonable because of the big number of species initially referred to it or perhaps because of the great abundance of these species in nature. (c) The word “ Miris” is formed from the incorrectly transcribed Greek word pwpov (myron) with the meaning “ aroma”. Such a name can be explained by the comparatively weak specific odour inherent in Miridae. This explanation coincides with the first supposition of Kolenati. (d) The supposition of Kolenati that the word “ Miris ” takes its origin from the name of a fish is not proved, because the bugs of the family Miridae are terrestrial insects. In the ancient Greek language two names of fishes close in spelling to “‘ Miris”’ are known: piparva (muraena) and pbpivoc (the name of an unknown fish in the works of Aristoteles). Mrs. N. N. Zabinkova (Leningrad), specialist on ancient Greek and Latin languages gave us a consultation on the question; she is of the opinion that at least if one of the first three suppositions is true, the grammatically correct name of the family must be “ Miridae ”’. 4. Inso far as no one published supposition can be regarded as proved, it is possible to consider the word “ Miris” as an arbitrary combination of letters. In this case it must be treated as a Latin word and be declined according to the rules of Latin grammar. Since the names of family categories are formed from the basis of the genitive singular, it is necessary to find the correct form of genitive singular of the word “ Miris”. Masculine Latin words with the inflexion -is (plenty of them are of Greek origin) belong to the third declension and in the majority of them the syllable “it” or “id” is added to the word stem (i.e. in our case the genitive singular must be miridis, so the stem of the word must be “ mirid-”’). There are, however, numerous exceptions to this rule, when no syllables are added to the stem. Therefore, from the point of view of Latin grammar the adoption of the genitive singular of the word “‘ Miris ” as ‘“‘ miris”” (on the basis of “‘ mir-”’) is quite acceptable (see also Grensted, 1947, Ent. mon. Mag.: 137-141). 5. It is necessary to note that it was Fabricius (1794, Ent. syst. 4: 215; 1803, Syst. Rhyng.: 253) who used in his diagnosis the genitive singular of the word Miris as “ miris ” and formed in the same way the genitive singular from other generic names with the inflexion of “ -is ” (Gerris, Cercopis, Membracis, Tingis etc.). From the word Miris are formed the specific names Myrmus miriformis (Fallén, 1807) (Hemiptera, Coreidae) and Gonatocerus mirivorus (Kurdjumov, 1912) (Hymenoptera, Mymaridae), consequently Fallén and Kurdjumov also accepted the stem of the word Miris as “ mir-”’. Neverthe- less there exists also the specific name Phytocoris miridoides Lethierry, 1877 (Hemiptera, Miridae) but in so far as Lethierry included in this word the Greek Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 suffix and inflexion “-oides”’ it is extremely probable that he regarded the word “ Miris ” as a word of Greek origin and declined it according to the rules of Greek grammar. 6. Hahn (1833, Wanzen. Ins. 1: 234) proposed a family-group name Mirides, based on the genus Miris Fabricius. In spite of the supposition of Timberlake, the word “ Mirides ” is not the plural form of “‘ Miris”’. In this case the syllable “-id”’ is the Greek suffix with the meaning “ similarity ”’ (see also other family names of Hahn—Acanthiides from Acanthia, Coreides from Coreus etc.). Some subsequent entomologists (Brullé, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins. 9: 405; Blanchard, 1840, Hist. nat. Ins. Hemipt.: 135) used the form ““Miriens ’’. As in the name Mirides, so in the name ‘“ Miriens ” the stem of the word is regarded as “ Mir-”. Dohrn (1859, Cat. Hemipt.: 73) was the first to use the correct latinized form ‘“‘ Miridae’’ and Kirkaldy (1899, Ento- mologist 32 : 221) relying on the law of priority, re-established the usage of the family name “ Miridae”’ instead of the more recent Capsidae (from Capsini Burmeister 1835), which was used in the second half of the nineteenth century. In the beginning of the twentieth century the family name “ Miridae ’” became universally adopted. 7. Unlike some other family names formed from generic names of obscure etymology with the inflexion -is and used in two forms (for example Gerridae and Gerrididae, Tingidae and Tingitidae, Nabidae and Nabididae etc.) the name Mirididae has never been used. Moreover, even in those cases where two forms of family-group name derived from generic names of uncertain origin have been used, there has been a tendency to unify these names with the purpose of accepting the more abbreviated form. The International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature has already sanctioned the names Tingidae (from Tingis), Pieridae (from Pieris) and Pyralidae (from Pyralis) and now has before it the proposition to sanction the name Nabidae (from Nabis) [Z.N.(S.) 958]. Recently, however, it has sanctioned the use of Aphididae (from Aphis) instead of Aphidae [Opinion 677]. 8. Summarizing the facts we can draw the conclusion that the family-group name Miridae Hahn (Hemiptera), originating from the generic name Miris Fabricius, is universally adopted and current, grammatically acceptable and pertinent to the tendencies of zoological nomenclature. 9. The genus Mira (Hymenoptera, Encyrtidae) was described by Schellen- berg, (1803, Gen. Mouch. dipt.: 68). Its name without any doubt takes origin from the Latin word “ mirus, -a, -um”’, which means “ wonderful” (see Dalla Torre, 1898, Cat. Hymenopt. 5 : 237). Ashmead (1900, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 22 : 327) founded in the family Encyrtidae the tribe Mirini. This tribe name is formed correctly from the root “ Mir-” (from the genitive singular “Mirae ” the inflexion “-ae ” is taken away. Practical Considerations 10. Miridae is the largest family of the Hemiptera-Heteroptera, incorporat- ing about 800 genera and several thousand species. The representatives of this family are of world distribution and abundant in almost all biocoenoses. There are more than a hundred economically important species in the family, including 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature plenty of dangerous agricultural pests from different countries. The majority of described and injurious species belong not only to the family Miridae but within it—to the tribe Mirini. The family name Miridae is largely used in textbooks, summarizing and faunistic papers and in applied entomology. 11. As to the tribe Mirini Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Encyrtidae), its volume and taxonomic value are now not fully clear, since the system of the family Encyrtidae is insufficiently worked out. Some authors treat it very widely and incorporate into it more than half of the genera and species of Encyrtidae. Now, however, the tribe is reduced by some specialists to a few, probably heterogenous, genera. As a tribal name the term Mirini is used exclusively in papers dealing with taxonomy of Encyrtidae. 12. Thus there is no need to change the name Miridae (Mirinae, Mirini) Hahn (Hemiptera). Such a change of this name to Mirididae or restoration of the later name Capsidae Burmeister, which has not been used for many years, could be a cause of much confusion in the vast scientific and applied literature and is therefore extremely undesirable. The tribal name Mirini Ashmead (Hymenoptera) is grammatically correct, but its general importance is con- siderably less than the family name Miridae Hahn. Since the tribal name Mirini Ashmead is the junior homonym and has no objective or subjective synonyms, it must be replaced. It is possible, probably, to form from the word Mira, a grammatically incorrect name which would not be homonymous with Miridae, for example—Miraini. However, such a drastic breaking of gram- matical rules is undesirable, since the name Mirini Ashmead (Hymenoptera) never was of great importance and there is no especial need to follow the succession principle in this case. 13. It seems more correct to propose a new name for the tribe Mirini Ashmead. Since Mira Schellenberg is an aberrant genus and has to some extent an isolated position in the tribe, it is better to follow the principle of Article 40 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature of 1961 and to form the new name from one of the objective synonyms of Mira Schellenberg, 1803. There are three synonyms of Mira: Dicelloceras Menzel, 1855, Eurys- capus Foerster, 1856 and Lonchocerus Dahlbom, 1857. It is better to use the first of these names, since junior honomyns of the other two exist in the order Coleoptera. In consequence the tribe should be named Dicelloceratini nom. nov. 14. In accordance with the above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology: (a) MIRIDAE (correction of MIRIDES) Hahn, 1833 (type-genus Miris Fabricius, 1794); (b) DICELLOCERATINI Kerzhner & Trjapitzin, 1964 (type-genus Dicel- loceras Menzel, 1855, a junior objective synonym of Mira Schellenberg, 1803); (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 (a) Miris Fabricius, 1794 (gender: masculine), type-species by desig- nation by Latreille, 1810, Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Mira Schellenberg, 1803 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Mira macrocera Schellenberg, 1803; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) striatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 449), as published in the binomen Cimex striatus (type-species of Miris Fabricius, 1794); (b) macrocera Schellenberg, 1803, as published in the binomen Mira macrocera (type-species of Mira Schellenberg, 1803); (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) MIRIDES Hahn, 1833 (type-genus Miris Fabricius, 1794) (an incorrect original spelling for MIRIDAE); (b) MIRIDIDAE Timberlake, 1962 (type-genus Miris Fabricius, 1794) (an incorrect spelling for MIRIDAE Hahn, 1833); (c) MIRINI Ashmead, 1900 (type-genus Mira Schellenberg, 1803) (a junior homonym of MIRIDAE Hahn, 1833). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF MIRINIASHMEAD, 1900 By G. J. Kerrich (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) As a hymenopterist I have been asked by the Secretary to comment on this case. On the question of whether it is inherently desirable to revert to the family name “* Capsidae ”, which was in general use when I was a student, I ought perhaps not to give an opinion: we all dislike changes of name except in cases in which we are very familiar with the need for them. On the question of whether the heteropterous or hymenopterous tribe should be distinguished by being called ‘‘ Miridini ”’, I think Grensted would have agreed with Timberlake that ‘“* Miridini ” should be derived from Miris not from Mira. But Iam opposed to making a distinction between “‘ Mirini”’ and “‘ Miridini’’, because specialists would become forgetful, and general entomologists and bibliographers get confused. As to whether, if necessary, the heteropterists or hymenopterists should give way, I think the hymenopterists should do so. For the former it is a case of a family name, for the latter of only a tribal name. It is true that Mirini Ashmead is a very important tribe, comprising as it does a large majority of the genera of Encyrtidae; but it is an assemblage of genera of very varied parasitic habit, and therefore of biological signifi- cance in little more than the negative sense of contrasting with the Ectromini Ashmead, which are constant in being parasites of mealybugs. In any case the names of these two Encyrtid tribes need rethinking, because it has recently been shown that Ectroma Westwood has been misidentified, and is not an “ Ectromine ” but a ‘“‘ Mirine ’ genus. For Mirini Ashmead there are two early names available, Tetracnemini Howard, 1892 and Bothriothoracini Howard, 1895. Tetra- acnemini is objectionable because for a generation the name Tetracnemus was used incorrectly for an ‘‘ Ectromine ” genus of economic importance. I have no objection to Bothriothoracini. For Ectromini Ashmead I prefer Anagyrini Hoffer, 1954, based on the large and economically important genus Anagyrus. A group name having two years’ priority to this is known to me, but the genus on which it is based is far less important than Anagyrus, and its association with the Ectromini Ashmead has not yet been published. My colleague R. D. Eady is in agreement with these views. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4, October 1964, 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BELEMNITES MUCRONATUS LINK, 1807 (CEPHALOPODA, BELEM- NITIDA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS! Z.N.(S.) 1160 By J. A. Jeletzky (Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Canada) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to set aside all specimens contained in the type lot of Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807, should these still be extant, as the cotypes and source of interpretation of that nominal species. The Commission is further asked to designate another specimen as the type of the said nominal species, which would be in harmony with its well established and now universally adopted interpretation. This action is necessary to avoid serious confusion and disturbance in the current taxonomic practice both on the specific and generic level coupled with the even more serious and confusing changes in the zonal nomenclature of the late Upper Cretaceous rocks of northern Eurasia currently based on this and allied Belemnitella-like forms. As will be shown below, the action proposed in this application is preferable to an attempt to select a neotype of Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807, that would be valid under the ordinary Rules and at the same time in harmony with the current usage of this nominal species. It is hoped that it will be possible for the Commission to rule early on the present application. The decision is urgently needed as the strict application of the normal Rules was requested recently by the discoverer (Wind, 1955, pp. 663-664) of the nomenclatorial invalidity of the currently accepted taxonomic usage. Other palaeontologists (Birkelund & Rasmussen, 1956) subsequently investigated the matter in detail and came to the same conclusion; they have, however, quite reasonably deferred any decision on the subject pending the out- come of the present appeal to the plenary powers of the Commission. The decision is also urgently required in connection with the expected completion of the relevant part of the ‘“‘ Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology.” The details relating to this case are set out in the following paragraphs. 1. Wind (1955, pp. 663-664) has recently reinvestigated the drawings of the specimen of Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807 sensu Schlotheim, 1813) given by Breynius (1732, Tabula Belemnitarum, fig. 1a, 2b), which has been unani- mously considered to be the type specimen of this nominal species ever since the publication of Schlotheim’s (1813, p. 111) work. He concludes that the figures concerned show morphological features peculiar to the representatives of the genus Belemnella Nowak, 1913. These features preclude their now generally accepted identification with Belemnitella mucronata of d’Orbigny (1840-42), Arkhangelsky (1912), Nowak (1913) and subsequent authors both on specific and generic level. 1Published by Permission of the Deputy Minister, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa, Canada. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 At the same time, as pointed out by Wind (1955), these drawings indicate that the relevant specimen of Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807 sensu Schlo- theim, 1813) was at least congeneric with the legitimate type specimen of Belemnites lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Breynius, 1732, Tab. Belemnitarum, fig. 7a). Belemnites lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813 is, however, the type-species of the genus Belemnella Nowak, 1913. The genus Belemnella thus becomes a subjective junior synonym of the genus Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840. As further pointed out by Wind (1955), the above results leave Belemnitella mucronata of Arkhangelsky (1912), Nowak (1913) and all subsequent authors (including the writer) without a nomenclatorially valid generic name. Under normal nomenclatorial procedure a new generic name would have to be intro- duced for Belemnitella mucronata of these workers and for its allies. They are now generally grouped under Belemnitella d’Orbigny, as amended by Nowak (1913) and Jeletzky (1941), and amply deserve a generic name (see Jeletzky, 1941, 1951b, 1955, and in the following paragraphs). 2. According to Birkelund & Rasmussen (1956), the specific name Belem- nites mucronatus was first published by Link (1807). Link’s indication was, however, insufficient to identify this species with any degree of precision, and he gave neither a figure of his species nor any reference to a previously published figure of the same. Birkelund & Rasmussen (1956) conclude further that Schlotheim (1813, p. 111) was the first revising author of this species; he indicated the figures of Breynius (1732, Tab. Belemnitarum, Fig. 1a, 2b) and those of Faujas (1798) as examples of Belemnites mucronatus, thus making them its cotypes. No formal selection of the lectotype from among these specimens is known to the writer. Subsequent workers have, however, invariably considered the aforementioned figures of Breynius (1732) as the type specimen of Belemnites mucronatus, while invariably considering Schlotheim (1813) to be its author. This latter opinion was, however, rejected by Birkelund & Rasmussen (1956).! 3. The generic name Belemnitella was first published by d’Orbigny (1840, p. 59) in 1840; he did not designate a type species for his genus and assigned three nominal species Belemnitella mucronata, Belemnitella Scaniae (= Belem- nites mammillatus Nilsson, 1817), and Belemnitella quadrata to it. Belemnites mucronatus was, however, formally selected as the type-species of Belemnitella by 1 Mr. L. Bairstow, British Museum (Natural History) considers, however (written com- munication of May 5, 1957), that there is no conclusive evidence that Belemnites mucronatus of Schlotheim (1813) was more than a (possibly non-synonymous) junior homonym of Belemnites mucronatus of Link (1807), as Schlotheim did not indicate his knowledge of Link’s work anywhere in his publication. He disputes, therefore, Birkelund’s & Rasmussen’s (1956) conclusion that Schlotheim (1813) was the first revisor of the species and that Breynius’s (1732) specimens are legitimate cotypes of Link’s (1807) Belemnites mucronatus. Although there is no irrefutable evidence either for or against this assumption, the writer believes with Birkelund & Rasmussen (1956) that Schlotheim (1813) must have known Link’s (1807) works, has knowingly used Link’s specific name, and has revised his ill-defined species. He feels strongly, furthermore, that no useful purpose would be served by trying to achieve a solution of this complex and obscure problem that would be at the same time valid under the ordinary Rules and in harmony with modern usage. It is vastly preferable to settle it auto- matically once and for ever by the use of the plenary powers of ICZN as asked for in this appeal. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Herrmannsen (1846, p. 105) and was always so regarded by subsequent workers (e.g. Naef, 1922, p. 255). All Belemnitella-like forms figured by d’Orbigny (1840, pl. 7, fig. 1-8) as examples of Belemnitella mucronata were, however, subsequently found to be quite distinct from its generally recognized type specimen designated by Schlotheim (1813), which was cited byd’Orbigny as one of theexamples of Belem- nitella mucronata. The subsequent workers to be discussed in the following paragraphs have, unfoitunately but not unnaturally, tended to interpret the nominal species Belemnitella mucronata and the genus Belemnitella by the examples figured by d’Orbigny (1840). This attitude was greatly facilitated by the fact that d’Orbigny’s (1840) work was much better known and more easily accessible than those of Breynius (1732) and Schlotheim (1813). An extreme but illuminating case is that of Lange (1921, pp. 25-26). This worker, being unable to procure a copy of Breynius’s (1732) work and being struck by the poor quality of the Faujas (1798) figure, actually proposed to consider d’Orbigny (1840) as the author of the nominal species Belemnitella mucronata. Similarly, Naidin (1952) has refused to credit Schlotheim (1813, 1820) with the authorship of the species Belemnites lanceolatus and proposed to consider Sinzov (1872) as its author. The above discussed action of d’Orbigny (1840) appears, therefore, to be the original source of the nomenclatorial and taxonomic confusion discussed in the following paragraphs. 4. The generic name Belemnella was published by Nowak (1913, pp. 393, 403) as a subgenus of the genus Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 emend. Schluter, 1876. Although not indicated as such by Nowak (1913), Belemnites lanceolatus Schloth., 1813 was formally designated as the type-species of the subgenus Belem- nella by Bulow-Trummer (1920, p. 195). Nowak (1913, pp. 393, 395) simultaneously restricted the subgeneric name Belemnitella s. str. to the Upper Campanian and Maestrichtian Belemnitella-like forms. These forms are essentially similar to those figured by d’Orbigny but rather distinct morphologically from the unanimously recognized type specimen of Belemnites mucronatus (Link, 1807 sensu Schlotheim, 1813). Nowak (1913) has, like so many other authors, completely overlooked the above differences. Also some other Belemnitella-like forms (Belemnitella praecursor Stolley, Belemnitella americana (Morton), Belemnitella mirabilis Arkhangelsky) were placed in the subgenus Be/emnitella s. str. by Nowak (1913). All these forms are congeneric with the specimens of Belemnitella mucronata figured by d’Orbigny (1840) but not with Belemnites mucronatus (Link, 1807 sensu Schlotheim 1813) as interpreted by its generally recognized type specimen. Biilow-Trummer (1920, p. 188, 195) recognized the validity of the sub- generic names of Nowak (1913) in the Dibranchiata part of the Fossilum Cata- logus. Jeletzky (1941, pp. 28-30, fig. 1-4) has demonstrated that the groups of Belemnitella-like forms designated respectively as subgenera Belemnella and Belemnitella s. str. by Nowak (1913) and already previously referred to as the groups of Belemnitella mucronata and Belemnitella lanceolata by Arkhangelsky (1912, p. 622-623) differ sharply from one another in several important mor- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271 phological features. Taken together with the only morphological distinction of these subgenera listed by Nowak (1913, pp. 391-392), these morphological features were found to be ample for the recognition of these species groups as independent genera of the family Belemnitellidae Pavlow, 1914 by the majority of specialists concerned. Like his predecessors Jeletzky (1941) failed to notice that the morphological features of all forms placed in the genus Belemnitella Ss. Str. are in contradiction with those of the generally recognized type-specimen of its type-species (see above). Jeletzky also failed to recognize this distinction in his later publications on the subject. He (Jeletzky, 1949, p. 262) recog- nized, however, the complete morphological correspondence between the type specimen of the legitimate type-species of the genus Belemnella Nowak, 1913 and the Belemnitella-like forms placed into this species (Belemnites lanceolatus) by modern authors recognizing its independence. 5. After the revision of the genera Belemnitellas. str.and Belemnella by Jelet- zky (1941, 1946, 1948a, 1949, 1951b), these names in the sense of Nowak and Jeletzky have been accepted and used Stratigraphically by the majority of English, west-European, German-Scandinavian, North American and Russian specialists concerned (e.g. Wright & Wright, 1951, pp. 3, 10; Voigt, 1951, 1954; Schmid, 1951, 1953, 1955a, b; Seitz, 1952; Troelsen, 1955 ; Wicher, 1953; Bettenstaedt & Wicher, 1955; Reyment, 1956, pp. 41-42; Birkelund, 1957; A. Miiller, 1951, pp. 28-29, pl. IV; 1952, p. 375, pl. I, fig. 1; Lowenstam & Epstein, 1954, pp. 245: Lowenstam, 1954, p. 299: Hiltermann, 1952, pp. 47, 60-61, 63; Hiltermann & Koch, 1950, pp. 597, 1955, pp. 358-363: Naidin, sense in the most important modern Treatise of Palaeontology edited by Piveteau (Roger, 1952, pp. 721-722, fig. 52-53) and in Miiller’s (1960, pp. 267-8, questioned the taxonomic validity of the genus Belemnella. Until the appear- ance of the paper by Wind (1955) none of the above workers had any idea about the nomenclatorial invalidity of this usage. several Belemnitella-like forms previously lumped under that name. This occurring in the latest Lower Campanian and Upper Campanian (= Mucro- other regions of northern Eurasia. He, furthermore, expressly assigned the Belemnitella-like forms occurring in the overlying Lower Maestrichtian and Upper Maestrichtian rocks of eastern Russia respectively to Belemnitella 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature lanceolata (Schlotheim, 1813) and Belemnitella americana (Morton, 1830). The Belemnitella-like forms of the underlying older Lower Campanian and Santonian rocks of eastern Russia have been assigned to Belemnitella praecursor Stolley and Belemnitella mirabilis Arkhangelsky. It must be stressed that Arkhangelsky (1912, pp. 600, 609) expressly stated that his Upper to late Lower Campanian Belemnitella mucronata is con- specific with Schlotheim’s (1813) Belemnites mucronatus. Nor did he use any subspecific names for the Russian Belemnitella-like forms, to which he restricted Schlotheim’s name. The description and figures given by Arkhangelsky (1912) are satisfactory and leave no doubt that he completely overlooked the mor- phological distinctions between his form and the generally recognized type specimen of Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 sensu Schlotheim, 1813. Arkhangelsky’s (1912) Belemnitella mucronata is obviously different from this latter; it belongs together with the specimens of Belemnitella mucronata figured by d’Orbigny (1840) to the genus Belemnitella sens. str. in the sense of Nowak (1913) and Jeletzky (1941, 1948a, 1949, 1951b, 1955). With the sole exception of Sinzov (1915), who has questioned the validity of Arkhangelsky’s (1912) definition of Belemnitella mucronata and that of its zone, all subsequent Russian workers have accepted Belemnitella mucronata and other Belemnitella-like forms (including Belemnitella lanceolata Schlotheim, 1813) in the previously discussed sense of Arkhangelsky (1912). Arkhangelsky’s (1912) zonal scheme for the Russian Upper Cretaceous rocks based on these Belem- nitella-like forms was also found to be fully valid and was accepted by all subsequent Russian authors. The subsequent introduction of additional Belemnitella langei (see Jeletzky, 1948b, 1951b, pp. 93-98) and Belemnella lanceolata mut. sumensis (see Jeletzky, 1949, pp. 268-270) zones is quite irrele- vant in this connection, as these Belemnitella-like forms were unknown to Arkhangelsky (1912). It should be noted, however, that Jeletzky (1940, 1941, 1946, 1948a—b, 1949, 195la—b, 1955) was the only worker of the Russian school to use Nowak’s (1913) nomenclature for the Be/emnitella-like forms concerned, instead of the above discussed standard Russian nomenclature for the same. The Russian stratigraphical, palaeontological and regional geological papers and monographs devoted to or touching upon the subject of Belemnitella mucronata, other Belemnitella-like forms, and their zones run into several hundreds. The most important publications which appeared prior to the Second World War, and some of the publications which have appeared after it, are listed by Jeletzky (1951b, pp. 135-142; 1955, pp. 503-509; 1958, pp. 42-46, 53-57, 113-129). Because of their wide geographical distribution and stratigraphical impor- tance, Belemnitella mucronata sensu Arkhangelsky, all other Belemnitella-like forms sensu Arkhangelsky, and their zones sensu Arkhangelsky have entered most of Russian text-books and treatises on stratigraphical palaeontology and historical geology, many Russian text-books and treatises of invertebrate palaeontology, and all Russian manuals of index fossils and regional strati- graphy. Some of these are listed by Jeletzky (1951b, pp. 135-142; 1955, pp. 503-509; 1958, pp. 113-129). In addition the following selection of these works, which happen to be available to the writer in Ottawa, can be given here: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 (a) Standard treatises on general historical geology by Korovin (1940, pp 341-43; fig. 175-6), Strachov (1938, 2; 1948, 2, p. 220, 223, 207, pl. 25, fig. 7-8) and Masarovich (1937); (b) Masarovich’s (1938, pp. 94-95, 129, 193, 297-298) Fundamentals of Geology of U.S.S.R.; Zhemchuzhnikov’s (1934) Manual of Palaeofaunistics; Bodylevsky’s (1955, pp. 121-122, pl. 68, figs. 267-269) Small Atlas of Index Forms of the U.S.S.R. The following is a selection of the most important post Second World War Russian papers and monographs extensively dealing with or entirely devoted to the Russian Upper Cretaceous Belemnitella-like forms, which use Belemnitella mucronata, other Belemnitella-like forms, and their zones in the sense of Arkhan- gelsky (1912) with or without the above mentioned additions (Kabanov, 1950; Michailov, 1947, 1948, 1951; Savchinskaja, 1950, 1952: Sobolevskaja, 1951; Bushinsky, 1954; Morozov, 1952; Pasternak and Smirnova, 1948; Vassilenko & Rasmyslova, 1950; Naidin, 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1959). It should be stressed that Arkhangelsky’s usage of these Upper Cretaceous belemnites and their zones is still the only one used in Russia and that all the above mentioned modern Russian authors refuse steadfastly to use the nomenclature of the Belemnitella-like forms used by Nowak (1913) and Jeletzky (1940-1955) dis- cussed in the following paragraph. 8. In addition to having introduced the generic name Belemnella and restricting the generic name Belemnitella, Nowak (1913) produced a revision of the Polish late Upper Cretaceous Belemnitella-like forms, which is rather similar to that previously worked out by Arkhangelsky (1912) in several respects. Nowak (1913, pp. 390-393, 395-402, pl. 42, fig. 18-19, 21, 22, 25-26) did not restrict, however, the name Belemnitella mucronata to the Belemnitella-like form of the Upper Campanian rocks as Arkhangelsky (1912) did. He, instead, identified the Polish Upper Campanian Belemnitella-like form as Belemnitella mucronata (Schloth.) mut. senior Nowak, 1913. Nowak (1913, p. 397), further- more, pointed out that his Belemnitella mucronata mut. senior may be distinct from Belemnitella mucronata of Arkhangelsky (1912). The closely related Belemnitella-like form occurring in the Upper and (?) Lower Maestrichtian rocks of Poland and western Europe was named Belemnitella mucronata (Schloth.) mut. junior Nowak 1913. When designating these two Belemnitella- like forms as new mutations of Belemnitella mucronata (Schloth.) Nowak has, of course, nomenclatorially separated them both from Link’s (1807) species Belemnites mucronatus. As far as his Belemnitella mucronata mut. senior is concerned, this is even more strongly stressed by his above mentioned doubts as to its identity with Belemnitella mucronata of Arkhangelsky (1912). Except for its assignment to the new subgenus Belemnella, Nowak used Belemnella lanceolata (Schloth.) and its zone in the same sense as Arkhangelsky (1912) did. The Belemnitella-like species and mutations described by Nowak (1913) were almost immediately accepted by most Polish authors (e.g. Rogala, 1916; Siemiradzki, 1928; Skolozdr6wna, 1929, 1932; Kongiel, 1935, 1937; Rézicki, 1938; Pozariski, 1938, 1948; Pozriska & Pozariski, 1951; Putzer, 1942). They are still in common use in Poland, and even workers who have stated their disagreement with Nowak’s belemnite nomenclature and taxonomic conclusions 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e.g. Kongiel, 1937, p. 5, 1962; Pozariski 1938, pp. 44-45) have continued to use his belemnite species and mutations. The belemnite zonal table of Nowak (1913, 1917) proved to be unsatisfactory in several respects. Its validity was almost immediately questioned by Rogala (1916). Subsequently it was revised by Skolozdr6wna (1929, 1932), Pozariski (1938) and Jeletzky (1948b, 1951b). The last mentioned worker has finally (1951b) arrived at a belemnite zonal scheme, which appears to be valid (except in some details) for the Upper Campanian and Maestrichtian rocks of England, western Europe, German-Scandinavian region, and Poland and is now used by most workers of these countries. Further details of the vagaries of Nowak’s (1913, 1917) belemnite zonal scheme and his admittedly unfortunate belemnite nomenclature are irrelevant for the purpose of this appeal. From its standpoint it is only important that Nowak (1913, 1917) has restricted the name Belemnitella mucronata to the same group of Belemnitella-like forms as Arkhangelsky did, while at the same time having generically separated them from Belemnites lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813. This nomenclatorially incorrect action was generally accepted by the Polish specialists concerned. Consequently in Poland (as well as in Russia since Arkhangelsky, 1912) the name Belemnitella mucronata has come to mean this particular group of forms to the majority of Polish palaeontologists and geologists concerned since the time of publication of Nowak’s (1913, 1917) results. Like their Russian colleagues, these Polish geologists and palaeon- tologists were unaware of the nomenclatorial invalidity of this concept of Belemnitella mucronata until the appearance of Wind’s (1955) paper. 9. Priorto Jeletzky’s (1946, 1948a—b, 1951a—b, 1955, 1958) attempts to apply the above discussed Russian-Polish palaeontological and stratigraphical results to England, west-european countries and northwest-european countries, there was no generally recognized concept of restricted Belemnitella mucronata and other Belemnitella-like forms in any of these countries. Nor was there any attempt to use Belemnitella mucronata or any other Belemnitella-like forms for the purposes of detailed zonal stratigraphy. Since the appearance of the above papers of Jeletzky, however, the principal Polish-Russian results were accepted by the majority of workers of these countries (e.g. Wright & Wright, 1951, pp. 3, 10; Voigt, 1951, 1954; Schmid, 1951, 1953, 1955a—b; Seitz, 1952; Troelsen, 1955; Wicher, 1953; Bettenstaedt & Wicher, 1955; Reyment, 1956, pp. 41-42; A. Miiller, 1951, pp. 28-29, pl. IV, 1952, p. 375, pl. I, fig. 1; Hiltermann, 1952, pp. 47, 60-61, 63; Hiltermann and Koch, 1950, p. 597, 1955, pp. 358-363; Hagg, 1954, p. 60; Hagn, 1953; Grube, 1955). These results were, furthermore, accepted in the most important modern Treatise of Palaeontology edited by Piveteau (Roger, 1952, pp. 721-723, fig. 52-53), Miiller’s (1960) Textbook of Palaeontology and in the last edition of Kayser’s Abriss der Geologie (Brink- man, 1954, Table opp. p. 220). Although not as deeply rooted as in Russia and Poland, the above discussed nomenclatorial-taxonomic usage of Belemnitella mucronata, of other Belem- nitella-like species, and of their zones is now generally adopted also in all west- european and northwest-european countries, and in England. This usage was, furthermore, by no means unknown in west-european and north-west european Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 countries prior to its introduction thereto. Already Biilow-Trummer (1920) had expressedly adopted the Russian-Polish nomenclature of the Belemnitella-like forms in his Dibranchiata part of the Fossilum Catalogue, although being inaccurate in many details of synonymy of the species concerned. Also Bubnoff (1926, pp. 182-183; 1935, pp. 967, 989, 990, 1004); Stolley (1928, p. 116), Daque (1942, p. 78, pl. 37, fig. 4; pl. 39, fig. 7), Riedel (1942, p. 24; 1950) and Hagg (1947, pp. 97-99) recognized it at least in part. These authors did not believe, however, that these Belemnitella-like forms occurred commonly in west- and northwest-european countries and that the east-european belemnite zonal table could be equally well applied there (e.g. Bubnoff, 1935, p. 967; Riedel, 1950, p. 384). Therefore little attention was paid to the Russian-Polish taxonomical and stratigraphic results until they were shown to be applicable to northwest- european and west-european countries and to England. Link, 1807 to the same group of forms as in Poland and Russia; that is to Belemnitella-like forms with large Schatsky Index and other features charac- teristic of the genus Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 as amended by Nowak (1913) and Jeletzky (1941). Already Sowerby (1829, Pp. 205-207, pl. 600, fig. 1-2, 4) had figured under the name of Belemnites mucronatus only such Belemnitella-like forms from the Norwich Chalk. According to Birkelund & Rasmussen (1956) the same applies to Nilsson (1827). As already mentioned, d’Orbigny (1840), the author of the genus Belemnitella, figured under the name of Belemnitella mucronata and other morphological features of Belemnitella in the sense of Nowak (1913) and Jeletzky (1941). The same is true of the monographs of Sharpe (1853-57), Moberg (1884, 1896) and many other monographs and papers dealing with this group of belemnites. Instances where forms with the small Schatsky Index and other morpho- logical features of the genus Belemnella in the sense of Nowak (1913) and Jeletzky (1941) were figured under the name of Belemnites mucronatus together with the previously discussed forms or alone are much less numerous (see Jeletzky, 1949, 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Naef’s figure of Belemnitella mucronata represents a Belemnella lanceolata sens. lat. (actually Belemnella lanceolata mut. junior Nowak, 1913) in the sense of Nowak (1913) and Jeletzky (1941), its choice is obviously accidental. Naef (1922, p. 255) cites, indeed, Zittel’s specimen belonging to Belemnitella mucro- nata sensu Arkhangelsky 1912 as another example of this species. He states, furthermore, that: “‘an dieselbe [that is a Belemnitella mucronata; writer’s remark] schliessen sich mehrere Ahnliche Arten des Senon, mehr oder wenig keulenférmig gestreckt (B. mucronatus Schloenbach, 1867) bzw. zylindrisch verkiirzt (B. Hoeferi Schloenbach, Taf. 16, fig. 1)”. As shown by Jeletzky (1949, p. 264), the B. mucronatus of Schloenbach (1867, pl. 16, fig. 2), cited by Naef as specifically distinct from the Belemnitella mucronata he figures, is a rather typical Belemnella lanceolata (Schloth.) in the sense of Nowak and Jeletzky. Far from intending to use the name Belemnitella mucronata in the nomen- clatorially correct sense, Naef (1922) apparently intended to restrict it in the sense of Arkhangelsky, Nowak, and Jeletzky and to separate Belemnella lanceo- lata from it. 11. It is obvious from the details given in the preceding paragraphs that the results of strict application of the Rules in this case would be disastrous on a generic level. Being the subjective junior synonym of the genus Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 the accustomed and widely used generic name Belemnella Nowak, 1913 would have to be placed into synonymy of the former name. What is even worse, the name Belemnitella would have to be used for the tax- onomically and stratigraphically important group of species now generally known under the name Be/emnella instead of being used for another equally important species group, which is now generally known under the name Belemnitella. The group of forms now universally known under the generic name of Belemnitella would be left without a legitimate generic name and would have to be renamed. These taxonomically disastrous results of the strict application of the Rules resulting in exchange of these two generic names would be further aggravated by the fact that these genera are stratigraphically important. Con- sequently they are constantly used by stratigraphers, structural geologists and other related specialists throughout northern Eurasia and also in North America. As demonstrated in previous paragraphs, the results of the strict application of the Rules would be equally devastating at specific level. The generally accepted interpretation of the well known and stratigraphically important specific name Belemnitella mucronata would have to be changed. This name would have to be transferred to cover another Belemnitella-like form belonging to a different genus and occurring in a much younger zone (late Lower Maes- trichtian). The widespread and stratigraphically important Upper Campanian Belemnitella-like form now generally known under the name Belemnitella mucronata (Schloth.) would have to be renamed. It is not at all clear which of its subjective junior, and mostly completely unfamiliar, synonyms would have to take its place under the Rules. Any of the possible selections would be quite unsatisfactory and would cause hardship to the palaeontologists, stratigraphers and related specialists concerned in using the name Be/emnitella mucronata for the aforementioned Belemnitella-like form. a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 This action would completely disrupt the by now well established zonal scheme of the boreal late Upper Cretaceous (Upper Campanian and Maes- trichtian) rocks of Eurasia, which is now used by most workers from Western Siberia to England. In other words, 52 years of gradually developing palaeontological and strati- graphical terminology which has finally become thoroughly established and almost unanimously adopted on a global scale, would be overturned by the strict application of the Rules in this case. 12. The writer considers that the above discussed officially invalid nomen- clature of Upper Campanian and Maestrichtian Belemnitella-like forms now in common use has become so firmly entrenched in the palaeontological and stratigraphical literature, and has so deeply penetrated the technical, as well as the general, geological literature that nothing but instability and confusion would result from an attempt to apply the ordinary Rules in this case. Sucha request recently made by Wind (1955, pp. 663-664) is, therefore, quite un- reasonable. It must be stressed that the application of the ordinary Rules in this case is likely to result in the transfer of the well known generic names Be/lemnitella and Belemnella, as well as that of the well known specific name Belemnitella muc- ronata (see under 13), and the “ transference of well known names from one genus and species to another ”’ has been specifically mentioned by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as one of the most important reasons for the suspension of Rules and the preservation of the affected generic and specific names under the plenary powers (see Opinions and Declarations rendered by I.C.Z.N., Declaration 5, publ. in 1943, p. 34). 13. Wind’s (1955, pp. 663-664) demand for the strict application of normal Rules is based on the incorrect assumption that Schlotheim’s (1813, p. 111) examples of Belemnites mucronatus are the legitimate cotypes of this nominal species. It was, however, pointed out to the writer first by Mr. L. Bairstow and then again by Miss Margaret Spillane that the Breynius (1732, fig. la, 2b) specimens of Belemnites mucronatus are not types of Link’s species—however much they have been mistakenly regarded as such. If, as the writer assumes (see under 2), Schlotheim’s (1813, p. 111) B. mucronatus was merely a citation of Link’s (1807) name, his examples of the same have no possible bearing on the unfigured type(s) of Link’s species. If, on the other hand, Schlotheim’s (1813, p. 111) B. mucronatus was a new name unrelated to Link’s (1807) B. mucronatus (as Mr. L. Bairstow assumes; see under 2) then it is nomenclatorially invalid as a junior homonym of the latter. No useful purpose would, in the writer’s opinion, be served by an attempt to designate a neotype for Belemnites mucrona- tus Link, 1807 under the provisions of normal Rules. Such an attempt is obviously apt to cause even more confusion than an attempt to recognize Schlotheim’s (1813, p. 111) examples of Be/emnites mucronatus as the valid types of this nominal species. Even if they should still exist, which is most doubtful, Link’s (1807) syntypes of this insufficiently defined species could easily represent any of the twenty or more of the valid species (belonging to any one of at least four valid genera) of the family Belemnitellidae. Worse even, they could equally well belong to some unrelated Lower Cretaceous or Jurassic belemnite 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature species, many of which have distinctly mucronated apical ends of the guards. Furthermore, nothing is known of the type locality of Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807. It would, therefore, be quite inadvisable to start a slow and time consuming search for a neotype of B. mucronatus Link that would be at the same time acceptable under the normal Rules and in harmony with the now cus- tomary interpretation of this nominal species. This application specifically requests, therefore, a designation of the neotype of the nominal species of Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 that would be in harmony with its existing usage under the plenary powers but not the selection of a neotype of the same in accordance with the relevant provisions of the normal Rules. It must be stressed, finally, that there are recent precedents for the course of action requested in this application (e.g. Z.N.(S.) 514 and 533 submitted by Mr. C. W. Wright). 14. The following colleagues were consulted in the course of the preparation of the present application and kindly allow the writer to state that they are in general agreement with the recommendations now submitted for consideration by the I.C.Z.N.: Prof. Dr. E. Voigt, Director, Geologisches Staatsinstitut Hamburg; Prof. Dr. O. Seitz and Dr. Fr. Schmid, Amt fiir Bodenforschung, Hannover; Prof. Dr. H. Schmidt, Geologisch-Palaéontologisches Institut der Universitat G6ttingen; Dr. T. Birkelund, Mineralogical and Geological Museum, Copenhagen; Dr. H. Wienberg-Rasmussen, Mineralogical und Geological Museum, Copenhagen. The writer was, furthermore, advised by Prof. Dr. E. Voigt that the Palaéon- tologische Gesellschaft has decided to support the above recommendations after their thorough consideration at its Wilhelmshaven meeting in September, 1956. Mr. Leslie Bairstow, British Museum (Natural History) has kindly arranged the loan of the collection of Belemnitella mucronata sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 from Edward’s Pit, Mousehold Heath, England and provided the writer with photographs of its specimens published in the Appendix; he has, furthermore, kindly read the original text of this application and made several valuable comments and criticisms of the same. Some of his criticisms were further commented upon in the previous paragraphs of this application. Miss Mar- garet Spillane, Scientific Assistant to the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature, British Museum (Natural History) has made valuable com- | ments and criticisms of the original text of the application. Some of these have been used in its final draft and commented upon in section 13 of the application. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) To use its plenary powers to set aside all specimens contained in the type series of Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807, should these still be extant, as the cotypes and source of interpretation of this nominal species. (2) To use its plenary powers to designate the specimen BM. C-43542 described and figured in the Appendix as the neotype of the nominal species Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807. The reasons are given in the Appendix, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 (3) To place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Belemnella Nowak, 1913 (type-species Belemnites lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813 by subsequent designation by Bulow-Trummer, 1920, p. 195) (gender of generic name: feminine). (b) Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 (type-species Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 as proposed under (2) above, to be defined under the plenary powers) (gender of generic name: feminine). (4) To place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813 (as published in the binominal com- bination Belemnites lanceolatus) (type-species of Belemnella Nowak, 1913). (b) mucronatus Link, 1807 (as published in binominal combination Belemnites mucronatus) as Proposed under (2) above, to be de- fined under the plenary powers (type-species of Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840). (5) To place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: Belemnitellidae Pavlow, 1914 (type-genus Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840). APPENDIX NOTE ON BELEMNITELLA M UCRONATA (LINK, 1807) SENSU ARKHANGELSKY, 1912 AND ITS PROPOSED NEOTYPE Introduction Most modern workers (e.g. Birkelund, 1957: Jeletzky, 1958; Kongiel, 1962; Naidin, 1956, 1959; Nikitin, 1958: Peake & Hancock, 1961) agree that the species Belemnitella mucronata should be interpreted in the sense of Arkhangel- sky (1912). Under this, now customary, interpretation the large but fairly slender and long, strongly sculptured and distinctly mucronated Belemnitella- like form characteristic of the lower and middle part of the so called mucronata beds in the restricted sense (Jeletzky, 1958; Peake & Hancock, 1961) of northern Eurasia is considered to be typical of the species. This form is thus charac- teristic of the latest Lower to mid-Upper Campanian in terms of the inter- national standard stages. Except for Kongiel (1962), all workers concerned have agreed that the only reasonably complete specimen of Belemnitella mucronata figured by Arkhangel- sky (1912, pl. IX, figs 3, 9; pl. X, fig. 10) is a typical representative of its above mentioned form. This specimen should, thus, normally have been selected as its type. This being impractical for reasons given below, this note is devoted to the description and illustration of a proposed neotype specimen of Belemnitella mucronata sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 and its typical subspecies. The name B. mucronata mucronata Naidin, 1956, is used herein for this form. Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4, October 1964, 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Proposed neotype specimen Grounds for selection. As already suggested by Naidin (1956, p. 19) and Birkelund (1957, p. 30), the already mentioned specimen of B. mucronata figured by Arkhangelsky (1912) should be selected as its type. Kongiel (1962, p. 30) has pointed out, however, that none of the generically diagnostic internal features is actually known for this specimen. He has accordingly proposed to: “accept, as a tentative solution of this problem, as holotype the specimen [of] Bel. mucronata from the Upper Campanian of Bielegorowka near Lessiczansk (NW margin of the Donetz basin) figured in J. A. Jeletzky’s paper (1948c, pl. XX, fig. 2a—b). The present writer describes similar forms under the name of Bel. mucronata Jeletzky (non Schlotheim), 1948.” The writer considers that Arkhangelsky’s (1912, pl. IX, figs. 3, 9; pl. X, fig. 10) specimen concerned is undoubtedly a true representative of the genus Belemnitella and of species B. mucronata as currently interpreted (see para. 4-7 of this appeal). It shows, indeed, the typical Belemnitella-like character of the main vascular imprints branching off the double dorso-lateral furrows in the posterior part of the flank (Arkhangelsky, 1912, pl. IX, fig. 9). Considering the characteristic shape of the guard and its Upper Campanian age (Belemnitella mucronata zone; Jeletzky, 1958, p. 38-48) of this specimen, there can be little doubt about its true generic and specific nature. This specimen is, however, definitely lost according to Doctors D. P. Naidin (written communication to the writer of September 30th, 1957) and P. N. Varfolomeev (a subsequent written communication to Dr. Fr. Schmid communicated by the latter colleague to the writer on October 2nd, 1963) who had made a special search for it in all major collections of Moscow and Leningrad. It would, therefore, be quite inadvisable to propose this specimen as the substitute type of Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807) sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912. The alternative type specimen proposed for Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912, by Kongiel (1962, p. 30) is rather inappropriate in representing the extremely short and corpulent form of the species known under the name Belemnitella mucronata mut. senior Nowak, 1913. Although this form is but an extreme variant of the species concerned according to Jeletzky (1951b, 1958, p. 44-45) it certainly is not typical of it; it is, furthermore, a valid taxon of its own under the Rules. Kongiel’s (1962, p. 30) choice of type speci- men for Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 sensu Arkhangelsky 1912 lacks, finally, any validity under the Rules as he proposes to recognize J. A. Jeletzky as the author of Belemnitella mucronata sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 instead of Link (1807). In view of the above circumstances it seems best to propose as a neotype a specimen from a well known section of the Upper Campanian age personally studied by the writer and preserved in one of the internationally known palaeon- tological museums. This course is followed in this Appendix. Type Reference. The specimen reproduced photographically in pl. 1, figs. 1A to 1D inclusive is herewith proposed as a neotype of Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 and its typical subspecies Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807) mucro- nata Naidin, 1956. This specimen was collected by Mr. A. W. Rowe from the Belemnitella mucronata zone s, str, (= Upper Campanian) at Norwich, Norfolk, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 England. The locality is the Edward’s Pit at Mousehold Heath (Pit 160 of Rowe’s Ms) (? St. James Hill). The specimen forms part of Mr. A. W. Rowe’s collection purchased by the British Museum (Natural History) in November, 1926. The exact level within the chalk pit is not known either for this or for any other belemnite specimen of this collection. The specimen is preserved in the palaeontological collections of the British Museum (Natural History), Cat. No. BM-C.43542. Description Guard is large for the species and subspecies and so presumably full grown. It is almost complete in the alveolar part as its wall is only 2-3 mm. thick at the top. The preserved total length of the guard (107-5 mm.) is, nevertheless, well below the maximum preserved length of the guard (about 135 mm.) known for the species and subspecies. The guard is rather slender for the genus and species as illustrated by the ratio of its relative length (Nowak, 1913; Kongiel, 1962, p.10) to the dorso-ventral diameter at the base of the ventral fissure of 5:1. The cross-section of the alveolar end is almost perfectly rounded with the dorso-ventral diameter slightly exceeding the lateral diameter. The guard’s cross-section remains nearly circular and but slightly compressed laterally throughout its anterior half. At the base of the ventral fissure, for example, the dorso-ventral diameter is 17-3 mm. as compared with the lateral diameter of 17-1 mm. _ The lateral compression is almost absent here as illustrated by the ratio of the diameters of 1-01. In the lower half of the guard it becomes somewhat compressed dorso- ventrally with the lateral diameter always exceeding the dorso-ventral diameter. At the level 36 mm. above the apex, for example, the dorso-ventral diameter is reduced to 14-4 mm. as compared to the lateral diameter of 17-1. The resulting ratio of the diameters is only 0-84. The ventral surface of the guard is only slightly flattened in its upper half and somewhat more noticeably so in its lower half. The so-called dorsal field of the guard confined between the double dorso-lateral furrows and longitudinal depressions of the same is fairly markedly flattened, except in the proximity of the alveolar end where it becomes appreciably arched. In ventral aspect the guard is almost cylindrical except in its lower third. No contraction has been noted at the base of the alveolus or thereabout. The downward tapering of the guard is almost imperceptible throughout its anterior half; it becomes somewhat more distinct in the lower half where it gradually increases toward the apex until it becomes fairly marked at the level about 20 mm. above the apex. Rapid but regular contraction ensuing 3 to 4 mm. above the apex results in a narrow but obtuse and regularly rounded apical end of the guard. A centrally located, well defined, small mucro, part of which is broken off, is superimposed on this latter. In lateral aspect the guard is very high conical throughout; it tapers gently and evenly all the way from its alveolar end to the point about 3 mm. above the apex. Further down it contracts rapidly to form the already described apical end and mucro, which have the same appearance in the lateral as in the ventral aspect. 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In dorsal aspect the guard has essentially the same shape as in the ventral aspect. The surface of the guard is covered by the, mostly numerous and closely spaced, transverse to more or less oblique, strongly ramifying vascular imprints and by more or less numerous and crowded, short, slightly wavering, longitu- dinal striae. The vascular imprints are most strongly and densely developed on the ventral and both lateral sides of the guard. On each side the principal vascular imprints originate in or at the double dorso-lateral furrows, dorso-lateral depressions and single lateral furrows. Most of them extend therefrom toward the ventral side of the guard throwing off numerous, complexly bent branches and becoming finer and finer and more and more crowded in this direction. The two sets of vascular imprints meet, intertwine and often join with the ends of their branches near the centre of the ventral surface of the postfissural part of the guard. An extremely complex vascular pattern results therefrom. The fine vascular branches form an especially dense net and are most strongly developed around the ventral fissure and farther down on the anterior half of the ventral side of the guard. Some of these vascular imprints enter the ventral fissure from both sides and appear to join the furrows covering the surfaces of its ostracumlamelles (Jeletzky, 1946). | The longitudinal striae are relatively weak and scarce on the lateral and ventral surfaces of the anterior part of the guard. Their intersection with the vascular imprints mostly results only in a feeble crosshatching of the latter but not in a distinct granulation of the guard’s surface. Only in a few small areas of the ventral surface closely below the base of the fissure does this intersection result in the appearance of some ill-defined and irregularly shaped granules (pseudogranules of Kongiel, 1962, p. 11). On the lateral and ventral surfaces of the posterior half of the guard the vascular imprints become weaker and weaker and simultaneously less and less closely spaced toward the apex. The longitudinal striae, on the contrary, become more and more pronounced, numerous and closely spaced until they become the dominant element of the ornament in the interval between the apex and the level 28-29 mm. above it. In this interval the ornamentation is, furthermore, generally much weaker than farther orad; it resembles strongly that of B. praecursor var. mucronatiformis or B. langei s.str. Only rare, weak and indistinct vascular imprints and no longitudinal striae have been observed within the dorso-lateral longitudinal depressions. The dorsal field of the guard is much more weakly sculptured than the venter and flanks of the anterior part of the guard. Its alveolar third is semi-smooth with weak, relatively widely spaced vascular imprints and extra fine longitudinal striae being about equally prominent. The middle third of the dorsal field is more strongly ornamented; its ornamentation is, nevertheless, considerably weaker than that of the corresponding parts of the flanks and venter. In this part of the dorsal field fairly weak and broadly spaced vascular imprints are more strongly developed than the longitudinal striae. The latter are, however, coarser and stronger than those of the anterior third of the dorsal field. On the apical third of the dorsal field, finally, the similarly developed longitudinal striae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283 are the dominant element of the ornament just as they are on the corresponding parts of the venter and flanks. The double dorso-lateral furrows are shallow, thin (about 0-33 mm. each) and closely spaced. The intervening rounded ridge is from 0-33 to 0-6 mm. wide. These furrows are only clearly developed within the posterior third of the guard where they are directly incised into the regularly rounded surface of the latter; they begin 5 to 6 mm. above the apex. Within this interval the double dorso-lateral furrows are essentially Belemnitella-like in their habit. Although they follow a slightly undulating course locally, they lack closely spaced, much more pronounced bends characteristic of Belemnella species. A few feeble vascular imprints, which are not visible on the photographs, branch off these furrows in the posterior quarter of the guard under acute angles not exceeding 25°. This is another Belemnitella-like feature. Over the anterior two-thirds of the guard the double dorso-lateral furrows are considerably broader but mostly indistinct; within this interval they are situated on the bottom of broad dorso-lateral depressions. A third, more narrow dorso-lateral furrow occurs near the dorsal margin of each of these depressions throughout this interval. The intervening flat-topped ridge between the double furrows is at least 2-5 mm. wide within the depressions. The dorso-lateral, longitudinal depressions are asymmetrical in cross-section, their dorsal slope being considerably steeper and much deeper incised than the ventral slope. It is not over 0-5 mm. deep, however. Dorso-lateral longitudinal depressions gradually widen orad from 2 to 2:5 mm. at their lower end to 5-5 to 6 mm. at the alveolar rim of the guard; they become, however, more and more shallow in this direction. The gradual anterior widening of the dorso-lateral depressions results in corresponding narrowing out of the anterior part of the flattened dorsal side of the guard known under the name of the dorsal field in the same direction. The dorsal field is 13-5 to 14 mm. wide at the posterior end of the depressions (at the level 45 mm. above the apex) and only8-5 mm. wide at the alveolar rim of the guard; it is, however, distinctly arched near the alveolar rim while being only slightly arched further apicad. The single lateral furrows follow a zigzag course on the flanks of the anterior half of the guard. In their posterior parts these furrows run distinctly obliquely forming an angle of 8° to 15° with the longitudinal axis of the guard and gradually approaching the dorso-lateral depressions orad. At the level between 66 and 68 mm. above the apex unusually strong, subtransversal vascular furrows branch off the lateral furrows and connect them with the ventral rims of the longitudinal depressions; they form angles of 60 to 70° with the longitudinal axis of the guard. Farther orad several such furrows occur at irregular intervals on both flanks. The single lateral furrows gradually become weaker orad and are difficult to recognize near the alveolar rim of the guard. The alveolus is regularly conical; it is 48 mm. deep and so comprises 0-44 of the total preserved length of the guard. The alveolar angle measured dorso- ventrally comprises about 18°. The inner surface of the conotheca is smooth, except for indistinct imprints of the septa. No traces of any ornamentation of conotheca, such as was observed by Jeletzky (1955, p. 484, pl. 56, fig. 4) near 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the apex of the alveolus of B. praecursor sens. lat., were seen. This could, how- ever, be due to the somewhat weathered state of the surface of the conotheca in our specimen. A longitudinal dorsal furrow of usual appearance occurs in the middle of the dorsal surface of the conotheca. The alveolar fissure is relatively short; its preserved part is only about 20 mm. long and so comprises only about 41 % of the preserved length of the alveolus. The Schatsky Index is 9-0 mm. The bottom of the ventral fissure is essentially straight, except for a slight bend in the middle which somewhat diminishes its angle with the alveolar wall closer to the surface of the guard. A sharp outward bend of the bottom occurs, however, just beneath the surface of the guard. The bottom of the ventral fissure forms an angle of 10° to 11° with the inner wall of the alveolus. A small, almost perfectly rounded protoconch occurs at the apex of the alveolus. The apical line is situated somewhat closer to the ventral side of the guard; it is essentially straight, except in the lower third of the stem region where it deviates gradually and but slightly toward the dorsal side of the guard. The outlines of juvenile guards are too imperfectly visible on the surface of the split up guard to be either photographed or drawn. Those parts of them that are visible, however, are enough to show that the ontogenetic development of the guard BM-C-43542 was essentially similar to that of the somewhat more slender topotype BM-C-43545 shown in pl. 1, fig. 4C and in text-fig. 1. In this latter specimen the first visible juvenile guard (which barely surrounds the proto- conch) is nail-like, or perhaps better wedge-like, in lateral aspect. The total length of this guard is about 15 mm.; its length below the protoconch is about 9 mm. whilst its dorso-ventral diameter at the protoconch’s level is about 1-5mm. The earliest growth-stages of our form are, thus, rather slender and similar to those of Belemnitella n.sp. aff. mucronata Jeletzky (1948b, text-fig. 2) rather than to the much shorter and sturdier growth-stages of Belemnitella mucronata mut. senior Nowak. The older juvenile guards retain similarly slender proportions at least until they reach the total length of about 62 mm. At that length the juvenile guard of BM-C-43545 has the length below the protoconch of about 37 mm. and the dorso-ventral diameter at the protoconch’s level of about 7mm. _ This juvenile guard still lacks any traces of a mucro; it already has, however, a subcylindrical outline, except in its acute and long apical region. The next clearly visible, half-grown guard of BM-C-43545 (see text-fig. 1) has the length below the proto- conch of about 67 mm. and the dorso-ventral diameter at the protoconch’s level of 13-5mm. This guard is already quite similar to the adult guards of the specimens BM-C 43542 and 43545 so far as the proportions, shape, and the mucronated appearance of its apical end in the lateral aspect are concerned. In the specimen BM-C-43542 the last non-mucronated and acute-pointed juvenile guard apparently has the length below the protoconch of about 38 mm. Type Series. In addition to its proposed type-specimen (pl. 1, fig. 1A-1D), the writer was able to study twenty-one topotypes of Belemnitella mucronata mucronata. The majority of these are large, presumably full grown, almost complete representatives of our form. The range of morphological variation within this series is illustrated by two large guards shown in pl. 1, figs. 3-4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285 representing its morphological extremes. The type itself (BM-C-43542; pl. 1, fig. l) isa morphologically intermediate (“ mean ”’) form. The specimen shown in pl. 1, figs. 3A, 3B is a considerably sturdier and The specimen reproduced in pl. 1, figs 4A-4C is considerably more slender and longer than the proposed type-specimen. It is, furthermore, slightly ““ waisted ” in ventral and dorsal aspects and tapers less in the lateral aspect. Its ventral fissure is, finally, noticeably longer than those of two other figured specimens. In all other features, including the Schatsky Index (9-5-10 mm.) and the out- line of the bottom of ventral fissure (pl. 1, fig. 4C) this specimen does not differ materially from the Proposed type specimen. The here discussed specimen is, Horizon and Age. The exact level from which the specimen BM-C-43542 and other Mousehold belemnites have been collected is unknown. Nor is the level of the Edward’s pit within the restricted Belemnitella mucronata zone (= ever, to be sufficient to answer this question. Large and typical representatives of B. mucronata mucronata Naidin, 1956, predominate in the collection studied. B. mucronata senior Nowak, 1913 is, on the contrary, absent. Even the transitional forms between B. mucronata mucronata and B. mucronata senior are rate. The predominant typical repre- sentatives of B. mucronata mucronata are, at the same time associated with less numerous transitional forms between B. mucronata mucronata on the one hand and B. sp. n. aff. mucronata Jeletzky 1948, B. minor Jeletzky, 1951 and B. langei Jeletzky 1948 s.str. on the other. Rare, more or less typical representatives of B. langei Jeletzky, 1948, B. minor Jeletzky, 1951 and B. lanceolatus Sharpe, 1857 somewhat above the middle of the British Belemnitella mucronata zone (in restricted sense of Wright & Wright, 195 1) appears to be indicated. The writer 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature would suggest the top part of Weybourne Chalk of Peake & Hancock (1961, p. 317, 319) as the most likely source of this belemnite fauna. Judging by the stratigraphical information provided by Mr. Leslie Bairstow (considerable thickness of chalk exposed in the pit 160 and Mr. A. W. Rowe’s practice of amalgamating all fossil collections made in any single pit) more than one belemnite fauna could well be represented in the Mousehold collection studied. Should this be so, the large and typical representatives of B. mucronata mucronata should be older than the other belemnite forms of the same collection and would most likely represent some level within the top part of B. mucronata mut. senior zone as defined by Jeletzky (1958, p. 38-48). It should be noted in this connection that Naidin (1956, p. 19) has already suggested that the Russian representatives of B. mucronata mucronata, which are indistinguishable from its Mousehold representatives (see Arkhangelsky, 1912, pl. IX, figs. 3, 9; pl. X, fig. 10; Naidin,1959, text-fig. 23), probably occur in a subzone of their own. According to him, this subzone overlies the subzone of B. mucronata senior and underlies that characterized by belemnite forms transitional to B. /angei sens. lat. The proposed neotype of B. mucronata mucronata and all of its studied topotypes are, at any rate, “ high ” forms of this subspecies (in sense of Jeletzky, 1955, p. 480, text-fig. 1) often approaching B. minor Jeletzky, 1951 in their morphology. Comments on Belemnitellamucronatamucronata Naidin, 1956. Naidin(1956, p. 19; 1959, p. 203-4) and Jeletzky (1958, p. 45) have already proposed a sub- specific name Belemnitella mucronata mucronata for the Belemnitella form typified by the above described Mousehold specimen. The type specimen of the species being automatically the type of the nominate subspecies, the subspecies mucronata is dated from Naidin (1956). The proposed substitution of type of the species also will automatically substitute it for the nominate subspecies (see Code Art. 61a). The following previously published guards can, in the writer’s opinion, be identified as B. mucronata mucronata Naidin, 1956. Belemnitella mucronata, Moberg, 1885, pl. VI, fig. 13 (not others). Belemnitella mucronata, Arkhangelsky, 1912, pl. IX, figs. 3, 9; pl. X, fig. 10. Belemnitella mucronata, unnamed early variety, Jeletzky, 1955, p. 480, text- fig. 1; pl. 57, fig. la, 1b. Belemnitella mucronata mucronata, Naidin, 1956, p. 19. Belemnitella mucronata (sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 only), Birkelund, 1957, p. 30-31. Belemnitella mucronata var. mucronata, Jeletzky, 1958, p. 45. Belemnitella mucronata, Nikitin, 1958, p. 17-19, pl. VII, figs. 1-5; pl. VIII, figs. 1, 3; pl. IX, figs. 1, 2; pl. X, fig. 1. Belemnitella mucronata mucronata, Naidin, 1959, p. 203-4, text-fig. 23. Belemnitella mucronata, Kongiel, 1962, p. 29-30, 92-95, pl. XVIII, figs. 10-12 (not others). As pointed out by Jeletzky (1955, p. 480, text-fig. 1), the widespread and prolific form herein named B. mucronata mucronata is actually a morphologically intermediate (‘“‘ mean”) form of the Belemnitella mucronata species group connecting its morphologically extreme forms, such as B. mucronata senior, PP aa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287 B. mucronata elegans, and Belemnitella sp.n. aff. mucronata Jeletzky 1948 with one another. It is at the same time much more closely allied to the above mentioned early forms of the B. mucronata species group and to B. praecursor sens. lat. than to its younger members, such as B. /angei Jeletzky, 1948 non Birkelund, 1957, B. minor Jeletzky, 1951, B. lanceolatus Sharpe, 1857 non Schlotheim, 1813 (= B. /angei Birkelund non Jeletzky, 1948) and B. junior Nowak s. str. Like all the above mentioned early (late Lower to mid-Upper Campanian) representatives of B. mucronata species group, B. mucronata mucronata is characterized by the essentially straight course of the bottom of the ventral fissure, small fissure angle, which usually does not exceed 20°, and a relatively short ventral fissure. All the above mentioned younger (mid-Upper Campanian to Maastrichtian) representatives of the B. mucronata species group have, on the contrary, a more or less complexly bent bottom of the ventral fissure and a large fissure angle, which normally exceeds 40° and may reach 120°. Their ventral fissure is accordingly relatively (to the depth of the alveolus) longer than that of B. mucronata. mucronata and its allies. As repeatedly stressed by the writer (Jeletzky, 1951, p. 80; 1955, p. 480-91, text-fig. 1; 1958, p. 33, 42-43), all possible transitional forms between the representatives of these two form-groups are present inthe mid-Upper Campanian rocks of all European countries. The morphological distinctions of B. mucronata mucronata from B. praecursor sens. lat. have already been discussed by Jeletzky (1955, p. 496-7, expl. of pl. 57, fig. 1). B. mucronata senior Nowak, 1913 is a much more corpulent and short form than B. mucronata mucronata. This difference is apparent at once in the speci- mens of these two forms shown in pl. | of this paper and in that of Jeletzky (1955, pl. 57, figs. 1,5). It is best expressed quantitatively in the rather different ratios of the relative length of the guard to its dorso-ventral diameter at the base of alveolarfissure. The contrast between the slender and corpulent shape of the guard of the forms concerned is also observable in their juvenile and half grown guards. These growth stages of B. mucronata mucronata are always much more slender than the corresponding growth-stages of B. mucronata senior and closely compar- able to those of B. minor and B. sp.n. aff. mucronata Jeletzky, 1948. Another distinction consists in the considerably stronger development of the vascular imprints on the posterior half of the guard of B. mucronata senior. The apical end of B. mucronata senior is finally considerably broader and more obtuse than that. of B. mucronata mucronata. As already mentioned, however, all these distinctions are only valid for the typical representatives of both forms; their numerous transitional forms can only be designated as such. B. sp.n. aff. mucronata Jeletzky, 1948b (text-figs. 1-2) differs from B. muc- ronata mucronata in the marked to pronounced dorso-ventral compression and flattening of its guard. Its guard is, furthermore, strongly to moderately lanceolate in ventral aspect and feebly lanceolate to subcylindrical in lateral 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature aspect. The Schatsky Index of B. sp.n. aff. mucronata Jeletzky, 1948 tends, finally, to be smaller (4-5 to 6 mm.) than that of B. mucronata mucronata (6 to 10mm.). There is, however, a considerable overlap in the values of this feature, especially where the transitional forms are concerned. The two forms con- cerned are, as a rule, indistinguishable in their fissure angles and in the shapes of the bottoms of their fissures. The same is true, furthermore, of the appearance of the juvenile and half-grown guards of B. mucronata mucronata and B. sp.n. aff. mucronata. It is for that reason that the writer includes the latter among the early rather than late representatives of B. mucronata species group. B. mucronata mucronata and B. sp.n. aff. mucronata are connected by all possible transitional forms wherever their time ranges overlap (see Jeletzky, 1955, text-fig. 1, pl. 57, fig. 1). Belemnites lanceolatus Sharpe, 1857 non Schlotheim, 1813 differs from B. mucronata mucronata in its much feebler sculpture and the weaker development of the mucro and abbreviated apical end of the guard; it is, furthermore, a distinctly lanceolate form with an apparently greater fissure angle. B. mucronata elegans Wassilenko & Rasmysslova, 1950 is, so far as we know (see Jeletzky, 1958, p. 44-45), a smaller, more slender and distinctly lanceolate form than B. mucronata mucronata; it seems to lack, however, the pronounced dorso-ventral compression and flattening of B. sp.n. aff. mucronata Jeletzky, 1948 and its lesser value of Schatsky Index. The early forms of B. mucronata mucronata (see Jeletzky, 1955, pl. 57, fig. 1) are often similar to B. mucronata elegans in the general shape of their guards. As here defined, B, mucronata mucronata is a long-ranging form. Its earliest known representatives appear rarely already in the middle and upper parts of the so called Pteria-beds of SW Russia (Jeletzky, 1958, p. 33). It becomes rather common already in the uppermost Lower Campanian beds with B. mucronata senior and Actinocamax cf. mammillatus (Jeletzky, 1958, p. 42-43). The same is probably true of all the Scandinavian countries, northern Poland, northwestern Germany and England. It is not known whether B. mucronata mucronata occurs in the mid- to late Lower Campanian rocks of Belgium, France and middle Poland (Vistula profile) and it is quite possible that it did not pene- trate into these regions until the earliest Upper Campanian time. B. mucronata mucronata abounds in the early to mid- Upper Campanian rocks of northern Eurasia from the Urals to Great Britain (including Northern Ireland). It becomes scarce and possibly disappears completely already in the middle part of Belemnitella sp.n. aff. mucronata Jeletzky, 1948, zone by trans- mutation into Belemnitella minor Jeletzky and Belemnitella ex aff. langei Jeletzky, 1948 non Birkelund, 1957. Its records from younger beds are probably due to the confusion with extremely sturdy and subconical representatives of B. minor. The latter differ, however, from B. mucronata mucronata in their considerably longer ventral fissure, larger fissure angle and more or less complexly bent bottom of the ventral fissure. More careful bed by bed collecting is needed, however, to establish the upper age limit of B. mucronata mucronata. The general appearance of the guards of B. mucronata mucronata changes appreciably within its known time range. So far as is known its evolutionary trend is the same from Central Russia to England. The late Lower and earliest Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289 Upper Campanian representatives of B. mucronata mucronata are distinctly sturdier and shorter and havea deeper alveolus than its younger (e.g. Mousehold) representatives. Their shape of the guard is, at that, often less regular and the sculpture stronger. These early forms of B. mucronata mucronata are on the whole more similar to B. mucronata senior and B. mucronata elegans than are its younger representatives. The latter are, on the contrary, more similar to B. minor, B. sp.n. aff. mucronata Jeletzky, 1948, and the early allies of B. langei Jeletzky non Birkelund. For the time being at least, these “ low ” and “ high ” forms of B. mucronata mucronata ate kept together as members of one and the same subspecies of B. mucronata sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912. There is a distinct tendency, however, to consider the “ high” forms as typical of the subspecies (e.g. Naidin, 1956, p. 19; 1959, p. 203-4, text-fig. 23). The writer has followed this tendency in designating a “high ” form as the neotype of the subspecies. Text-fig. 1. Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807) sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 subsp. mucronata Naidin, 1956. British Museum (Natural History), London, coll. no. BM.C-43545, A schematical drawing of the ontogenetic development and other internal features of the longitudinally split (lateral view) guard shown in pl. 1, fig. 4C. Natural size. 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature EXPLANATION OF PLATE 1 All figures natural size Figs. 1A-1D. Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807) sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 subsp. mucronata Naidin, 1956. The proposed neotype. British Museum (Natural History), London, coll. no. BM.C—43542. Norwich Chalk, mucronata zone in restricted sense (upper Campanian). Norfolk, England, Edward’s Pit at Mousehold (Pit — 160 of A. W. Rowe’s Ms.) (? St James Hill). Collected by Mr. A. W. Rowe. 1A. Ventral view; 1B. Dorsal view; 1C. Lateral view; 1D. Lateral view of the inside of longitudinally split guard. Figs. 2A. 2B. Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807) sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 subsp. mucronata Naidin, 1956. A sturdy variant of the sub- species. British Museum (Natural History), London, coll. no. BM.C_43544. Same locality, collector, etc. as for the specimen BM.C-43542. 1A. Ventral view; 1B. Lateral view. Figs. 3A-3C. Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807) sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 subsp. senior Nowak, 1913. A medium-sized specimen. Author’s private collection at the Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Natural portland cement marls’ unit. Early Upper Campanian, Hoplitoplacenticeras (= Dechenoceras) coespheldiense zone. Greater cement pit at Amvrossievka, Stalino province, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, southern margin of Donets basin. This specimen was reproduced graphically by Jeletzky (1951b, pl. 2, figs. 1a, 1b. 1A. Ventral view; 1B—1C. Two lateral views. The specimen is somewhat deformed (lateral compression) near the alveolar rim. Figs. 4A-4C, Belemnitella mucronata (Link, 1807) sensu Arkhangelsky, 1912 subsp. mucronata Naidin, 1956. A slender variant of the sub- species transitional to Be/emnitella minor Jeletzky in the shape and proportions of its guard, length of ventral fissure, etc. British Museum (Natural History), London, coll. no. BM.C— 43545. Same locality, collector, etc. as for the specimen BM.C-43542. 1A. Vential view; 1B. Lateral view; 1C, Lateral view of the inside of longitudinally split guard. Compare with text-fig. 1. REFERENCES ARKHANGELSKY, A. D. 1912. Verkhne-melovye otlozhenia vostoka Yevropeiskoi Rossii (Upper Cretaceous deposits of the Eastern part of European Russia); Materialy dlia geologii Rossii, t. 25, 631 pages, 10 plates, 18 figs. (Russian) Bay_e, E. Fossiles principaux de térrains; Explic. Carte Géol., frang., Ser. 3 (3), 176 plates (without text) BETTENSTAEDT, F. & WicHER, C. A. 1955. Stratigraphic correlation of Upper Cretaceous and Lower ‘Cretaceous in the Tethys and Boreal by the aid of Microfossils; Proceed. Fourth World Petroleum Congr., Sect. I/d, Repr. 5, pp. 493-516, 5 pls. BIRKELUND, T. 1957. Upper Cretaceous Belemnites from Denmark; Biol. Skr. Kongel. Dansk. Vid. Selskab., Bd. 9 (1), 69 pages, 6 plates, 9 figs., 3 tables BIRKELUND, T., & H. WIENBERG RASMUSSEN 1956. Die Nomenklaturfrage der Belemniten im Senon und die stratigraphischen Zonennamen; Palaontol. Zeitschr, Bd. 30, Sonderheft: Biostratigraphie der Oberkreide, pp. 80-86, pl. 11, 1 table, 1956 Bopy.evsky, V. I. 1953. Malyi Atlas Rukovodiastchich Iskopaemych (The Small Atlas of Index Fossils); Moscow-Leningrad, 2nd revised edition, 239 pages, 86 fossil plates (Russian) > ool. Nomencl., Bull. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291 Breynius, J. P. 1732. De Polythalamiis nova testaceorum classe, huic adiicitur Commentatiuncula de Belemnites prussicis tandemque schediasma de Echinis metodice disponendis; Gedani (Danzig) BRINKMANN, R. 1954. Abriss der Geologie, begrundet durch E. Kayser. Vol. 2, Historische Geologie; 7th edition, 359 pages, 58 plates, 70 figs. Enke, Stuttgart BusnorF, S. von 1926. Geologie von Europa. Vol. 1. Einfiihrung, Osteuropa, Baltischer Schield. 322 pages, 8 plates, 86 figs.; Gebriider Borntraeger, Berlin BuBNorFF, S. VON 1935 Geologie von Europa, Vol. 2. Das ausseralpine Westeuropa. Teil 2. Die Entwicklung des Oberbaues; 1134 pages, 9 plates, 44 figs. Gebr. Borntraeger Berlin BULOw-TRuMMER, E. Von 1920. Fossilum Catalogus. I: Animalia, pars. 11. Cephalopoda dibranchiata; 313 pages, W. Junk, Berlin BusHINsky, G. I. 1954, Litologia melovych otlozhenii Dneprovsko-Donetskoi vpadiny (Lithology of the Cretaceous Deposits of the Dniepr-Donets Depres- sion): Trudy Inst. Geol. Nauk A.N. SSSR, No. 156, 307 pages, 142 figs. (Russian) DaquE, E. 1942. Leitfossilien. Lief. 8. Wirbellose der Kreide.; 102 pages, 52 plates, 5 figs., Gebr. Borntraeger, Berlin FAusas-SAINT-Fonpb, B. 1798. Histoire naturelle de la montagne de Saint Pierre de Maastricht. Ire livr.; Paris GRuBE, Fr. 1955. Tektonische Untersuchungen in der Oberkreide von Lagerdorf (Holstein); Mitteil. Geol. Staatsinst. Hamburg, H. 24, pp. 5-32, 4 figs. HAGcG, R. 1947. Die Mollusken und Brachiopoden der Schwedischen Kreide. Das Kristianstadgebiet; Sveriges Geol. Unders., Ser. C. No. 485, 143 pages HAGo, R. 1954. Die Mollusken und Brachiopoden der Schwedischen Kreide. 4, Die Mammillaten- und Mucronatenkreide des Ystadsgebietes; Sveriges Geol. Unders., Ser. C. No. 535, 72 pages, 9 plates Hacn, H. 1953. Zur Kenntnis des Unteren Obercampans (Zone der Belemnitella mucronata (Schloth.) mut. senior Nowak) in Sudbayern; Neues Jb., Geol. & Palaontol. Abhandl. 96 (2), pp. 304-338, pl. 8 HERRMANNSEN, A. N. 1846. Indicus Generum Malacozoorum. Primordia. Vol. 1. Cassellis. Sumptibus and Typis Theodori Fischeri HILTERMANN, H. 1952. Stratigraphische Fragen des Campan und Maastricht unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Mikropalaontologie; Geol. Jahrbuch, Amt f. Bodenforschung, Hannover, Vol. 67, pp. 47-66, 1 pl., 5 figs. HILTERMANN, H. & Kocu, W. 1950. Taxonomie und Vertikalverbreitung von Bolivinoides-Arten im Senon Nordwestdeutschlands; Geol. Jahrbuch, Amt f. Bodenforschung, Hannover, Vol. 64, pp. 595-632, 7 tables, 7 figs. HILTERMANN, H. & Kocu, W. 1955. Biostratigraphie der Grenzschichten Maastricht/ Campan in Liineburg und in der Bohrung Brunhilde. 2. Teil: Foraminiferen ; Geol. Jahrbuch, Amt f. Bodenforschung Hannover, Bd. 70, pp. 357-377, pls. 27-29, 2 tables, 3 figs. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 1943. Declaration 5: On the grant to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of plenary powers to suspend rules in certain cases; Opinions and Declarations rendered by ICZN, Vol. 1 (5) pp. 31-40 JELETZKY, J. A. 1940, Stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous deposits in the basin of the Desna River near Novgorod-Seversk; Journ. of Geology (Kiev), Vol. 7 (4), pp. 115-137, 1 fig., 1 correl. table. (Ukrainian with Engl. summ.) JELETZKY, J. A. 1941. Uber die Systematik und Phylogenie der Belemniten der oberen Kreide; Doklady Akad. Nauk. Ukr. SSR. No. 2, pp. 23-30, 4 figs. (Ukrainian & German) JELETZKY, J. A. 1946. Zur Kenntnis der oberkretazischen Belemniten; Geol. Foren. Forhandl. Vol. 68 (1), pp. 87-103, 4 figs. JELETZKY, J. A. 1948a. Sowerby’s and Sharpe’s Belemnites lanceolatus and their relation to Belemnites lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813; Geol. Mag., Vol. 85 (3), pp. 338-348, 6 figs., 1 plate 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature JeLeTzky, J. A. 1948b. Zur Kenntnis der Oberkreide der Dnjepr-Donetz Senke und zum Vergleich der russischen borealen Oberkreide mit derjenigen Polens und Nordwesteuropas; Geol. Féren. Foérhandl., Vol. 70 (4); pp. 583-602, 4 figs. 1 correl. chart Jecetzky, J. A. 1949. Uber den taxonomischen Wert einiger morphologischer Elemente des Rostrums der belemnitellenartigen Formen (Familie Bele- mnitellidae Pavlow, 1913), sowie iiber die Gatung Belemnella (Nowak, 1913, sbg.) Jeletzky, 1941, ihre Phylogenie und einige Vertreter; Neues Jb. Miner. etc., Ser. B., Monatsheft 9, S. 257-287, 14 figs. JeceTzky, J. A. 195la. The place of the Trimingham and Norwich chalk in the Campanian-Maestrichtian succession; Geol. Mag., Vol. 88 (3), pp. 197-208, 1 correl. table JeLeTzky, J. A. 1951b. Die Stratigraphie und Belemniten-Fauna des Obercampan und Maastricht Westfalens, Nordwestdeutschlands und Danemarks, sowie iiber einige allgemeine Gliederungsprobleme der jiingeren borealen Oberkreide Eurasiens; Geol. Landesanst. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Geol. Jahrbuch, Beiheft 1, 142 pages, 7 plates, 3 tables JeceTzky, J. A. 1955. Evolution of Santonian and Campanian Belemnitella and palaontological systematics: exemplified by Belemnitella praecursor Stolley; Journ. of Pal. Vol. 29 (3), pp. 478-509, 3 pls. 1 fig. JeLETZKY, J. A. 1958. Die jiingere Oberkreide (Oberconiac bis Maastricht) Siidwest- russlands und ihr Vergleich mit der Nordwest- und Westeuropas. I. Dnjepr- Donez Senke und Nordwestrand des Donezbeckens sowie einige Vergleichs- und Gliederungs-Probleme der russischen borealen Oberkreide; Beihefte z. Geol. Jahrbuch, H. 33, 157 pages, 11 figs., 1 corr. chart Kapanovy, K.A. 1950. Verkhnemelovye belemnity roda Belemnitella iz Ulyanovskoi oblasty (Upper Cretaceous belemnites of the genus Belemnitella from Ulyanovsk province); Akad. Nauk U.S.S.R., Doklady, Vol. 72 (1), pp.1 29-132, 3 figs. (Russian) KoncrEL, R. 1935. Contribution a l’étude du “siwak” dans les énvirons de Pulawy (plateau de Lublin); Prace Tow. Pryzyjasl Nauk w Wilnie, t. 9, Prace Zakl. Geol. & Geogr. Univ. Wilno, No. 19, 59 pages, 8 plates, 1 fig. (Polish with French summ.) KonGrEL, R. 1962. On belemnites from Maestrichtian, Campanian, and Santonian sediments in the Middle Vistula valley (Central Poland); Prace Museum Ziemi. No. 5. Prace Paleozoologiczne, 148 pages, 21 plates, 7 tables, 130 text- figs. KonoiEL, R. & MaAtTwirwowna, L. 1937. Materiaux fauniques de la Craié supérieure des environs de Pulawy; Prace Tow. Przyjasl. Nauk w Wilnie, t. 9, Prace Zakl. Geol. Univ. Wilno, N.S., No. 1, 34 pages, 3 pls., 15 figs. (Polish with French summ.) Korovin, M. K. 1941. Istoricheskaya Geologiia (Historical Geology); Gosgeolisdat. Moscow, 487 pages, 230 figs., 15 tables (Russian) LANGE, O.K. 1921. Ozonach verchnego senona (The zones of the Upper Senonian). Geol. Westnik, Vol. 4, pp. 24-30 (Russian) Link, H. F. 1807. Beschreibung der Naturalien-Sammlung der Universitat zu Rostock. Teil 3, Fossile Ueberbleibsel organischer KOrper, sogenannte Ver- steinerungen; Rostock LowenstaM, H. A. 1954. Status of Invertebrate Paleontology, 1953. XI. Systematic, Paleoecological and Evolutionary Aspects of Skeletal Building Materials; Bull. Mus. Comparative Zoology Harvard College, Vol. 112 (3), pp. 287-317, 3 figs. LowensTAM, H. A. & EpsTEIN, S. 1954. Paleotemperatures of the Post-Aptian Cretaceous as determined by the oxygen isotope method; Journ. of Geology, Vol. 62 (3), pp. 207-248, 22 figs., 4 tables Masarovicu, A. N. 1937. Istoricheskaya Geologiia (Historical Geology); Moscow- Leningrad (Russian) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293 Masarovicu, A. N. 1938. Osnovy Geologii SSSR (Fundamentals of Geology of USSR); ONTI Press. Moscow-Leningrad, 544 pages, 137 figs., 1 map (Russian) MicuaiLov, N. P. 1947. O granitse mezhdu kampanskim i maestrichtskim yarusami (The delimitation of the Campanian and Maestrichtian stages); Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vol. 58 (9), pp. 2021-23 (Russian) MicuaiLov, N. P. 1948. Zonal’noe deleniye verchnei chasty melovych otlozhenii Kryma i Zapadnoi Ukrainy po golovonogim (The zonal subdivision of the upper part of the Cretaceous deposits of the Crimea and of the Western Ukraine according to the Cephalopoda); Bull. Moskow. Ob-va Ispytatelei Prirody, N.S., Otdel Geol. Vol. 23 (6), pp. 3-10, (Russian) MicuaiLtov, N. P. 1951. Verchnemelovye ammonity yuga Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR i ich znachenie dlya zonal’noi stratigraphii (Upper Cretaceous ammonites of the southern part of the European part of U.S.S.R. and their importance for the zonal stratigraphy); Trudy Inst. Geol. Nauk, vyp. 129, geol. ser. No. 50, 143 pages, 19 plates, 33 tables, 35 figs. (Russian) MoserG, J. Ch. 1885. Cephalopoderna i Sveriges Kritsystem (The cephalopods of the Cretaceous system of Sweden). II. Artbeskrifning (Description of species); Sveriges Geol. Unders. sec. C., No. 73, 67 pages, 6 pls. (Swedish) Moserc, J. Cu. 1894. Uber schwedische Kreidebelemniten; Neues Jb. Min., Monatsheft 2, pp. 69-78 Morozov, N. S. 1952. Raschlenenie kampanskich i maastrichtskich porod v basseine levych pritokovy Severnogo Donetsa (The subdivision of Campanian and Maestrichtian rocks in the basin of left confluents of the Northern Donets); Doklady Akad. Nauk. SSSR, N.S., Vol. 84 (6), pp. 1221-1223 Mutiter, A. H. 1951. Die Kieselungserscheinungen an Belemnitenrostren; Abhandl. Geol. Dienstes, Berlin, N.F., H. 228, pp. 25-29, pl. IV MU ter, A. H. 1952. Bemerkungen zur Stratigraphie und Stratonomie der ober- senonen Schreibkreide von Riigen. Teil 1. Einigesiiber die quantitative Vertei- lung der Fossilien und die sich daraus ergebenden Schliisse; Geologie, a fiir Gesamtgebiet der Geol. etc., Jahrg. 1, No.5, pp. 369-376, 1 pl., 2 figs. Mutter, A. H. 1960. Lehrbuch der Paliozoologie. Bd II. Invertebraten. Teil 2, Mollusca 2—Arthropoda 1; Jena, Fischer, 448 pages, 615 text-figs. Naer, A. 1922. Die fossilien Tintenfische; 321 pages, 1 plate, 101 figs. Fischer, Jena Narpin, D. P. 1951. Stratigrafiia verchnemelovych otlozhenii Zapadnoi Ukrainy po belemnitam (The stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous deposits of the Western Ukraine according to belemnites); Bull. Mosk. Ob-va Ispytatelei Prirody, Otd. Geol. t. XXVI (3), pp, 94-95 (an abstract only) (Russian) NaAIpDIN, D.P. 1952. Verchnemelovye belemnity Zapadnoi Ukrainy (The Upper Cret- aceous belemnites of the Western Ukraine); Trudy Moskovskogo Geologo- Razvedochnogo Instituta imeni S. Ordzhonikidze, Vol. XX VII, 170 pages, 21 pls., 39 figs. (Russian) Nalrpin, D. P. 1954. Nekotorye osobennosti rasprostraneniya v predelach Evropy verchnemelovych belemnitov (Some peculiarities of distribution of the Upper Cretaceous belemnites in Europe); Bull. Mosk. Ob-va Ispytatelei Prirody, Otd. Geol., Vol. XXIX (3), pp. 19-28, 5 figs. (Russian) NariwiIn, D. P. 1955. O zakavkazskich predstavitelyach Belemnitella mucronata (About the Transcaucasian representatives of Belemnitella mucronata); Doklady Akad. Nauk Azerbeidzhanskoi SSR, Vol. 11 (2) (Russian) NaipIn, D. P. 1956. Nekotorye voprossy zonal’noi stratigrafii verkhnemelovykh otlozhenii russkoi platformy (Some problems of zonal stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous deposits of the Russian platform); Uchenye Zapiski Mosko- vskogo Gosudarstvennogo Un-ta, No. 175, pp. 17-24, 2 corr. tables (Russian) NAIDIN, D. P. 1959. Subclass Endocochlia; in: Atlas verkhnemelovoi fauny severnogo Kavkaza i Kryma (Atlas of the Upper Cretaceous fauna of Northern Caucasus and Crimea), Gostoptekhizdat, Moskva, pp. 198-209, pls. XIX-— XXIII, text-figs. 20-23 (Russian) 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’ Nikitin, I. I. 1958. Verkhniokreidovi belemniti pivnitshnoskhidniogo krila dniprovs’- ko-donetskoi zapadini (Upper Cretaceous belemnites of the northeastern slope of Dniepr-Donetz basin); Akademiya Nauk Ukr. RSR, Trudy Inst. Geol. Nauk, Ser. Strat. & Pal. No. 20, 92 pages, 23 plates, 1 table (Ukrainian) Nitsson, S. 1827. Petrifacta Suecana formationis cretacea descripta et iconibus illustrata. Pars prior: Vertebrata et mollusca sistens; Londini Gothorum Nowak, J. 1913. Untersuchungen iiber die Cephalopoden der oberen Kreide in Polen. Teil. 3; Bull. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, Ser. B., pp. 335-412, pls. 40-45, 1 fig. Nowak, J. 1917. Die Verbreitung der Cephalopoden im polnischen Senon; Bull. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, Ser. A., pp. 129-152 d’OrBiGNy, A. 1840. Paléontologie francaise. Térrains crétacées. 1. Lés Céphalo- podes; 622 pages, 148 plates. Press of the author. Paris Peake, N. B. & HANcock, J. M. 1961. The Upper Cretaceous of Norfolk; Trans. Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists’ Society, Vol. 19(6), pp. 293-339, 1 table, 7 text-figs., 1 geol. map PozarysKA, K. 1954. O przewodnich otwornicach z kredy gornej Polski srodkowej (The index foraminifera of the Upper Cretaceous of Middle Poland); Acta Geol. Polonica, 4, pp. 249-276, 28 figs., 2 pls. (Polish) PoZzarRIsKA, K. & POZARISKI, W. 1951. Przewodnik Geologichny po Kazimierzu Okolicy (Guide book of the Kazimierz and vicinity); Wyd. Muzeum Ziemi, Warszawa, 101 pages, 18 pls., 14 figs., 1 map PoZARISKI, W. 1938. Senonstratigraphie im Durchbruch der Weichsel zwischen Rachow und Pulawy in Mittelpolen; Bull. Inst. Géol. Pologne, No. 6, 94 pages, 1 pl., 1 fig. (Polish with German summary) PoZARISKI, W. 1948. Jurassic and Cretaceous between Radom, Zawichost and Krasnik (Central Poland); Bull. Inst. Géol. Pologne, No. 46, 141 pages, 4 pls., 3 figs. in the text, 4 pls. outside the text (Polish with English summary) Putzer, H. 1942. Die oberste Kreide von Bochotnica an der mittleren Weichsel. Zbl. Mineral., etc., Ser. B, Monatsheft 12, pp. 361-378, 1 pl., 2 figs. REYMENT, R. 1956. On the stratigraphy and palaeontology of Nigeria and the Cameroons, British West Africa; Geol. Foren. Forhandl., Vol. 78(1), pp. 17-96, 2 tables, 5 figs. RieDEL, L. 1942. Obere Kreide; Schriften Wiss. Ges. z. Studium Niedersachsens, N. F., 2 Das Mesozoicum in Niedersachsen, Abt. 5, 53 pages, 1 table, 3 figs. RieDEL, L. 1950. Das obere Mucronatensenon-Maastricht in Nordwestdeutschland in stratigraphischer und palaogeographischer Hinsicht; Geol. Jb., Amt fiir Bodenforschung, Hannover, Vol. 65, pp. 381-407, 2 figs., 1 table RoGaLa, W. 1916. Die oberkretazischen Bildungen im galizischen Podolien. 2 Teil : Emscher und Senon; Bull. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, Ser. A., pp. 259-296, 1 table Rocer, J. 1952. Sous-classe des Dibranchiata Owen, 1836 (Coleoidea Waagen, Endocochlia Schwartz); in: Traité de Paléontologie, publié sous la direction de Jean Piveteau, Vol. II, pp. 689-755, 102 figs., Masson, Paris Rozycki, S. Z. 1938. Stratigrafia i tektonika kredy w okolicach Lelowa (Strati- graphie und Tektonik der Kreideablagerungen der Umgebung von Lelow, sud- ostlich von Czestochow); Sprawozd. Panstw. Inst. Geol., Vol. 9 (Polish with German summary) SAVCHINSKAYA, O. V. 1950. O nekotorych osobennostyach otlozhenii i ich makro- fauny v Donetskom kanale (about some peculiarities of the Upper Cretaceous deposits and their macrofauna in the Donetz Channel); Uchenye Zapiski Charkov. Univ. Vol. XXXI SAVCHINSKAYA, O. V. 1952. K_ stratigrafii verchnemelovych otlozhenii severnoi okrainy Donbassa. (The stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous deposits of the northern edge of Donetz basin); Bull. Moskow, Ob-va Ispyt. Prirody, otd. geol. Vol. 27(1), pp. 61-65 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 SCHLOENBACH, U. 1867. Uber einen Belemniten aus der alpinen Kreide von Griin- bach bei Weiner Neustadt: Jb. k. k. geol. Reichsanstalt, Vol. 17, pp. 589-593, 1 plate SCHLOTHEIM, E. F. von. 1813. Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Versteinerungen in geognostischer Hinsicht. Leonhard’s Taschenbuch ges. Mineral. 7 (1), 134 pages, Frankfurt a. Main SCHLOTHEIM, E. F. 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte, durch die Beschreibung seiner Sammlungen versteinerter und fossiler Uberreste des Tier- und Pflanzenreiches der Vorwelt erlautert; Gotha SCHLUTER, CL. 1876. Cephalopoden der oberen deutschen Kreide. Teil 2; Palaeon- togr. Vol. 24, pp. 123-263, pls. 36-55 SCHMID, Fr. 1951. Discoscaphites constrictus (Sowerby) aus den Lanceolatenschich- ten (Unteres Maastricht) von Liineburg; Neues Jb. Geol. & Palaont., Monat- sheft 5, pp. 152-155, 1 fig. SCHMID, Fr. 1953. Schliisselprofile der Oberen Kreide NW-Deutschlands; Pal. Zeitschr., Vol. 27, pp. 234-235 ScHMID, Fr. 1955a. Die bisherigen Untersuchungen iiber das Unter/Obermaas- tricht-Crenzprofil von Hemmoor (Niederelbe), seine Schichtfolge und Leit- formen; Mitteil. Geol. Staatsinst. Hamburg H. 24, pp. 75-86, 1 table ScHMID, Fr. 1955b. Biostratigraphie der Grenzschichten Maastricht/Campan in Liineburg und in der Bohrung Brunhilde. 1. Teil; Megafauna und Schichtfolge; Geol. Jahrb. Amt f. Bodenforsch., Hannover, pp. 339-353, 2 tables, 4 figs. Seitz, O. 1952. Die Oberkreide-Gliederung in Deutschland nach ihrer Anpassung an das internationale Schema; Zeitschr. deutsch. geol. Ges., Vol. 104, pp. 148- 151, 1 table SHARPE, D. 1853-57. Description of the fossil remains of Mollusca found in the Chalk of England. Pt. 1. Cephalopoda; Palaeontogr. Soc. Vol. 7-9, London SIEMIRADZKI, J. 1928. Geologia ziem Polskich (Geology of Polish lands). Vol. 2, Issue 1. Kreda (Cretaceous); 142 Pages, 2 figs., 2 edition, Lvév, Press of Imenia Dzieduszyckich StnZov, I. 1872. Ob yurskich i melovych okamenelostyach Saratovskoi gubernii (About Jurassic and Cretaceous fossils of the Saratov province); Materialy dlya geologii Rossii, Vol. 4, pp. 1-128, 22 plates (Russian) Sinzov, I. 1915. O verchnemelovych osadkach Saratovskoi gubernii (About the Upper Cretaceous deposits of the Saratov province); Zapiski Imper. Miner. Ob-va, Ser. 2, Vol. 50, pp. 133-162, pl. 8 (Russian) SKOLOZDROWNA, S. 1929. Belemnity kredy Lwowa ji jego najbliszezych okolic (Belemnites of the chalk of Lvov and its closest vicinity); Sprawozd. Lwow. Towarz. Nauk, Lwow, 1929 (Polish) SKOLOZDROWNA, S. 1932. Znaczenie alveoli i szczelyny alveolarnej dlja systematyki rodsaju Belemnitella (The significance of the alveolus and of the alveolar fissure for the systematics of the genus Belemnitella); Posiedz. Nauk. Panstwow. Inst. Geol., No. 33, pp. 117 (Polish) SmiRNOVA, O. K. & PASTERNAK, C. I. 1948. Melovye otlozheniia L’vovskoi muldy (Cretaceous deposits of the Lvov basin); Trudy L’vov. geol. society, geol. ser., vyp. 1 (Russian) SOBOLEVSKAYA, V. N. 195]. Paleogeografiya i struktura Russkoi platformy v verchnemelovuyu epochu (Palaeogeography and structure of the Russian platform during the Upper Cretaceous epoch); In Memoriam of Academician A.D. Arkhangelsky, Problems of Lithology and Stratigraphy of U.S.S.R., Press A.N. U.S.S.R., Moscow, pp. 67-123, 10 figs. Sowersy, J. DEC. 1829. The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain; London, Vol. 6, 230 pages, plates 504-609 STOLLEY,E. 1928. Die Belemniten des alpinen Eocins; Zbl. f. Min. etc., Ser. B, No. 2, Stuttgart 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature StracHov, N. M. 1948. Osnovy istoricheskoi geologii (Fundamentals of Historical Geology); Vol. 2, 396 pages, 121 figs. Gosgeolizdat, Moscow-Leningrad, 2nd edition (Ist edition, 1938) (Russian) TROELSEN, J. C. 1955. Globotruncana contusa in the White Chalk of Denmark; Micropaleontology, Vol. 1(1), pp. 76-82, 2 figs. VASSILENKO, V. K. & RasmysLova, 8S. S. 1950. Systematika belemnitella (System- atics of Belemnitellas); Doklady, Akademy Sciences U.S.S.R. N.S.; Vol. 74 (3), pp. 603-606, 1 table, 1 fig. (Russian) VoicT, E. 1951. Das Maastricht-Vorkommen von IIten bei Hannover und seine Fauna; mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Gross-Foraminiferen und Bry- ozoen; Mitteil. Geolog. Staatsinst. Hamburg, H. 20, pp. 15-109, 10 plates, 14 figs. VoicT, E. 1954. Das Alter der Reitbrooker Schichten (Ob. Kreide, Maastr. Stufe) und ihr Leitfossil Pteria (Oxytoma) danica Ravn; Geol. Jahrb., Amt. f. Boden -forsch. Hannover, Vol. 68, pp. 617-652, pls. 17-18, 4 figs., 1 table WICHER, CARL A. 1953. Mikropalaontologische Beobachtungen in der hGheren borealen Oberkreide, besonders im Maastricht; Geol. Jb. etc., Vol. 68, pp. 1-26, 5 tables, 1 fig. Winb, J. 1955. Ammeldelser og kritikker. J.A. Jeletzky, Beih. Geol. Jb. 1, 1951; Medd. Dansk Geol. Foren., Vol. 12(6), pp. 663-664 (Danish) Wricut, C. W. & E. V. Wricut. 1951. A Survey of the Fossil Cephalopoda of the Chalk of Great Britain, etc.; Palaeontogr. Society, 40 pages ZHEMCHUZHNIKOV, YU. 1934. Kurs paleofaunistiki (Textbook of Palaeofaunistics) ; Gosgeolisdat, Moscow-Leningrad Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297 ON THE IDENTITY OF CLYPEASTER ROSACEUS (LINNAEUS) AND SOME OTHER IRREGULAR ECHINOIDS. Z.N.(S.) 1616 By Ailsa Clark (British Museum (Natural History), London) Loven (1887, pp. 171-173) has demonstrated that Linnaeus’ various diag- noses and descriptions of Echinus rosaceus in the Systema Naturae editions 10 (1758, p. 665) and 12 (1767, p. 1104) and the catalogue of the “ Museum Ludovicae Ulricae”” (1764, p. 713) agree with a specimen in the old royal collection maintained in Lund. Lovén gave a photograph of this specimen (1887, pl. 6, fig. 2) which shows that the tips of three out of the five petals are unnaturally asymmetrical, agreeing with the comment “ apice parum muti- latis * in Linnaeus’ description in the museum catalogue. As Lovén himself says, the species represented is not the West Indian one now known as Clypeaster rosaceus but is the species from the Indo-West Pacific which we now call C. humilis (Leske) but which in Lovén’s day was generally known as C. placu- narius (Lamarck). Linnaeus himself gave the locality of rosaceus as “ O. Asiatico ”’. In 1778 Leske (in Klein, p. 185; Additamenta, p. 121) used Klein’s pre- Linnaean name humile in the combination Echinanthus humilis and put Linnaeus’ Echinus rosaceus at the head of the references to earlier descriptions and figures of the species, indicating that he considered them synonymous (as observed by H. L. Clark in 1911, p. 594). Klein had briefly described and figured three “varieties” of humile, each since interpreted as a separate species (notably by A. Agassiz, 1872 and Mortensen, 1948). Variety « judging from the figures (Klein, 1734 and 1778, pl. xvii, fig. A and pl. xviii, fig. B) represents the West Indian species now known as Clypeaster rosaceus (but not the Echinus rosaceus of Linnaeus), variety B (pl. xix, figs. A and B) could well be the present C. humilis, while variety y (pl. xix, figs. C and D) is a third species with more acute petals, possibly C. subdepressus (Gray). Lambert (1905, p. 142, footnote) commented that Lovén had confounded several species under the name Echinus rosaceus and had proposed to take as the type the depressed Indo-West Pacific form. As I understand Lovén’s prefatory argument, Linnaeus’ specific diagnoses and description of rosaceus were based on a recognisable type specimen in Queen Louisa Ulrica’s collection and the references to figures which have since proved to represent species other than the one currently called C. humilis were only included subsequently for the sake of comparison without necessarily implying that they were conspecific (though obviously Linnaeus must have considered them to be closely related to his type specimen). Following Lambert, H. L. Clark (1911, p. 594) similarly dismissed Lovén’s inconvenient conclusion that Echinus rosaceus Linnaeus is not the West Indian species it is commonly supposed to be and which is generally credited to Lin- naeus, because, Clark says, “‘ Lovén admits there is no authentic type specimen of rosaceus”’. In face of Lovén’s photograph of the authentic type specimen Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol, 21, Part 4. October 1964, 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (for the identity of which he provides the perfectly convincing argument given at the beginning of this proposal), H. L. Clark’s statement suggests that he had not read Lovén’s work properly, particularly since he reiterates Lambert’s comment that rosaceus Linnaeus was obviously a compound of several distinct species. Mortensen too (1948, p. 78) followed Clark and Lambert in refusing to accept Lovén’s arguments concerning Clypeaster rosaceus. [However, he succeeded incidentally in proving Lovén wrong as regards Linnaeus’ second Clypeaster species, namely Echinus reticulatus Linnaeus, 1758, p. 666, by giving a photograph (1948, pl. xviii, fig. 1) of a specimen from the old royal collection under the name of Cl/ypeaster reticulatus, which specimen he presumably found to be conspecific with his Indo-Pacific material of reticulatus, though he did not stress this in the text. Linnaeus gave the locality of reticulatus as “ O. Americano”. Certainly the specimen figured by Mortensen resembles closely Gualtieri’s figure quoted by Linnaeus for comparison with reticulatus (though I must say that it looks more “‘ punctate” than “ reticulate’, these being almost the only differentiating features included by Linnaeus in his abbreviated diagnoses of the two species in 1758). One cannot help speculating whether Mortensen refrained from giving a photograph of the corresponding specimen of rosaceus in the royal collection because it disagreed with the present-day conception of the species.] In face of the existence of a specimen which is almost certainly the type of Linnaeus’ Echinus rosaceus but which belongs to the species now known as Clypeaster humilis, it seems impossible to go on crediting Linnaeus as the author of the West Indian Clypeaster rosaceus. It is unthinkable that the name rosaceus should be transferred to the Indo-Pacific species and humilis (Leske) reduced to the synonymy of it—as should be done under the rules. In order to preserve the names Clypeaster rosaceus and C. humilis in their accustomed usages it is desirable that Echinus rosaceus Linnaeus, 1758, 1764 and 1767 (also Gmelin, 1788) should be suppressed and Clypeaster rosaceus Lamarck, 1801, validated as the type species of Clypeaster Lamarck. At that date, Lamarck (1801, p. 349) gave only two references under the heading of C. rosaceus, one to Klein’s fig. A of pl. xvii together with fig. B of pl. xviii and the other to figs. 7 and 8 of pl. 144 in the Encyclopédie Méthodique, the latter being copied from Klein. At the same time it becomes necessary to restrict Clypeaster humilis (Leske) to the species probably represented by Klein’s figures A and B of pl. xix (1734 and 1778) reproduced as figures 1 and 2 of pl. 145 in the Encyclopédie Méthodique. A. Agassiz (1872) qualified with exclamation marks his citations to Lamarck’s reference to Clypeaster rosaceus and to Klein’s figures, thus implying that he had personally examined the relevant material. This gives added weight to the identification of Klein’s two pairs of figures as representing respectively the two species now known as C. rosaceus and C. humilis. It is also desirable that either lectotypes or neotypes of the two should be selected. The best solution to this problem seems to me the designation of Klein’s two pairs of figures as representing the lectotypes, though I must admit that the two latter (of humilis) are not so satisfactory as the former, since there Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299 are other species of Clypeaster which are superficially very similar to C. humilis. If this is done, then Klein’s pl. xvii, fig. A and pl. xviii, fig. B (1734 and 1778) represent the lectotype of the West Indian Clypeaster rosaceus Lamarck, 1801, while figs. A and B of pl. xix represent the lectotype of Echinanthus humilis Leske, 1778, now restricted to variety B of Klein and referable to the genus Clypeaster. Strictly speaking, the latter should be designated E. humilis Leske in Klein, 1778, but since Leske’s separate ‘“‘ Additamenta ” was published in the same year as his complete edition of Klein this qualification seems super- fluous. According to Leske a specimen of variety B, by inference the one represented in Klein’s figures, was then in the museum of Trier. Unfortunately the natural history collection of that museum was broken up during the nineteenth century and this specimen cannot now be traced [I am indebted to Dr. Reusch of the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier, for this information]. A further ramification of this problem concerns the generic name Echinanthus Leske. Mortensen (1948) attempted to attribute the name to Breynius (1732) but this is inadmissable as Kier (1962, p. 226) has pointed out. Kier goes on to say that as “* Leske was the first post-Linnaean author to use Echinanthus, the genus must be credited to Leske, and one of the four species he referred to this genus must be considered as its type species. Two of these species, Echinanthus humilis and Echinanthus altus, can be referred definitely to Clypeaster, and a third, Echinanthus orbiculatus, to Pygurus. Since Echinanthus has priority over both these genera, the selecting of one of these three species as the type species of Echinanthus would make Clypeaster or Pygurus a synonym of Echinanthus. Such action would create considerable confusion. The fourth species, Echinan- thus ovatus, has long been considered the type species of Echinolampas. How- ever, it is not clear from Leske’s figure that his specimen represents the species which is now considered as Echinolampas ovatus. Because of this uncertainty, it seems best to restrict Echinanthus ovatus to Leske’s specimen (now lost), and designate it as the type species of Echinanthus. By this action the genera Pygurus, Clypeaster and Echinolampas remain valid. Leske’s figure of E. ovatus is so poor that it is not possible to know most of the generic characters of the species, and because of this the genus Echinanthus is referred to incertae sedis.” However, all this is in vain since in 1911 H. L. Clark (p. 595) had reviewed this same problem in similar fashion, but his process of elimination had the end result that “ orbiculatus alone is left to be the type of Echinanthus ” (humilis and altus having been referred by Lamarck to Clypeaster and ovatus by Gray to Echinolampas). He goes on to note, like Kier, that orbiculatus is generally agreed to be a Pygurus, which name dates from L. Agassiz 1839 and thus becomes a synonym of Echinanthus. Mortensen (1948) includes both Echinanthus and Pygurus separately in his Cassiduloid volume, declaring that the former should be a “nomen con- servandum ” with Breynius as author, and refusing to accept H. L. Clark’s solution; as type species he gives Cassidulus scutella Lamarck, 1816. In view of these varied dispositions for Echinanthus and the undesirability of leaving it as “ incertae sedis ” where it is a potential threat to the validity of the 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature subsequently established Clypeaster, Pygurus and Echinolampas, 1 think the best solution would be for the Commission to suppress the name altogether. As for the type species of Echinolampas, although the specific name oviformis Gmelin was in general use for it until the beginning of this century, since Déderlein revived the name ovata Leske in 1906 that name had been universally adopted by echinoid specialists until 1962 and a reversion to oviformis, such as Kier proposes, seems to me very undesirable. It could possibly be avoided by selecting Klein’s figures c and d of plate xx as lectotype, these figures being quite reasonable in my view and, since there are very few common recent cassiduloids with the periproct inframarginal to choose from, I consider it a safe assumption that they do represent the type species of Echinolampas, as Déderlein, Mortensen and others have likewise assumed. [However, I must admit that the posterior aboral groove shown is peculiar, though probably an abnormality.]_ There is a close resemblance to the specimens figured under the name Echinolampas ovata by Mortensen (1948, pl. iv, figs. 1-8). Nevertheless, in face of Kier’s opinion that Klein’s figures are poor, it might be better to select a neotype from among extant specimens. Accordingly I propose to designate the specimen from Port Hedland (Western Australia), shown in Mortensen’s plate iv figures 3—5, as neotype of Echinolampas ovata. This specimen is in the Copenhagen Museum. The International Commission is therefore asked: (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 rosaceus Linnaeus, 1758, 1764, 1767 and Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Echinus rosaceus; (b) the generic name Echinanthus Leske, 1778; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Clypeaster Lamarck, 1801 (p. 349) (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Clypeaster rosaceus Lamarck, 1801; (b) Pygurus L. Agassiz, 1839 (p. 68) (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Savin, 1902 (p. 271), Echinolampas montmollini L. Agassiz, 1836; (c) Echinolampas Gray, 1825 (p. 429) (gender: masculine), type- species, by designation by Pomel, 1883 (p. 62), Echinus ovi- formis Gmelin, 1788; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) rosaceus Lamarck, 1801 (p. 349), as published in the binomen Clypeaster rosaceus, of which the lectotype now selected is represented by plate xvii fig. A and plate xviii fig. B in Klein’s Dispositio Naturalis Echinodermatum, 1734 (type-species of Clypeaster Lamarck, 1801); (b) humilis Leske, 1778 (p. 185), as published in the binomen Echinan- thus humilis, of which the lectotype now selected is represented by Klein’s plate xix figs. A and B, 1734; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301 (c) montmollini L. Agassiz, 1836 (p. 134), as published in the binomen Echinolampas montmollini (type-species of Pygurus L. Agassiz, 1839); (d) ovatus Leske, 1778 (p. 191), as published in the binomen Echinan- thus ovatus, as interpreted by the neotype designated above, [the oldest available name for the type-species of Echinolampas Gray, 1825]. (4) to place the specific name rosaceus Linnaeus, 1758, 1764, 1767 and Gmelin, 1788 (p. 3186), as published in the binomen Echinus rosaceus, (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (5) to place the generic name Echinanthus Leske, 1778 (p. 185), (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Since the localities of Klein’s specimens are unknown I propose to designate Montego Bay, Jamaica, as restricted type locality for Clypeaster rosaceus and Suez, Red Sea, as type locality for C. humilis, appropriate specimens from these localities being in the British Museum collections. REFERENCES Aoassiz, A. 1872. Revision of the Echini. PartsIand II. Jllust. Cat. Mus. comp. Zool. 7, xii + 378 pp. 49 pls. Aaassiz, L. 1836. Notice sur les fossiles Crétacés du Jura Neuchatelois. Mém. Soc. Sci. nat. Neuchatel 1: pp. 126-145 CiarK, H. L. 1911. The genera of recent Clypeastroids. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 7, pp. 593-605 ENCYCLOPEDIE METHODIQUE. 1791-1827. Zoologie. 7. Vers, Coquilles, Mollusques, Polypiers. Tableaux. Paris (3 vols.) vii + 180 pp., 488 pls. GMELIN, J. F. 1791. Linnaei systema naturae. Ed. 13. Vol. I. Pt. VI. Lipsiae, pp. 3021-3910 Gray, J. E. 1825. An attempt to divide the Echinida or sea eggs into natural families. Ann. Philos. 26: pp. 423-431 Kier, P. M. 1962. Revision of the Cassiduloid echinoids. Smithson. misc. Coll. 144 (3), 262 pp., 44 pls., 184 figs. KLEIN, J.T. 1734. Naturalis dispositio Echinodermatum, etc. Gedani, 78 pp., 36 pls. KLEIN, J. T. (with Leske, N. F.). 1778. Naturalis dispositio Echinodermatum, etc. Lipsiae, xx + 278 pp., 54 pls. LAMARCK, J.B. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres. Paris, viii + 432 pp. LAMBERT, J. 1905. Notes sur quelques Echinides Eocéniques de l’Aude et de VHérault. Ann. Univ. Lyon 17, pp. 131-164, pl. v Leske, N.G. 1778. Additamenta ad Jacobi Theodori Klein Naturalem Dispositionem Echinodermatum, etc. Lipsiae, pp. xx + 214, pls. xxxv-liiii Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae. Ed. 10. MHolmiae, 824 pp. Linnaeus, C. 1764. Museum S.R.M. Ludovicae Ulricae reginae Svecorum, Gothorum, Vandalorumque. WHolmiae, vi + 720 pp. LINNAEUS, C. 1767. Systema naturae. Ed. 12. Vol. I, Pt. II. Holmiae, pp. 533-1327 LovEN, S. 1887. On the species of Echinoidea described by Linnaeus in his work ia ae Ludovicae Ulricae ”’. K. Svensk. Vet-Akad. Handl. 13 (4) 5, pp. 1-185, pls. 1-9 MORTENSEN, T. 1948. A monograph of the Echinoidea. Vol. 1V. Pt. 2. Copen- hagen, 471 pp., 72 pls. 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PomeL, M. A. 1883. Classification méthodique et genera des Echinides vivants et fossiles. Alger, pp. 1-131, 1 pl. Savin, M. L. 1902. Note sur quelques échinides du Dauphiné. Bull. Soc. Statist. Isére (4) 6, pp. 265-287, pls. i-iv i a” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 NANA SCHUMACHER, 1817 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1622 By A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) The generic name Nana was proposed by C. F. Schumacher, 1817 (Essai nouy. Syst. Habitations Vers test. : 225), with two sections. The type of the first was cited as N. maroccana—the Buccina maroccana of Chemnitz. 11, p. 285, pl. 210, figs. 2082-2083. Of Section B the type was N. neritea or the Buccinum neriteum Linnaeus as figured by Born, 1780; a synonym was cited as “‘ Fabula nana Chemn. 5, p. 72, Tab. 166, f. 1062 no. 1-3.” 2. Subsequent authors have pointed out that as proposed this is a composite genus. The type of the first section is a Melanopsis (a genus credited to Férussac, 1807, by authors), in the family Melanopsidae, markedly different from the type of the second section, which represents the family Nassariidae. The latter group has variously been called Cyclops Montfort, 1810 (non Miiller, 1776, Crustacea); Cyclope Risso, 1826; Cyclonassa Swainson, 1840, and Neritula H. and A. Adams, 1853 (ed. Plancus, 1739). The name Nana has not been overlooked, for it has been mentioned consistently by authors as a synonym. No one has cited a type for it or has adopted it as a valid name forataxon. The fact that the type-species is fixed by absolute tautonymy seems not to have been noticed. Although the Chemnitz names are non-binominal (Opinion 184), Schumacher’s citation of the binomen Fabula nana in the synonymy fixes the type under Article 68d as Buccinum neriteum Linnaeus, 1758. This would make Nana Schumacher, 1817, take precedence over the currently used Cyclope Risso, 1826. 3. The type-species of Cyclope Risso seems not to have been correctly cited. It is usually stated to be Buccinum neriteum Linnaeus, 1758, a binomen not mentioned by Risso. If Cyclope is accepted as an innovation by Risso (who did not credit it to himself but said he had taken the name from a museum label), three nominal species comprise the original list: C. neritoidea, C. donavania [sic], and C. pellucida (A. Risso, Hist. nat. princip. Prod. Europ. mérid. 4 : 170, 271-272). The C. neritoidea may be recognized, by cited figures, as a junior synonym of Buccinum neriteum Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 738), but no one, as far as I can determine, has indicated this, as required under Article 69a (iv) of the Code. Some authors have interpreted Risso usage as not an innovation but an inadvertent error for Cyclops Montfort. Were this the case, it would not be available under Article 32c of the Code. 4. In the interests of current usage and nomenclatural stability, the Com- mission is asked: (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Nana Schu- macher, 1817, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place the generic name Cyclope Risso, 1826 (gender : feminine), type-species, here designated, Cyclope neritoidea Risso, 1826, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (c) to place the specific name neriteum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature binomen Buccinum nerit in Zoology; (d) to place the generic name Nana Schumacher, 1817 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. eum, on the Official List of Specific Names Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 SPHALEROSOPHIS JAN, 1865 (REPTILIA): PROPOSED PRESERVA- TION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1627 By Eugen Kramer (Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission to use the plenary powers to prevent the better known generic name Sphalero- sophis (in its correct spelling) from disappearing as a junior subjective synonym of the generic name Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843. 1. Marx, 1959 (Fieldiana, Zoology 38) published a “ Review of the Colubrid Snake Genus Spalerosophis.” This taxon, created by Jan, 1865 (in de Filippi, Note di un viaggio in Persia nel 1862), appeared in the original description under two different spellings: Spalerosophis and Sphalerosophis. There is no doubt, that the first one is a misprint, since the latin term is derived from the greek adjective “ opaAepoc”’ and the letter @ is to be correctly translit- terated by ph. Following the rules of the Code (Art. 19, 32 (ii) and 33 (i) ) the name in question is to be corrected to Sphalerosophis whereas the other spelling has no standing in nomenclature. 2. Unfortunately this has an older synonym in Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843, a taxon that has not been used other than in a synonymic list since its first publication (Cope, 1886, Proc. Amer. phil. Soc. 23; Boulenger, 1893, Cat. Snakes B.M; Romer, 1956, The Osteology of the Reptiles). 3. Schmidt, 1930 (Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. 17) resurrected the name Spalerosophis—using the incorrect spelling—and from this date the taxon appears frequently in the literature. 4. I agree with Marx (1959) in retaining the junior synonym and rejecting the name Chilolepis. In the interest of stability one might even go further and retain the incorrect spelling. But I think it better to write it correctly to main- tain the author’s intention and derivation, since the change effects no confusion. 5. In the application hereby submitted the International Commission is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the genericname Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865, (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Sphalerosophis microlepis Jan, 1865, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name microlepis, Jan, 1865, as published in the binomen Sphalerosophis microlepis (type-species of Sphalerosophis) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ASTHRAEUS LAPORTE AND GORY, 1837 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED EMENDATION TO ASTRAEUS. Z.N.(S.) 1628 By S. Barker (Department of Zoology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia) The aim of this application is to stabilize a name in the Buprestidae in accordance with generally established usage. The particulars are as follows; 2. Laporte and Gory established the generic name Asthraeus (gender, masculine) with one species originally included, Asthraeus flavopictus (1837, Monogr. Bupr. 1:1, pl. 1, fig. 1). 3. The original spelling of the generic name was used by all authors until 1869 when Gemminger and de Harold (1869, Cat. Coleopt. 5 : 1380) used Astraeus. This was clearly a correction of an incorrect transliteration from the Greek word Aotpaoc, a Greek star God, spelt always with a t and correctly transliterated into Latin with a t. It does not belong to the class of words spelt in Greek with a 0 and optionally transliterated into Latin with a th or at. The spelling of Gemminger and de Harold has been followed by all subsequent authors. The relevant biography is listed below: Laporte and Gory (1837, Monogr. Bupr. 1:1, pl. 1, fig. 1); Imhoff (1856, Einf. Stud. Koll. 2 : 46); Lacordaire (1857, Gen. Coleopt. 4:43); Saunders (1868, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1868 : 10, pl. 1, fig. 12); Gemminger and de Harold (1869, Cat. Coleopt. 5 : 1380); Saunders (1871, Cat. Bupr.: 43); Masters (1871, Cat. Coleopt. Austral.: 124); Macleay (1872, Trans. ent. Soc. N.S.W. 2 : 239, 240); Kerre- mans (1885, Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 29 : 136); Van de Poll (1886, Notes Leyden Mus. 8 : 176, 177); Masters (1886, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 11:71); Van de Poll (1889, Tjschr. v. Ent. 32 : 79-110, pls. 2-3, figs. 1-19); Blackburn (1889, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (2) 4: 1256-1259); Blackburn (1891, Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Aust. 15 : 211, 212); Van de Poll (1892, Tijdschr. v. Ent. 36 : 67, 68); Kerremans (1892, Mem. Soc. ent. Belg. 1: 101); Kerremans (1900, Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 44: 295); Kerremans (1903, Gen. Insect. Col. Serricornia, Fam. Bupr.: 148); Favel (1904, Rey. d’Ent. 23 : 116); Carter (1925, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (2) 50 : 229, fig. 1); Obenberger (1928, Arch. Naturgesch. 92 : 204, 205); Carter (1929, Aust. Zool. 5 : 270, 282, pl. 33, fig. 43); Obenberger (1930, Cat. Coleopt. 12, Bupr. 2 : 365-367); Obenberger (1936, Festschr. 60 Geburtst. Embrik Strand, Riga 1 : 133). 4. I know of no author who has used Asthraeus in its original form since 1869. That Astraeus is not a new name but an emendation is shown by Gem- minger and de Harold who cited Laporte and Gory as its authors. This has also been followed by all subsequent authors. 5. Accordingly, to preserve current usage, I request the Commission to validate the emendation of Asthraeus Laporte and Gory, 1837, to Astraeus Laporte and Gory, 1837. 6. The alternative to this is to let the provisions of the Code take their normal course. This would lead to instability, since Asthraeus is either a nomen oblitum or it has retained its validity through continued use in the invalid Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 form Astraeus. Different authors will take different views of this and there will be no uniformity. 7. In accordance with the above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to validate the emendation to Astraeus of the generic name Asthraeus Laporte and Gory, 1837; (2) to place the generic name Astraeus Laporte and Gory, 1837 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Astraeus flavopictus Laporte and Gory, 1837, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name flavopictus Laporte and Gory, 1837, as pub- lished in the binomen Asthraeus flavopictus (type-species of Astraeus Laporte and Gory, 1837) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AN APPEAL TO REJECT THE GENERIC NAME PSOMELES IN FAVOR OF RHYNCOGONUS (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOP- TERA, FAMILY CURCULIONIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 1629 By Elwood C. Zimmerman (Bishop Museum, Honolulu) The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the well known, widely used, firmly founded name Rhyncogonus Sharp, 1885, and to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the mostly forgotten, inadequately substantiated name Psomeles Guérin-Meéneville, 1838. The facts are as follows: 1. Psomeles was established by Gueérin-Méneville in 1838 (in L. I. Duperrey, Voyage de la Coquille, Zool. 2(2) Div. 1 : 120) for one species, luctuosus Guérin-Méneville, from Tahiti. In spite of search, the type material cannot be located, and it appears to be lost. Evidently no taxonomist has reported upon an examination of any specimens of the species since it was described. Schoenherr listed the genus in his monumental Genera et Species Curculionidum . . ., 7 (2) : 255, 1843, but he stated that it was unknown to him. Fairmaire, who published the first essay including the Coleoptera of Tahiti in 1849 (Revue et Magasin de Zoologie, pp. 508-509) published abstracts from the original descriptions, but he did not see the species. Lacordaire, in his com- prehensive Genera des Coléoptéres 7 : 154, 1863, considered the genus, but he could not place it in his generic revision, because he had not seen it. Sir Guy Marshall tried to find the type material without success, and he concluded that “* for the present the only course is to include Psomeles as an unknown genus of Rhyncogonini, with a single species /uctuosus Guér.” (The Otiorrhynchine Curculionidae of the Tribe Celeuthetini, p. 7, 1956, British Mus. (Nat. Hist.)). Thus, it is evident that the greatest authorities on the Curculionidae who have considered the problem of Psomeles during more than 100 years have been unable to establish the taxonomic status of Psomeles luctuosus. It also appears that the type material has been lost, and there is now no way to be absolutely certain of the identity of the species. 2. The genus Rhyncogonus Sharp, 1885 (Sci. Trans. Royal Dublin Soc. (II) 3 : 176), has been in constant use since its description. It was erected for two Hawaiian species, and Rhyncogonus blackburni Sharp, 1885 : 177, is its type-species by original designation. Rhyncogonus is a characteristic genus of many islands of Polynesia east of Samoa. It is well known, the name is wide- spread in literature, there is no taxonomic confusion concerning it, it has no synonyms, and it has been applied to about 100 species. 3. After considering the original description in the light of my personal experience with the curculionid fauna of Tahiti,it appears that the description of Psomeles luctuosus applies to an unknown species of Rhyncogonus. Strictly applied, therefore, the long-forgotten, enigmatic name Psomeles would replace the well known, widely used name Rhyncogonus. Several species of Rhyncogo- nus have been described from Tahiti, but the specific description of Psomeles Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 luctuosus applies to none of them, and /uctuosus remains an unrecognized species. 4. Itis concluded that much confusion would be created by the resurrection of the long-forgotten generic name Psomeles, and that no useful purpose can be served by such resurrection. The Commission is, therefore, requested to con- sider this case, and the applicant recommends that the Commission should: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Psomeles Guérin- Méneville, 1838 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the generic name Rhyncogonus Sharp, 1885 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Rhyncogonus blackburni Sharp, 1885, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name blackburni Sharp, 1885, as published in the binomen Rhyncogonus blackburni (type-species of Rhyncogonus Sharp, 1885) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) place the generic name Psomeles Guérin-Méneville, 1838 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AMBALO DUS BRANSON AND MEHL, 1933 or AMBOLODUS BRANSON AND MEHL, 1934(CONODONTS): PROPOSED REJECTION OF AMBO- LODUS UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1633 By Michael C. Mound and Raymond L. Ethington (California Research Corporation, La Habra, California, and University of Missouri, Columbia) The purpose of the present proposal is to stabilize the spelling and application of the conodont generic name Ambalodus in the sense of the original description. Since the naming of Ambalodus in 1933, seven species of this genus have been described from Ordovician rocks in the United States, England, Sweden, and Russia. 2. The genus Ambalodus was named and described (1933, University Missouri Studies 8 (2) : 127) in the first part of a four-part volume dedicated entirely to conodont studies and the type-species, Ambalodus triangularis, was described on the following page (p. 128). The caption to Plate 10, figs. 35-37, also refers to Ambalodus triangularis (op. cit., p. 165). Thus, there is no variation in the spelling of Ambalodus as it appears in the original work on the three pages cited above and the possibility of a misprint or typographical error repeated three times in succession appears remote. Yet, in 1934 along with the final number of the Conodont Studies (Branson, Mehl, and Branson, 1934, University Missouri Studies 8 (4)) an errata sheet was prepared. On this list, the name Ambalodus is changed to Ambolodus, but no explanation is given for the change. Moreover, in the “ Index of Genera and Species ” (Branson, Mehl, and Branson, 1934, p. 345) the genus in question is listed as “‘ Ambolodus.” 3. In 1934, Huddle (p. 35) lists Amabalodus in a discussion of the Family Polygnathidae Ulrich and Bassler, 1926; the spelling, Amabalodus, was a typo- graphical error (personal communication). Graves and Ellison (1941, Univer- sity of Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy, Bull.: 5,7, 25) and Imbt (1941, in Stratigraphic Type Oil Fields : 148) use the name Ambalodus, apparently unaware of the change in spelling listed in the aforementioned errata sheet of Branson, Mehl and Branson. In 1944 (University Missouri Studies 19 : 95), E. B. Branson, the senior author of the papers mentioned above (University Missouri Studies 8), lists Ambalodus rather than Ambolodus, in disregard of the change previously suggested by him and his collaborators (1934, University Missouri Studies 8, accompanying errata sheet). Branson and Mehl, 1944 (in Index Fossils of North America : 237), describe Ambolodus; but on p. 239 the caption to Plate 93 lists Ambalodus triangularis, making it unclear as to which spelling is intended. Ellison (1946, Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. 30 : 94, 107), cites Branson and Mehl’s (1944, in Index Fossils of North America : 237) spelling of Ambolodus, without mention of the unresolved ambiguity in the latter work, as Ellison’s reference was merely a generic register. Fay (1952, University of Kansas Paleont. Contrib., art. 3, : 14, 49, 205) refers to Ambalodus, noting, however, the references to Ambolodus by Branson and Mehl, 1944 and Ellison, 1946 (op. cit), but elected to use Ambalodus as a major heading in lieu of Ambolo- dus. In 1953, Rhodes (Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London (B.) (647) 237 : 270, 271, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4, October 1964, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 272, 273, 274, 278, 279-281, 328, 329, 332) consistently refers five species, three newly named, and one new subspecies to Ambolodus, and credits the generic name Ambolodus to Branson and Mehl, 1933, p. 127 (Rhodes, 1953, op. cit., p. 278), although as mentioned above the actual spelling used by the latter authors was Ambalodus. In 1955 (Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London 111 : 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 139), Rhodes refers to Ambolodus triangularis and includes in his synonymy references to Ambolodus triangularis of Branson and Mehl, 1933; Graves and Ellison, 1941; Imbt, 1941; Branson, 1944; all of whom actually cite Ambalodus rather than Ambolodus. Lindstrém (1955, Geol. For. Férh. 76 : 533, 541, 550, 612) refers to an unnamed species of Ambolodus, and again in 1957 (Geol. Fér. Forh. 79 : 168), Lindstrém refers to Ambolodus. Rhodes and Wingard (1957, Jour. Paleontology 31 : 449) refer to Ambolodus in their discus- sion of fibrous conodonts. Glenister (1957, Jour. Paleontology 31 : 715, 718, 722) refers to Ambalodus triangularis, but erroneously credits Rhodes (1953, op. cit.) with spelling it as Ambalodus. Fay (1958, Oklahoma Geol. Notes 18 : 116) refers to the generic name of Ambolodus in his generic and subgeneric key, a reversal of his former usage of Ambalodus (1952, op. cit., p. 14, 49, 205) in the earlier generic key; no explanation for the name change is included in the later work. Stone and Furnish (1959, Jour. Paleontology, 33 : 217-220) and Ething- ton (1959, Jour. Paleontology 33 : 263-265, 267, 269) similarly refer to Ambalodus triangularis and erroneously credit Rhodes (1953, 1955, op. cit.) with the Ambalodus spelling. Lindstrém (1959, Micropaleontology 5 (4) : 428, 429, 431, 434-436) refers to Ambalodus elegans Rhodes and lists the appropriate references to Ambolodus in his synonymy; Lindstrém does the same for Ambalodus pulcher Rhodes. In the synonymy for Ambalodus triangularis (op. cit., p. 35), however, there is no indication of the Ambolodus triangularis spelling as used by Rhodes (1953, 1955, op. cit.). Sweet, Turco, Warner, and Wilkie (1959, Jour. Paleon- tology 33: 1029, 1035, 1036, 1038-1040) refer to Ambalodus elegans and Ambalodus triangularis but do not record the variance in spelling in the synony- mies on p. 1040. Lindstrém (1960, Internat. Geol. Cong., 21st Sess., Rept. (7) : 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95) uses the spelling Ambalodus following citations from his previously published paper (1959, op. cit.). Ash (1961, Micropaleontology 7 : 229) lists three species and one subspecies of Ambalodus, but all of the listed species were originally described as Ambolodus. Bergstrém (1962, Arkiv Mineralogi och Geologi, 3: 1, 10-15, 18-21, 23-29, 64) refers to Ambalodus triangularis and names a new subspecies, Ambalodus triangularis erraticus. In Bergstrém’s generic description, he reviews briefly the history of Ambalodus and Ambolodus and concludes that Ambalodus is the valid name. Ellison (1962, University Texas Pub. 6210 : 17, 97, 125) in his generic index (p. 97, 125) notes that Ambalodus is an “ invalid spelling ’ of Ambolodus, refers the reader to the latter genus, but offers no explanation for the change. In the annotated bib- liography portion of Ellison’s paper, he mentions that Ambalodus [sic] is a new generic name proposed by Branson and Mehl (p. 17, op. cit.) but does not refer to Ambolodus. Hass (1962, Conodonts, in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology W : W58, W60, W250) refers to Ambalodus and includes no reference at all to Ambolodus. Sergeeva (1962, Doklady Akad. Nauk. SSSR 146 (6) : 1393, 1395) refers three new species (nomina nuda) to Ambalodus but does not refer to 312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Ambolodus; in 1963 (Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal (2) : 95, 105, 106), Sergeeva again refers to Ambalodus, but not Ambolodus, and validates Ambalodus planus; later in 1963 (Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta i2 : 74, 75) Sergeeva once more refers to Ambalodus, without mentioning Ambolodus. Lindstrém (1963, Sedimentology 2 : 252) refers an unnamed new species to Ambalodus without mention of Ambolodus. 4. In the above summary of the history of citation of the generic taxon Ambalodus (or Ambolodus), seventeen papers have referred to Ambalodus in lieu of Ambolodus; nine papers have preferred Ambolodus to Ambalodus; the choice of the original publication (Branson and Mehl, 1933, op. cit.) is unclear; one paper (Ellison, 1962, op. cit.) declares Ambolodus valid and Ambalodus as invalid spelling; and one paper (Bergstrém, 1962, op. cit.) declares Ambalodus valid and Ambolodus to be invalid. The Zoological Record (1936, 72 (6) Vermes, p. 133) records Ambalodus as the only recognized spelling. Bergstrém (1962, p. 25, op. cit.) stated: “.. . the original name of the genus was Ambalodus. This name is used throughout in Branson and Mehl’s paper of 1933. Because no remark was made in this publication that Ambalodus was considered a misprint by the authors and should be changed to Ambolodus, it is evident that Ambalodus has priority over Ambolodus (Internat. Rules Zool. Nomenclature, art. 25). Yet, in 1934, Branson and Mehl published a list of errata together with the last part of their ‘ Conodont Studies ’, and in this list the name of the genus was changed to Ambolodus. However, according to Internat. Rules Zool. Nomenclature, art 19, such a change of an earlier published generic name is invalid. Since Ambalodus is not a homonym, it can thus be stated that the only valid name of the genus is Ambalodus.” 5. Bergstrém is correct in assuming that Ambalodus has priority over Ambolodus as the former name appears in the original publication and no errata sheet accompanies it (Branson and Mehl, University Missouri Studies 8 (2): 127). Article 19, however, to which Bergstrém refers, states that the original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless an error of transcription (transliteration), a /apsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. Article 19 of the new Code of Nomenclature (1961, XV Internat. Congress) states that: “ In the meaning of the Code, an emendation, whether justified or unjustified, is an available name, but an incorrect spelling, whether original or subsequent, has no standing in nomenclature and is not an available name (Arts. 32c, 33).” Art. 32(a) (ii) states: “‘ The original spelling of a name is to be retained as the ‘correct original spelling’, unless (ii) there is in the original publication clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a /Japsus calami, or a copyist’s or printer’s error (incorrect transliteration, improper latinization, and use of an inappropriate connecting vowel are not to be considered inadvertent errors). . . .” 6. Itis not now possible to purchase a copy of volume 8 of the University of Missouri Studies from the University of Missouri and receive the list of errata on which the name change of Ambalodus to Ambolodus appeared. Moreover, the original four numbers of volume 8 which were received in the University of California at Los Angeles Library between August 2, 1933 and December 13, 1934 were not accompanied by an errata sheet. Therefore, there is some question as to the availability, and hence, the validity of such an errata sheet, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 Few persons concerned with conodont studies have seen or possess the list of errata, although its existence is generally known. On the other hand, the entire publication itself has been available since 1933 and 1934 and still is obtainable. Part I of the Studies (op. cit.) has just recently become available. Apparently a limited supply of errata sheets was once available and is now exhausted. 7. The errata sheet merely states that on p. 127, Ambalodus should be Ambolodus. There is no clear evidence in the original publication (cf. Art. 32(a) (ii) above) of any “ inadvertent error.” Nowhere is any valid reason for the change given either in the original publication or in any subsequent publication by any author. The status of availability of the errata sheet also remains in doubt. Notwithstanding the possibility that the errata sheet may prove to be considered part of the original publication in terms of the purposes of taxonomic validity, the question of justification of the proposed change remains open to contention. 8. Inasmuch as the Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 56a) provides that a difference between the generic names of even one letter prevents homonymy, Ambalodus and Ambolodus must be considered as two distinct names. It is altogether likely that future taxonomic studies of conodonts will involve Ambalodus (or Ambolodus) and latitude for free choice between these particular names must be eliminated to insure taxonomic stability. We therefore propose that the Commission use the plenary powers for a decision as to the validity of one or the other of these two names, as follows: (a) inasmuch as the relative availability and validity of errata sheet osten- sibly supplied with no. 4 of volume 8 of Branson and Mehl’s series on conodonts (op. cit.) is in question, and (b) the change from Ambalodus to Ambolodus may not have been a justifiable one in the sense of the code (Art. 33); (c) the world-wide occurrence of Ambalodus in rocks of Ordovician age demands a uniform taxonomic usage for this common genus; (d) the original publication, number two of a series of four, in which the genus was described and the name coined, was in circulation nearly sixteen months before the final number of the series, number four of the series of four, which supposedly was accompanied by the errata sheet, and (e) the majority of workers, as seen in the historical outline above, use Ambalodus in lieu of Ambolodus, we therefore suggest in view of all the evidence that the International Commission should: (1) use its plenary powers insofar as is necessary to rule that Ambolodus is an unjustified emendation of Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933; (2) place Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933 (gender; masculine), type- species, by original designation, Ambalodus triangularis Branson & Mehl, 1933, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name triangularis, Branson & Mehl, 1933, as published in the binomen Ambalodus triangularis (type-species of Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (4) place the generic name Ambolodus Branson & Mehl, 1934? (an unjustified emendation of Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 CHONETES MESOLOBUS NORWOOD & PRATTEN, 1854 (BRACHIOPODA, ARTICULATA): DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPE AND PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1635 By R. D. Hoare (Dept. of Geology, Bowling Green State University, Ohio, U.S.A.) The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place on the Official List of Specific Names the name of the Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) brachiopod Mesolobus mesolobus (Norwood & Pratten), 1854, as interpreted by a neotype specimen. This genus and species is an important element in the Lower and Middle Pennsylvanian faunas of North America and in other regions of the world and assumes strati- graphic importance in delineating group and subgroup divisions in North America. Since the original specimens have been found missing and a mis- interpretation of external ornamentation by the original authors seems likely, it is necessary to select a neotype to stabilize this species to avoid further taxonomic confusion. The original designation of a type-species for the genus Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra (1932) was Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten (1854) by Dunbar & Condra (1932). This designation was based on the assumption that this species was lirate as described by Norwood & Pratten (1854). Numerous collections by several workers in the regions of Belleville, Illinois, and Charboniere, Missouri, from where Norwood and Pratten made their collections, has shown the non-existence of lirate or striate forms of Mesolobus in the Pennsylvanian strata exposed there. 2. Girty (1899, 1903, 1911, 1915) recognized Chonetes mesolobus as a striate form and in 1911 proposed two non-striate varieties decipiens and euampygus of this species. The description of the variety decipiens by Girty (1915) states, “‘ This variety has the characteristic configuration of C. mesolobus, but the surface is entirely without radiating sculpture — ”. 3. In 1932 Dunbar & Condra erected the genus Mesolobus with Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten as type-species. They believed this species to have radial striation. In this publication a third non-striate variety, lioderma, was erected. 4. Weller & McGehee (1933) note that the portion of the Pennsylvanian section in the Belleville, Illinois, and Charboniere, Missouri, areas is above that portion of the Pennsylvanian System which contains the striated form of Mesolo- bus in Illinois and Missouri and conclude that a misinterpretation of surface sculpture was made by the original authors. Subsequent collecting by several other workers have substantiated this fact. Weller & McGehee (1933) proposed a new specific name for the striate form, Mesolobus striatus, and state that the variety lioderma Dunbar & Condra (1932) should serve as the type species of Mesolobus mesolobus s.s. 5. A careful comparison of the type specimens of Girty (1915), of Dunbar & Condra (1932), fifteen other collections from the Wewoka Formation of Oklahoma, eight collections from various horizons in the Pennsylvanian section exposed in and around Belleville, Illinois, and numerous Pennsylvanian collec- tions from Missouri and Ohio with the illustrations of Chonetes mesolobus of Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964, 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Norwood & Pratten (1854) indicates that the specimens described by Norwood & Pratten are the same as the variety decipiens Girty (1911, 1915) and not the strongly lobate and more transverse variety Jioderma Dunbar & Condra (1932) as thought by Weller & McGehee (1933). 6. It is well known that specimens of the genus Mesolobus show a pseudo- striation or pseudoliration as the shell becomes exfoliated and the pseudo- punctae or internal endospine structures show through. Coating of the shells with magnesium oxide easily proves the presence or lack of the true ornamenta- tion. However, without coating, the appearance is quite deceiving and can be easily misinterpreted. 7. The specimen selected to serve as the neotype is well preserved, un- crushed, with both valves present (pl. 2, figs. 1-3). There is a slight crack running through the beaks and cardinal process areas. The shell is moderately con- cavo-convex with the greatest width at the hinge-line where the extremities are slightly produced. The lateral margins are nearly parallel rounding smoothly into a slightly sinuate anterior margin. Seven spines border the hinge-line on each side of the pedicle beak, diverging from the hinge-line at an angle of 35°. The shell surfaces are marked only by growth lines which are stronger in development near the anterior margin. Spinule bases are not evident. The specimen is 11-2 mm wide, 7-4 mm long and 3-2 mm thick. The pedicle valve has a median lobe, not strongly developed, bordered by lateral lobes of approximately the same height as the median lobe and which slope with a uniform convexity to the lateral margins. A small pseudo- deltidium is present. The brachial valve is reflexed. A median sulcus bordered by a pair of low rounded ridges corresponds to the fold on the pedicle valve. The neotype and 62 associated specimens were collected from the shale between the No. 6 caprock and limestone in the Solar Coal Co. strip pit. SW sec. 4, T. 2 S., R. 7 W., St. Clair County, Illinois, by L. G. Henbest in 1927. This locality will therefore become the type-locality. The specimens are in the repository of the Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois, IGS 34P. The neotype is no. IGS 34P-1 and associated specimens are nos. IGS 34P-2 to 34P-6. 8. In view of the facts set out in the preceding paragraphs, I now request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra, 1932 (gender: masculine) (type-species by original designation, Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854); (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854, as published in the combination Chonetes mesolobus as defined by the neotype designated in para 7 above by R. D. Hoare, 1964 (type-species of Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra, 1932). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21 Plate 2 2 Figs. 1-3 Pedicle, anterior and brachial views of the specimen selected as the neotype of Mesolobus mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, x2.5. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 REFERENCES Dunsar, C. O. and Conpra, G. E. 1932. “ Brachiopoda of the Pennsylvanian System in Nebraska,” Nebraska Geol. Surv. Bull. (2) 5 : 159-168, pl. 20, figs. 1-17, 23-32 Girty, G.H. 1899. ‘“* Nineteenth Annual Report’, U.S. Geol. Surv., pt. 3; 576 — 1903. ‘* The Carboniferous Formations and Faunas of Colorado,” U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 16 : 357, pl. 1, figs. 20-23 — 1911. ‘*‘On some new genera and species of Pennsylvanian fossils from the Wewoka Formation of Oklahoma,’ New York Acad. Sci. Ann. 21 : 127 — 1915. ‘‘ Fauna of the Wewoka Formation of Oklahoma,” U.S. Geol. Sury. Bull. 544 : 62-64, pl. 7, figs. 5—9c Hoare, R.D. 1960. “‘ New Pennsylvanian Brachiopoda from Southwest Missouri,” Jour. Paleontology 34 : 222-223, pl. 31, figs. 1-11 — 1961. ‘* Desmoinesian Brachiopoda and Mollusca from Southwest Missouri,” Univ. Missouri Press 36 : 42-49, pl. 2, figs. 14-18, pl. 3, figs. 1-14 Muir-Woop, H.M. 1962. ‘*‘ On the Morphology and Classification of the Brachio- pod Suborder Chonetoidea,” British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 79-81, pl. 9, figs. 1-9 Norwoop, J.G. and PRATTEN, H. 1854. ‘“‘ Notice of the genus Chonetes, as found in the Western States and Territories,” Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 3 : 27, pl. 2, figs. 7a—c WELLER, J. M. and McGeuee, R. 1933. “ Typical form and range of Mesolobus mesolobus,” Jour. Paleontology 7 : 109, 110 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROCYON BRACHYURUS WIEGMANN, 1837, AND PROC YON OBSCURUS WIEGMANN, 1837: PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA). Z.N.(S.) 1640 By Charles A. Long (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.) The purpose of this application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific names brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, as published in the combination Procyon brachyurus, and obscurus Wiegmann, 1837, as published in the combination Procyon obscurus (Archiv fiir Naturgesch. 3 (1) : 369-370), and concomitantly to ensure that the specific names Procyon maynardi Bangs, 1898 (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 12 : 92, April 30), Procyon minor Miller, 1911 (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 24:4, January 28), and Procyon gloveralleni Nelson and Goldman, 1930 (Jour. Mamm. 11 : 453, November 11) are conserved. 2. In 1950, Goldman (N. Amer. Fauna 60: 1-153, November 7, 1950) revised the raccoons, Procyon, of North and Middle America. From the West Indies he listed Procyon maynardi Bangs, 1898 (ibid.), having its type-locality on New Providence Island, Bahamas; Procyon minor Miller, 1911 (ibid.), having its type-locality at Pointe-a-Pitre, on Guadeloupe Island, Lesser Antilles; and Procyon gloveralleni Nelson and Goldman, 1930 (ibid.), having its type-locality on the island of Barbados, Lesser Antilles, West Indies. 3. In Goldman’s text (pp. 4-5) and in his bibliography (revised by H. H. T. Jackson), of the above-mentioned publication, references to the early publica- tion by Wiegmann (Joc. cit.) are given. Following the bibliography-reference (p. 105) an annotation states: “‘ An early review of the genus in which five species are recognized, two of these, Procyon brachyurus (p. 369) and Procyon obscurus (p. 370) described as new. Neither of these seems to be clearly indentifiable.” 4. Halland Kelson (The Mammals of North America, p. 890, 1959) noticed the name P. brachyurus Wiegmann and listed it, perhaps as a synonym, under a commonly used name Procyon minor Miller, 1911. Furthermore, they quoted the type-locality listed by Wiegmann (‘“ Antillae?”’), and they stated that the taxon “ may be referable to this species [P. minor Miller]. ” 5. Hall and Kelson (Joc. cit.) evidently demurred to apply the rules of priority and replace a commonly used name having a precise type-locality with a long unused name having a problematical type-locality. 6. However, in addition to the description of P. brachyurus (Wiegmann, loc. cit.) there are also several other passages concerning brachyurus Wiegmann mentioned earlier in his publication. In fact, an earlier description of brach- yurus is written in the introductory part of his publication (op. cit., 354). Of significance is a passage written concerning brachyurus also in the intro- ductory part (p. 355) as follows: “* Sie stammen aus der Menagerie eines Hrn. Boisset, und haben auf der Etiquette, wahrscheinlich nach Aussage des friiheren Besitzers, Westindien Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 4. October 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 als Vaterland angegeben. Ist dieser Augabe zu trauen, so hiatten wir in die Art den von Hans Sloane erwahnten Waschbaren der Antillen*.”’ And in the foot-note the following is of great interest: ““* Hans Sloane (Nat. Hist. of Jamaica p. 329) sagt:, The Raccoons are commonly here in the Mountains and live in hollow fiddle-wood trees, from whence they make paths to seek sugar canes, which is their chief, if not only sustenance.”—Hierbei is aber nicht aufser Acht zu lassen, dafs Sloane Ray’s Synopsis citirt dessen Beschreibung theils aus eigener Anschauung, theils aus Markgraf’s Beschreibung des Coati zusammengewebt ist. Das vorhandsein einer Procyon-Art in Westindien ist nach dieser Quelle immer nur problematische.”’ In summary, the type-specimen was probably obtained in the West Indies, but writings of Sloane and Ray raised doubts as to the occurrence of the raccoon in the West Indies. We now know that Procyon occurs in the West Indies, and, therefore, the question-mark may be omitted from Wiegmann’s type-locality of brachyurus (concerning P. obscurus, the type-locality is “in tieferes Dunkel ’’). 7. There are two possible courses of action that may be followed to obviate the aforementioned problem. First, the name brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, may be considered a senior synonym of minor Miller, 1911, or of a name of either of the other two taxa of raccoons inhabiting islands of the West Indies. Wiegmann’s type-locality could be, then, considered as the Antilles, or restricted to any of the islands inhabited by raccoons in the West Indies. Such procedure necessitates a nomenclatural change, bringing forth a state of confusion. 8. Another course of action would involve using the plenary powers to suppress the name brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, which action would preserve the stability of the currently used West Indian names, all used for 34 years or longer. The name obscurus Wiegmann, 1837, might be also suppressed to ensure future nomenclatural stability, inasmuch as the type-locality is unknown. 9. For the reasons set forth in this application, I now request the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific names brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, used originally in the combination Procyon brach- yurus, and obscurus Wiegmann, 1837, used originally in the combina- tion Procyon obscurus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) maynardi Bangs, 1898, as published in the combination Procyon maynardi [holotype, Mus. Comp. Zool. 7750; type-locality, New Providence Island, Bahamas]; (b) minor Miller, 1911, as published in the combination Procyon minor 38417 [holotype, USNM ——> 15481 loupe Island, Lesser Antilles]; (c) gloveralleni Nelson & Goldman, 1930, as published in the com- bination Procyon gloveralleni [holotype, Mus. Comp. Zool. type-locality at Pointe 4 Pitre, Guade- 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 18591; type-locality, Island of Barbados, Lesser Antilles, West Indies]; (3) to place the following specific names, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, as published in the combination Procyon brachyurus; (b) obscurus Wiegmann, 1837, as published in the combination Procyon obscurus. a” NAT nisl = 16 OCT 1964 3, PURCHASED x Oe ed Gy L\e Piste iyi A ' Pte A ‘ 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, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant: Margaret Doyle, 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 Opinion 710 (Enhydrus Laporte, 1834) Opinion 711 (Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762) New Cases On the homonymy of the family name MIRIDAE Hahn, 1833 (Insecta, Heteroptera) and the tribal name mirInI Ashmead, 1900 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) (I. M. Kerzhner & V. A. Trjapitzin)... Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 (Cephalopoda): Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers (J. A. Jeletzky) 3 On the identity of Clypeaster rosaceus (Linnaeus) and some other irregular Echinoids (Ailsa Clark) Nana Schumacher, 1817 (Gastropoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (A. Myra Keen) . Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865 (Reptilia): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers (Eugen Kramer) a Asthraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed emendation to Astraeus (S. Barker) An appeal to reject the generic name Psomeles in favour of Rhyncogonus (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Elwood C. Zimmerman) fies Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933, or Ambolodus Branson & Mehl, 1934(Conodonts): Proposed rejection of Ambolodus under the plenary powers Michael C. Mound & Raymond L. Ethington) Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854 (Brachiopoda): Designa- tion of a neotype and proposed addition to the Official List (R. D. Hoare) Procyon brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, and Procyon obscurus Wiegmann, 1837: Proposed suppression under the Benaty powers (Mammalia) (Charles A. Long) me » oad ae Page 242 246 263 268 297 303 305 306 308 310 315 318 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Comments on the proposed stabilization of Macropus Shaw, 1790 (T. H. Kirkpatrick & J. T. Woods; E. Mayr; H. Lemche; W. D. L. Ride; E. Le G. Troughton & D. F. McMichael) Comment on the proposed rejection of Curimata Walbaum, 1792 (William R. Taylor) ; m rh ate oa ea Observations au sujet de la validation proposée par R. Alvarado du nom de genre Ortholitha Hubner, 1825 (C. Herbulot & D. S. Fletcher) ... Comment on the proposed ee of MIRINI Ashmead, 1900 (G. J. Kerrich) ay is és wy bee a Be © 1964, THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 249 260 261 267 Volume 21. Part 5. 26th November, 1964 pp. 320-400. 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: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications a in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ay 321 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 321 (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 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1. 1964 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Acting Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cxtna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘“G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (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 Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OsRUCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) ey Tohru Ucuma (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959 Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. Borcusentus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) Dr. W. = Cuina (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting Secretary Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Jnstituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. Sto. (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. L. B. Hottnuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President) Dr. Alden H. MILLer (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (President) Professor Ernst MAyYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. Carl L. Hupss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Ripe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) > et ea ici BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE SE ETERS press acces eee ere) oe er Volume 21, Part 5 (pp. 321-400) 26th November, 1964 ee eh 8 ey | 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) Suppression of Tellina gari Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia). Z.N.(S.) 1461. (2) Designation of a neotype for Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1798 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1560. (3) Suppression of the family name CIMOLESTIDAE Marsh, 1889 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1630 (4) Validation of Cnemidophorus septemvittatus Cope, 1892, (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1634 (5) Validation of four specific names from the work Ornithologia Britannica, 1771. Z.N.(S.) 1636 (6) Suppression of Moehring’s work Geslachten der Vogelen, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 1637 (7) Suppression of Meles montanus Richardson, 1829, and Meles Jeffersonii Harlan, 1825 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1639 (8) Validation of Cacatua Brisson, 1760 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1647 (9) Suppression of Laeomophloeus immundus Reitter, 1874 (Insecta, Coleop- tera). Z.N.(S.) 1649 (10) Validation of Anthus roseatus Blyth, 1847 (Aves). Z.NA(S.) 1654 (11) Validation of Gobius orca Collett, 1874 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1655 (12) Suppression of Coluber doliatus Linnaeus, 1766 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1656 if =e : 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (13) Validation of Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894 (Coccolithiphorida). Z.N.(S.) 1658 c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Acting Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on 22 September 1964 Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 GARI SCHUMACHER, 1817 : REVISED PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE NAME OF THE TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1461 (see volume 18 : 90-96, 297-305; 19 : 375-377; 20 : 278) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The species problem in the genus Gari Admittedly, the Te/lina gari Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 674) is a com- posite species, containing two references, as follows: “Rumph. mus. t.45 f.D. Tellina gari*’. This reference is interpreted as covering the species Psammotaea serotina Lamarck, 1818 (Hanley, 1855, Jpsa Linn. Conch. : 34) and/or (according to whether synonymy was accepted) violacea Lamarck, 1818 {Rehder (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 297), Morrison (ibid. : 298), Rosewater (ibid. : 303)). ** Argenville conch. t.25 f.1’ interpreted as covering the species Solen vespertinus Gmelin, 1791 (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13)1 : 3228), Hanley (1855 : 34), Rehder (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 297), and Morrison (ibid. : 298), whereas Rosewater (ibid. : 303) considers it unrecognizable. Under the heading “‘ Tab. 10 fig. 92.93 °° Chemnitz (1782—Conch. Cab. 6 : 100) gave the first general discussion of the species “* Tellina Gari Linnaei”’. Then, in two consecutive paragraphs, he mentioned the specimens figured, but there is no indication of any preference of one of the figures above the other, such as postulated by Cox (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 94). Chemnitz figure 92 is based on two specimens still extant and belonging to Tellina truncata Linnaeus, 1758. (Lemche has tried hard to find out which of the two speci- mens is the one on which the figure is based, but with absolutely no success. The figure seems to be a composite of the two.) The specimen of Chemnitz’ fig. 93 is the same one as used for the drawing by Schumacher (for his Gari vulgaris) and was refigured by Lemche and Parker (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 377). It belongs to Solen amethystus Wood, 1815 (Gen. Conch. : 138). This specimen was proposed by Lemche and Parker as a better neotype for Tellina gari than that proposed by Cox. The neotype proposed for Te/lina gari Linnaeus by Cox (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 94) is Tellina truncata Linnaeus. From the foregoing it appears that Schumacher’s species Gari vulgaris is defined by its extant type specimen and should be considered as belonging to Gari amethystus (Wood, 1815) which, fortunately, has priority. The interpretation of Te/lina gari Linnaeus has caused endless confusion, with the result that the name has been almost avoided in taxonomy. No harm will ensue from its suppression, and the species Gari vulgaris will be better defined without involving speculations over its synonymy with Te/lina gari Linnaeus. The solution of simply suppressing the specific name gari Linnaeus will have at least the following advantages: The ambiguity of the species Gari vulgaris disappears, so that it can stand for the type of Gari Schumacher wanted by all contributors. The specific name vulgaris Schumacher, not in present use, disappears into the synonymy of a well-known species from the geographical area wanted. The argument between Cox and Lemche (& Parker) is ended without preference for any of their proposed solutions. The plenary powers will be involved only in one single section of suppressing a specific name not in general use. The question of tautonymy or no tautonymy disappears. The generic problem Rehder (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 297) and Morrison (ibid. : 298), Rosewater (ibid. : 303) and Lemche & Parker (ibid. 19 : 175) have shown in several ways that at least subgeneric differences exist between (a) the Atlantic species (Psammobia Lamarck), (b) the East-Pacific species (Psammocola Blainville, 1824, or Gobraeus Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Leach, 1852), and the Indo-Westpacific species (Gari Schumacher or Gari (Gobraeus) Prashad 1932 non Leach). To these three groups is to be added the fossil genus Garum Dall. All of these groups each need a name. However, as the name Psam- mocola has not been in use for any sufficient time to establish that it is certainly the oldest name for the Western American species, I am not inclined to ask for its inclusion in the Official List for the present time. The family name problem All (except Keen) of those favouring GARIDAE appear to do so because they con- sider Psammobia out of use for ever. Nothing is known about their opinion now it has been shown that Psammobia will have to exist side by side with Gari as a generic name in common use. Robertson (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 301) makes the important point that rejection of PSAMMOBIIDAE does not automatically validate GARIDAE. SOLECURTIDAE d’Orbigny, 1846, is senior and would have to be suppressed as well. Such action, however, would seem extremely unwise, as So/ecurtus cannot be guaranteed to stay forever within the same subfamily or even family as Psammobia or Gari. If closer study of the soft parts reveals that Solecurtus is to be placed in a distinct subfamily, the name SOLECURTINAE would be needed. Before this difficulty arose, scientists have showed almost a fifty/fifty balance in their choice between PSAMMOBIIDAE and GARIDAE. Now that Psammobia has been found valid and useful, and the difficulties turn around the name GARIDAE, it would seem that the case has decided itself in favour of retaining the family name PSAM- MOBIIDAE. The spelling problem fervensis/faeroeensis The only controversy left is about the spelling of the type-species of Psammobia. As it seems to be too small a point to trouble the Commission, I have decided to with- draw my part of support for the spelling faeroeensis and, accepting Turner’s (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 300) argument—to favour the original spelling. It will then become possible to present for the Commission a single set of proposals that, I hope, can be accepted by all participants in the discussions. On the background of the above analysis of the case, I propose as a compromise that the Commission decide to: (1) use its plenary powers: (a) to suspend the rule by which automatic correction of the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817 (the genitive form of a Latin noun) to the nominative form Garum would be required, and to declare that Gari shall be treated as a noun in the nominative singular; (b) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the specific name gari Linnaeus, 1758, as pub- lished in the binomen Tellina gari; ; (c) to set aside any consequence of tautonymy in the case of Tellina gari as suppressed in (b) above, and declare that Gari vulgarisSchumacher, 1817, shall be the type of Gari Schumacher, 1817; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Gari Schumacher, 1817 (gender : neuter), type-species, as designated under (1) (c) above, Gari vulgaris Schumacher, 1817; (b) Psammobia Lamarck, 1818 (gender : feminine), type-species by designa- tion by Children,1823, Tellina fervensis Gmelin, 1791 (cited by Children as feroensis); (c) Garum Dall, 1900 (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Psam- mobia filosa Conrad, 1833; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) amethystus Wood, 1815, as published in the binomen Solen amethystus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 [the oldest available name for Gari vulgaris Schumacher, 1817, type- species of Gari Schumacher, 1817]; (5) fervensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina fervensis (type-species of Psammobia Lamarck, 1818); (c) filosa Conrad, 1833, as published in the binomen Psammobia filosa (type- species of Garum Dall, 1900): (4) place the family name psAMMOBIIDAE (correction of PPAMMOBIADAE) Fleming, 1828 (type-genus Psammobia Lamarck, 1818) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology; (5) place the family name PSAMMOBIADAE Fleming, 1828 (type-genus Psammobia Lamarck, 1818) (an incorrect original spelling for PSAMMOBIIDAE) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology; (6) place the specific name gari Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Tellina gari (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO THE SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF EULACHNUS DEL GUERCIO, 1909. Z.N.(S.) 1541 (see volume 20, pages 236-237, volume 21, pages 2-3) By V. F. Eastop (British Museum (Natural History), London) D. Hille Ris Lambers and F. C. Hottes (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 2-3) suggest that Del Guercio’s description of Eulachnus agilis was based on a mixture of genera, including a Eulachnus in the generally accepted sense of the word. Lachnus agilis Kltb. is thus available as the type of Eulachnus Del Guercio which becomes the correct name for the genus, with Protolachnus Theobald as a synonym. In the interests of nomenclatural stability the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature is therefore asked not to vote on my (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 236-237) plea for the suppression of Eulachnus, but is requested to take the following action: (1) to place the generic name Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909 (gender : masculine), type-species designated by Wilson, 1911 (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 4: 54), Lachnus agilis Kaltenbach, 1843, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) to place the specific name agilis Kaltenbach, 1843, as published in the binomen Lachnus agilis (type-species of Eulachnus Del Guercio, 1909) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF _ TYPE-SPECIES FOR YOLDIA MOLLER, 1842, AND FOR PORTLANDIA MORCH, 1857 AND ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF YOLDIA ARCTICA MOLLER, 1842, Z.N.(S.) 1522. (see volume 21, pages 127-129) by A. H. Clarke, Jr. (National Museum of Canada, Ottawa, Canada) I am in full agreement with the arguments and proposals by Dr. Soot-Ryen cited above and wish to present additional evidence which, in my opinion, strengthens the case for acceptance of these proposals. 1. Soot-Ryen states that Portlandia Morch, 1857, (with Nucula arctica, Gray 1824 as type) has been in general use in Northern Europe for more than 50 years. That is certainly true. In addition, since the inclusion of Portlandia as a genus distinct from Yoldia in the monumental work by Thiele (1935), most of the workers in other parts of the world concerned with northern and arctic marine bivalves have also recognized Portlandia. In the Soviet and Japanese literature published since 1935 Portlandia appears to have been used universally. North American usage since that date has been approximately equally divided; in about half of the publications Portlandia has been used for Nucula arctica Gray and for species closely related to it and in the other half Yoldia has been used. A tendency exists for Portlandia to be accepted in critical taxonomic works (except in MacGinitie, 1959) however, and for Yoldia (instead of Portlandia) to be used in less critical faunal lists and catalogues which appear to have relied heavily on the comprehensive list of Johnson, 1934, for guidance. In that work, and in some earlier works, Portlandia was placed in synonymy with Yoldia. 2. Stewart, 1930, and Clarke, 1963, have also discussed the Portlandia- Yoldia problem and have concluded that both names should be utilized and are applicable to mutually exclusive genera. 3. Confusion still exists with regard to the status of Nucula arctica Gray and Portlandia Morch. For example, for the same taxon MacGinitie, 1959, used Yoldia arctica (Gray); Ellis, 1960 used Portlandia arctica (Gray); and Richards, 1962, used Yoldia (Portlandia) glacialis (Wood). This is unfortunate because Portlandia arctica (Gray) and some of its congeners are abundant and important arctic species. Approval of Soot-Ryen’s proposals (/oc. cit.) is needed to rectify these difficulties. REFERENCES CLARKE, A. H., Jr. 1963. Bull. Nat. Mus. Canada 185 (7) : 100 Exus, D. V. 1960. Arctic Inst. of North America, Tech. Pap. No. 5, p. 19, etc. JOHNSON, C. W. 1934. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 40 (1) : 17. MacGinitig, N. 1959. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 109 (3412) : 151. RicHArDs, H. G. 1962. Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. (n.s.) 52 (3) : 52. STEWART, R. B. 1930. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Special Pub. No. 3, pp. 59-62. THIELE, J. 1935. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde 2: 790. G. Fischer. Jena. COMMENT ON THE HETEROPTERAN FAMILY-GROUP NAME GERRIDAE Z.NAS.) 1556 (see volume 20, pages 307-308) By Carl W. Schaefer (Department of Biology, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn 10, New York) I support the proposal of Bailey and Moore for the reasons they have given and for the more general one that stability in family-group names is to be desired not only for its own sake but because more organisms more widely known to more zoologists are subsumed under these names. To the list of family-group names to be rejected given in Paragraph 4 of Bailey and Moore’s Appeal, I suggest the following name in the Heteroptera be added : GERRIDIDAE. This name is not only etymologically incorrect (because the combining form of ‘‘ Gerris” is “‘ Gerr-”’, not ‘‘ Gerrid-”’); but it is a name only rarely used; indeed, the only use of it that I am aware of is by Tonapi (1959, Ent. mon. Mag. 95 : 29) and Tonapi and Karandikar (1961, Entomologist 1961 : 227). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature B27 FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF THE NEO- TYPE AND TYPE-LOCALITY OF THAMNOPHIS SIRTALIS (LINNAEUS, 1758) (REPTILIA) Z.N.(S.) 1600 By Francis R. Cook (National Museum of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario) 1. Since the publication of my submission (Cook, 1963, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 20 : 397-400) requesting that the portion of the amendment to Opinion 395 in which the type-locality and neotype for Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus 1758 were designated by a ruling of the Commission be invalidated on the grounds that the type-locality was chosen in error, several comments and alternate proposals have been received by the Commission. The purpose of the present submission is briefly to summarize and comment on these and to submit a revision of my original proposal. 2. Before discussing these an inadvertant slip in wording of my original submission should be corrected. I stated (ibid. p. 399) that Holbrook was suggested as the new basis for interpreting sirtalis because his description was “‘. . . in the region where the Garter Snake was first recognized under the name sirtalis...”. This should have read “‘ first figured”’. Actually, Richard Harlan (1827, Genera of North American Reptilia and a Synopsis of the Species. J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad.5 : 352) had published the first description of specimens of the Eastern Garter Snake under the name sirtalis. Harlan had recognized that he was making a departure from the Linnaean description as he remarks “‘ Hitherto not accurately described’’. This had been pointed out previously by Klauber (1948, Copeia 1948 : 1-14). 3. Subsequent to my proposal Dr. Carl L. Hubbs, (Scripps Institution of Oceano- graphy, La Jolla, California) has submitted an alternate solution of the problem to the Commission (January 6, 1964; amended March 30, 1964). He has pointed out that favourable action on my proposal would (1) fix the name sirtalis on a specimen and on a species the original author did not see, (2) fix the type-locality as different from that which he published, (3) require a change in type-locality. He suggests that the better, and more logical solution would be to request the Commission: (1) to revoke Opinion 385 and replace it by a new Opinion simply providing that Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 22) be suppressed, for purposes of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy, along with all other subsequent adoptions of the name sirtalis based on Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus prior to the publication of Coluber sirtalis Harlan 1827 in Genera of North American Reptilia and a Synopsis of the Species. J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 352; (2) to place the species group-name sirtalis Harlan 1827, as published in the bino- men Coluber sirtalis Harlan on the official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to remove the species-group name “ sirtalis, Coluber, Linnaeus 1758 ” from the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Name No. 676) and place this name in the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 4. Dr. Lawrence M. Klauber (233 West Juniper Street, San Diego, California) has prepared a list containing 13 uses of sirtalis between Linnaeus, 1758 and Harlan, 1827 which would have to be suppressed under Hubbs’ proposal. In addition he cites four other names which were applied to the Eastern Garter Snake during this period: ordinatus (13 uses), ibibe (10 uses, mostly doubtfully binomial), taenia (1 use), bipunc- tatus (2 uses; probably synonym of ordinatus) (March 2, 1964). Both Dr. Klauber and the writer have taken the view that each citation of these names prior to Harlan, 1827 should be individually suppressed if the Hubbs’ proposal is accepted. Dr. Hubbs has pointed out (March 30, 1964) that Klauber’s list would have to be followed by comment “ and all other usages of these names prior to 1827 ” in case any have been inadvertently overlooked. He has suggested that the plenary powers could be used instead to indicate that the name sirtalis Harlan, 1827 is not to be invalidated by any earlier applied name, through the workings of the Law of Priority. 5. In letters to the Commission commenting on my original proposal, Dr. Hobart M. Smith and Dr. Ernst Mayr have taken the view that no action should be taken at Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature present as there is danger that any decision now might itself have to be revoked if another, more suitable, type-locality was discovered. Dr. Smith has taken the stand that the Commission, in fact, should vote to reaffirm its faith in Opinion 385 as it presently stands. 6. Part of the objections advanced by Smith and Mayr stem from the incidental bi-product of a change in the current type-locality, the retention of the subspecific name pallidula for the Maritime Garter Snake. Its retention has, however, no bearing on the merits of correcting the erroneous type-locality for sirtalis. There also seems to be no justification for fears that the type-locality for sirtalis will eventually require additional rulings by the Commission. The 1961 Code states that ‘‘ If a type-locality was erroneously designated or restricted it shall be corrected”. Certainly, a type- locality chosen for the Eastern Garter Snake on the basis of the hypothetical origin of a specimen generally acknowledged to have been another species, and which could not have come from that locality, must be considered erroneous. There seems little rationale for advising the Commission to ignore its own recommendation, at least in this case. 7. While Dr. Hubbs’ proposal has merit, a revision of my original proposal, using Harlan instead of Holbrook as the basis for interpretation of sirtalis Linnaeus, is the simplest procedure. Neither Hubbs nor Klauber feel that it is essential to use a figure for the basis of sirtalis which was the original reason for the choice of Holbrook. My proposal has the following advantages: (1) it would leave Opinion 385 essentially intact, rejecting only part of the amendment of the Opinion and substituting a new basis for interpretation of the name; (2) it requires no change in the Official List of Specific names in Zoology; (3) it requires no additions to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (4) it requires no mass or blanket suppressions of previous names; (5) it requires no change in the authorship which has been cited many times previously, and thus lends to no confusion in this respect; (6) it accomplishes the same result as Hubbs’ proposal, i.e. Harlan, 1827 as the basis for interpreting sirtalis. 8. If Harlan, 1827 is designated as the basis for interpreting sirtalis Linnaeus, then no additional ruling is required by the Commission on the type-locality problems as Harlan plainly states “‘ Inhabits Pennsylvania”. If necessary, a future revisor of the species might wish to restrict this to “ the vicinity of Philadelphia ” as the most likely origin of Harlan’s specimens, but this may be left to his discretion, and requires no action by the Commission. Harlan also remarks “‘ Specimens in the Cab. of A.N.S. ”’. Unfortunately these are probably no longer in existence (P.C.: Edmond V. Malnate, Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, March 8, 1964). Selection of a neotype, if necessary, may also be left to the selection of a future revisor. 9. The Commission is therefore requested: (1) to invalidate that part of the amendment to Opinion 385 designating a erron- eous type-locality (Quebec, Quebec County, Province of Quebec, Canada) and the neotype selected from that locality (Chicago Natural History Museum No. 73660) as the basis for interpretation of Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus, 175 and (2) to replace the rejected part of the amendment with the ruling that the name Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus 1758 will be interpreted from the description and type-locality given for Coluber sirtalis by Richard Harlan in Genera of North American Reptilia and a Synopsis of the Species. J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 352 (1827). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED STABILIZATION OF THE GENERIC NAME MACROPUS SHAW, 1790. Z.N.(S.). 1584 (see volume 20, pages 376-379; volume 21, pages 249-259) By H. H. Finlayson (South Australian Museum, Adelaide) I am informed by Dr. W. D. L. Ride of the Western Australian Museum, that the question of the official names to be adopted for the Grey Kangaroo, Grey Wallaroo, and Parry’s Wallaby is now before the Commission. In view of the unambiguous use of the name Macropus giganteus, Macropus robustus, and Macropus parryi respectively for these three species, for a long period of years and in a voluminous literature, their retention is a matter of great practical convenience. I beg to record my opinon, that if necessary, the plenary powers of the Commission should be invoked to regularize such a course. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) I should like to support the revised application of Ride and Calaby (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 :250-255) which, by removing canguruseparates thenomenclatural problems from the taxonomic and historical problems. Their proposal achieves the desirable object of preserving well known specific names at the same time as it stabilizes Macropus Shaw, 1790. And it still leaves everyone free to take their own view of the identity of Captain Cook’s Kangaroo (or Kangaroos) without causing any inconvenience to anyone else. By E. Le G. Troughton & Donald F. McMichael (The Australian Museum, Sydney) We have not, as yet, seen the published comments on the application of Calaby, Mack and Ride concerning the names of Australian Kangaroos, but we have been favoured with manuscript copies of comments by Kirkpatrick and Woods, through the courtesy of Mr. J. T. Woods, Director of the Queensland Museum, and with additional comments by Calaby and Ride through the courtesy of Dr. W. D. L. Ride, Director of the Western Australian Museum. The result of these appears to be that Kirkpatrick and Woods believe the holotype of Mus canguru Miiller to have been a Grey Wallaroo on the basis of (a) their analysis of the dental features of the macropod skull illustrated in a painting by Nathaniel Dance and (b) their possession of specimens of the Grey Wallaroo from the vicinity of Cooktown, north Queensland, one of which is proposed as Neotype of Mus canguru. Furthermore, Calaby and Ride have accepted the evidence of Kirkpatrick and Woods which suggests that the Hunterian skull pre- viously thought by them to have belonged to the holotype of Mus canguru, could not have come from a 38 lb Great Grey Kangaroo, and now support Kirkpatrick and Woods claim that the holotype was a Grey Wallaroo. On these matters we would make the following comment: (1) The fact that Calaby and Ride have abandoned their case completely justifies our earlier comments on the subject and proves the weakness of the original argument. (2) We believe that the identification of the 38 lb holotype as a Grey Wallaroo is equally unsound for the following reasons. (a) The skull painted by Dance is of doubtful origin. There is no real evidence that it is one of the original Endeavour River specimens, the only link being the reference to it in Dryander’s Catalogue of Parkinson Drawings from the Banks Library. The date at which this Catalogue was prepared is unknown, but it is undoubtedly while Dryander was librarian to Sir Joseph Banks after Solander’s death, and thus could have been prepared at any time between 1782 and about 1808. It seems most likely that it was prepared at the time Dryander was making his famous Catalogue of the Library of Sir Joseph Banks which was published between 1796 and 1800. The date when the painting was Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature made is also unknown. Morrison-Scott and Sawyer state ‘‘ Captain Cook sat to him (Dance) for his portrait in 1776 . . . after which year Dance appears to have given up painting.”” However, this is not quite correct. Dance was a successful portrait painter and a Royal Acade- mician but in 1776 he ceased to exhibit. He did not renounce his academic distinction until after his marriage in 1790, and even then did not give up painting as an amateur, since he exhibited some landscapes after his marriage. He lived until 1811, and the Dictionary of National Biography states that ‘‘ Even late in life he continued to paint landscapes with considerable success.” It is therefore not impossible that he painted the skull at a date subsequent to the settlement at Port Jackson, from which locality Wallaroo skulls would soon have been available. The interpretation of the dentition by Kirkpatrick and Woods indicates that this skull almost certainly came from an animal weighing about 40 Ibs but they also state that ‘“‘ It is conceded that imperfections in Dance’s drawing weaken any detailed argument on many of the charac- ters depicted.”” Because of the uncertainty as to its origin, and the time at which it was painted, and the lack of diagnostic detail in the painting, we reject this skull as having any real value in the determination of the species Mus canguru Miiller. (b) The proportions of a Wallaroo, especially of the ears and the tail, do not agree with the Parkinson drawings or Solander’s description. The slenderness of the limbs and tail and the proportionate length of the tail compared with the total length are characteristic of the Whiptail Wallaby and do not agree with a Wallaroo at any stage subsequent to leaving the pouch. The Cooktown Wallaroo skin (Aust. Mus. No. M.4606) shows the broadly based tail to reach barely between the shoulders, whereas the tail of the holotype equals the body length. The illustration of the animals in Hawkesworth also agrees with the naturalists description of the ‘‘ slender made ’’ kangaroo resembling a greyhound. The Parkinson sketches, together with the description that “‘the head and ears were most like a Hare’s of any animal I know ” also suit a Whiptail Wallaby but do not agree with the shorter, tri- angular ears of the Wallaroo. (c) The colour of the Wallaroo found close to Cooktown, as evidenced by specimens in both the Australian and Queensland Museums, is a rich rufous tone. The dorsal colouring of the long hair of these Wallaroos from shoulders to rump is from russet to tawny (Ridgway) in striking contrast to the short “ hairy furr of a darkmouse or grey colour ” or the “‘ short ash-coloured hair ’’ described for the holotype of Mus canguru. The backs of the ears of Wallaroos from Cooktown are a uniform ochraceous-tawny colour, in contrast with the holotype of Mus canguru which Solander described as “* colour of the whole animal ashy, with darker ears ’’ and elsewhere as “‘ ears, excepting the base, fine sprinkled grey”. The neotype proposed by Kirkpatrick and Woods is however not the rufous or antilopine Wallaroo, but a specimen of a Grey Wallaroo, which would be nearer the holotype of Mus canguruincolour. However, this specimen was collected at the Annan River, some 17 miles South of Cooktown, and thus beyond the range from which the holotypecame. On the other hand, Wallaroos obtained by the Queensland Museum at Oakey Creek, 6 miles West of Cooktown are all “ antelopine ” specimens (Woods, pers. comm.) In view of these facts we maintain our original submissions that the 38 lb animal shot within a day’s journey of Cooktown by Lt. Gore on July 14th, 1770 was a Whiptail Wallaby and request the Commission to take appropriate action in conformity with our submissions. We oppose the suggested suppression of Mus canguru Miller, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 because we consider that its identity is quite certain, and because the specific name canguru is appropriately linked with the first described Australian macropod, which is of considerable historical interest. COMMENT ON THE VALIDATION OF BORIOMYIA BANKS, 1905. Z.N.A(S.) 1531 (see volume 20, pages 305-306, and volume 21, page 91) By Bo Tjeder (Entomological Institute of Lund University, Lund, Sweden) An important paper by Nathan Banks appeared in 1905, entitled ‘‘ A revision of the Nearctic Hemerobiidae ”’ (Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 32, pp. 21-51, pls. 3-5). In that paper Banks carried out a much needed division of the genus Hemerobius L. (as that genus had been interpreted since the middle of the nineteenth century). He divided the genus into three genera, with diagnoses and designations of type species: Hemerobius L. (s. str.) Type: H. humuli L. 1758 Boriomyia n. gen Type: H. disjunctus Banks, 1897 Sympherobius n. gen. Type: H. amiculus Fitch, 1856. This division was well-based and so accepted, not only in the U.S.A. but everywhere. The genus name Boriomyia became thus used for species allied to B. disjuncta (Banks, 1897) not only by Banks himself in a number of papers but also in several papers by, among others: Andreu (1911), Eglin (1936, 1937), Esben-Petersen (1920, 1924, 1925, 1929, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1940), Essig (1926), Handschin (1936), Anton Jansson (1925), Killington (1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936), Kimmins (1928, 1929, 1933, 1934, 1963), Klingstedt (1929, 1932, 1934, 1935), Kriiger (1922), Lackschewitz (1929), Lindroth (1931), Lucas (1922, 1926, 1927, 1929), Morton (1914, 1921, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936), Mosely (1932, 1933, 1934, 1935), Navas (1910, 1912, 1913), Stitz (1927, 1931), Tillyard (1923, 1926), Withycombe (1922, 1923, 1925) and by the present writer (1931, 1932, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1948, 1951, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1961, 1963, 1964). The genus name Boriomyia Banks, 1905, so became universally adopted and familiar to all students of the order Neuroptera. Until 1937 all the authors have dealt with Boriomyia in the sense intended by Banks in the above mentioned revision. In 1937, however, Killington observed that Banks in a local list, ‘‘ A list of the neuropteroid insects, exclusive of Odonata, from the vere of Washington, D.C.” had used the genus name Boriomyia for two species, thus: * Boriomyia fidelis Banks. Taken near Glencarlyn, Va, 23rd June, in pine woods. Boriomyia speciosus Banks. The type is from Plummer’s Island, Md., 9th Sept. ” This local list was published in November 1904 (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., 6, pp. 201- 7). Killington claimed, therefore, in Appendix B of volume II of his work “* A Mono- graph of the Neuroptera ”’. printed in 1937, that: “ Boriomyia (1904) was valid under the International Rules of Nomenclature, containing as it did two described species, that Banks was incorrect in 1906 in describing the genus as new, and that his designation of Hemerobius disjunctus as the genotype could not stand ” (The stated year ‘* 1906” should correctly be 1905, because the revision bears the printed publication date: ‘‘ December 1905 *.) Killington continues: “‘ Banks’s unfortunate action in this latter paper 2a)” Carpenter has, however, in 1940 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Science, 74) in a foot-note on page 215 informed: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964, 332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ““ Mr. Banks has explained to me that although his revision was published after the Washington list, it was sent off for publication before the latter, which did not therefore include genotype designation ”’. It was thus not dependent upon an “ unfortunate action ’’ of Banks that the Wash- ington list did not contain diagnosis and type designation. He had presumably intended that the revision was to be printed before the Washington list. No rules were at that time in force, which could risk the type designation. The chronologic order of the prints could not therefore be expected to lead to the consequence which the retrospective application of the Rules caused. There was thus no reason for Banks to await the printing of the revision before sending off his manuscript of the Washington list to the printer. The delayed printing of the revision would have been of no importance for the inter- pretation of the genus if the two species enumerated in the Washington list really belonged to Boriomyia (sensu 1905). But Banks himself discovered later on that they were different from the disjunctus group of species and described, in 1930, a new sub- genus A//otomyia for these two species. That subgenus is nowadays considered a valid genus. Kimmins, in his proposal to the International Commission (Z.N.(S.) 1531), asked the Commission to place the generic name Boriomyia Banks (1905), type Hemerobius disjunctus Banks (1897), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to suppress the generic name Boriomyia Banks (1904) and place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The genus name Boriomyia should in this manner definitively be established to receive the interpretation originally intended by Banks in his revision. In the liveliest degree the present author recommends approval of Kimmins’ proposal. On approval the two genera in question should be cited: 1. Boriomyia Banks, 1905 Synonymy Boriomyia Banks, 1905, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 32, p. 36. Wesmaelius Kriiger, 1922, Stett. Ent. Zeit. 83, p. 170. Kimminsia Killington, 1937, Mon. Brit. Neur. 2, p. 254. Type species: Hemerobius disjunctus Banks, 1897 (orig. designation) (about 40 species; distribution: Holarctis and Africa, the Philippines, New Zealand, Guatemala). 2. Allotomyia Banks, 1930 Synonymy Boriomyia Banks, 1904, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 6, p. 209 (suppressed). Allotomyia Banks, 1930, Psyche, 37, p. 224 (as subgenus). Boriomyia Killington, 1937, Mon. Brit. Neur. 2, p. 256. Type species: Hemerobius fidelis Banks, 1897 (designation by Killington, 1937). (2 species; distribution: Nearctis). If the Commission refuses approval to Kimmins’ application it will be necessary to use the genus name Wesmaelius Kriiger (1922) for the above mentioned genus No. | (with Kimminsia Killington, 1937, as a synonym), while Allotomyia Banks (1930) becomes a synonym of Boriomyia Banks (1904) under genus No. 2. Prof. Carpenter, in his ‘‘ Comment on the proposed validation of Boriomyia Banks, 1905 ” (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21, p. 91, 1964), states that as far as he is aware: ‘* Mr. Tjeder has been the only one, in all the years since 1937, who has adhered to the use of Boriomyia Banks (sensu 1905)! The only exception to that statement is (Zeleny 1963),...” This statement that Zeleny (1963) should be the only exception is not quite true. Zeleny has also in a paper in 1962 (Casopis Cs. Spol. Ent. 59, p. 59-67) used Boriomyia Banks (sensu 1905) and further the genus name Boriomyia was used by the following authors: Fristrup, B. 1942. (Neuroptera and Trichoptera, in: The Zoology of Iceland, 3, pp. 1-23) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 AUBER, J. 1958. (Névroptéroides, in: Faune terrestre et d’eau douce des Pyrénées- Orientales, 3, pp. 1-42) Kis, BELA 1959. (Faunenkatalog der bisher in der Ruminischen Volksrepublik bekannten Neuropteren und Mecopteren.—Fol. Ent. Hung. ser. nov. 12, pp. 331-347) BERLAND, L. 1962. (Les Névroptéres de France.—Atlas des Névroptéres de France, Belgique, Suisse 5, pp. 1-158) H6uzeL, H. 1963. (Nachrichtenblatt Bayerischer Entomologen, 12, pp. 6-7) OuM, PeTeR, 1963. (Faunist. Mitt. aus Norddeutschland, 2, pp. 67-71) Kimmins, D. E. 1963. (Entom. Gazette, 14, pp. 140-149). Prof. Carpenter maintains in his ‘* Comment ” that he does not share my opinion that Boriomyia Banks (1905) and Wesmaelius Kriiger (1922) are congeneric. In this the disjuncta-group of such an importance that they justify an opinion of Wesmaelius as a valid genus. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF HUBNER’S “ ERSTE ZUTRAGE ” Z.N.(S.) 1611 (see this volume, pages 58-80) By M. Beier (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria) Das mir iibersandte Separatum beziiglich ‘‘ Erste Zutrage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge ” von Hiibner habe ich durchgesehen. Ich wiirde ebenfalls dafiir stimmen, diese Arbeit als nicht publiziert zu betrachten (Ihr Punkt a). Nach unserem Exemplar zu schliessen, scheint es sich namlich tatsachlich nur um einen unvoll- standigen Korrekturabzug zu handeln, den Hiibner selbst spater nicht mehr erwihnt. By Ch. Boursin (Paris) With regard to the report published by Dr. I. W. B. Nye, may I make the following observations: (1) the fact that the ‘‘ Erste Zutrage ” was never completed is no reason for invali- dating it. Other works similarly unfinished have been accepted without question—for example the “‘ Faune de | *Andalousie ”’ of Rambur, 1838/39, and many others. (2) The fact that only three copies of the work are known provides no reason for considering it unpublished. Schiffermiiller’s Verzeichniss 1775 is comparable; and although there is less reason to accept it as valid, it has been validated by the I.C.Z.N. (3) In view of the above considerations, all the generic names first introduced into the literature by Hiibner in the above-mentioned “ Erste Zutrage ’’ must be regarded as valid; they have in fact been available for use for many years. Any departure from the acceptance of the “ Erste Zutriige ” would seriously upset the stability of nomenclature. necessary. As indicated by Dr. Nye, the work has been ignored by all Lepidopterists on the North American continent in matters pertaining to nomenclature. The recognition of the Erste Zutrdge would cause disruptive changes in a presently fairly stable interpretation of names. The work therefore should be suppressed as requested by Dr. Nye. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature By I. F. B. Common (Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia) I should like to offer my full support for the application of Dr. I. W. B. Nye for the rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the pamphlet by J. Hiibner entitled Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmetterlinge, printed in 1808. I have read with great interest his submission published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and consider that he has marshalled a series of very impressive arguments to support his application. Of special significance are the cogent propositions (paragraphs 9-15) supporting Dr. Nye’s contention that the Erste Zutrdge was never published, but was simply a printer’s proof. If these propositions are accepted, then it follows that the occasional introduction of an Erste Zutrdge name into the literature since Hemming’s first discovery of this printer’s proof has been invalid. No justification therefore exists at present for substituting these names for the many well-known names of long and established usage. To avoid further confusion, action by the Commission should rule that the Erste Zutrdge has not been published within the meaning of the International Code, and should place on the appropriate Official List or Index the generic names as set out in paragraphs 15(a)-(1) of Dr. Nye’s application. By E. L. Todd (V.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I was in favor of the action recommended by Franclemont Z.N.(S.) 353 therefore Isupport Dr. Nye’s similar application Z.N.(S.) 1611, at leastin part, as will be explained. Z.N.(S.) 1611-1. (a). I support the action recommended completely. It seems obvious to me that Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge dated 1808 has not been published within the meaning of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961), Article 8. The pamphlet undoubtedly was a printer’s proof that was not published by Hiibner. We shall probably never know Hiibner’s reason or reasons for discarding this printer’s proof, but I believe his action may have resulted because of his changing and expanding system of classification. Hemming (‘* Hiibner ”’, 1937, vol. 1, pp. 13-19) has discussed Hiibner’s views on classification very thoroughly and has demonstrated (paragraph 9 — ** VII. — The system proposed in a letter dated 1809 ’’) that by 1809 Hiibner was proposing a far more elaborate system than that found in the Erste Zutrdge. It may be seen that on pages 8 aiid 9 of of the Erste Zutrdge, the names appear as trinominals. This was the system employed in the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge of 1806. Obviously, by the time the plates of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge [sic], Erste Hundert, appeared [1809-1813] the text and system of classification of the Erste Zutrdge was no longer suitable to Hiibner’s views on and his system of classification. Nearly all of the gen- eric names of the Erste Zutrdge (Stirps names) had been elevated to supergeneric rank~ and another supergeneric category, Familia, had been interposed between Stirps and Genus. His system down to Stirps is given on pages 4 and 5 of the Zutrdge. In addition, each species described in the Zutrdge is classified by a sentence showing place- ment according to Phalanx—Tribus and Strips—Familia. Thus the four species placed in the genus Euclidia in the Erste Zutrdge, gracilis, graphica, trifascia and cuspidea, are placed in the Stirps Euclidia in the Zutrdge but in two different Familiae and genera i.e. ‘* Eine Noctua semigeometra und Euclidia fasciata”’ and ““ Eine Noctua semigeometra und Euclidia maculata”. Gracilis (as gracilenta) and trifascia are described in Schinia, graphica and cuspidea in Drasteria in the Zutrdage. Some of the generic changes between the Erste Zutrdge and Zutrdge are the result of changes of opinion as to the systematic position of the species in question. An example is Ptilodon uncium of the Erste Zutrdége and Gonodonta uncina of the Zutrage. Hiibner subsequently elevated Ptilodon (as Ptilodontes) to Stirps rank in Phalanx Phalaenae, Tribus sphingoides (see Zutrage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge [sic] 1818, Erste Hundert, p. 4 and Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], [1819], p. 145) but he had realized that the species did not belong to that group and in the Zutrage placed it in ‘‘ Eine Noctua semigeometra und Meropis festiva”’. Most of the works of Hiibner appeared over a period of years and some of them were developed concurrently. During the years of development of these works, Hiibner’s views on classification are known to have changed, but the system utilized in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 the first part of each work was continued in that work to its completion. Geyer followed this same principle in completing the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. In the Vierte Hundert, 1832, p. 24 Geyer classified Gonodonta bidens as “ Noctua semigeometra, Meropis festiva”’ even though Hiibner had changed the Familia placement of the genus in the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], (1823), p. 263. In consideration of Hiibner’s practice of maintaining a particular system of classification of each work, it does not seem likely that he would-have changed his system if the Erste Zutrdge had, in fact, been published. Certainly he would not have published two different texts referring to the same figures! The fact that Hiibner and Carl Geyer never mentioned the Erste Zutrage in the various works or in the numerous sales lists seems to me to be conclusive evidence that it was not a published work. Z.N.(S.) 1611—1.(b). I do not approve the action recommended. I believe the listing of the correct usage of the generic names is useful, but as this has been published in the application Z.N.(S.) 1611, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 1, 1964, pp. 63-75, I do not see the need of placing the names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. I suppose this is recommended for completeness of action, but I question the wisdom of such action. If Nye’s work is complete and contains no errors, there would be no harm in placing the names on the “ Official List *. To my knowledge there is no reason to question his work, but I feel that I could not accept this or any other workers usage without personally verifying the correctness of the usage. This is an action I am not prepared to undertake at present. If the generic names with the respective types of genus are placed on the “ Official List ” and subsequent study reveals an error or errors exist, it would then be necessary to petition the Commission in order to correct the error or errors. The possibility of such action would mean more of a burden to the Commission which is obviously already overburdened. I assume this to be the case, otherwise why did so many years pass without some action on Francle- mont’s application Z.N.(S.) 353 of 1950 for the suppression of the Erste Zutrdge for nomenclatorial purposes. If the generic names are not placed on the ‘‘ Official List ” and errors are discovered, the action of correction is simple publication discussing the error and the correct application and usage of the name. Z.NAS.) 1611—1.(c). I approve of the recommended action. In the summary of published opinions and usages of authors dealing with the Erste Zutrdge (see Nye, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Pt. 1, 1964, pp. 75-80.) one important reference has not been included. It is the work of A. Glenn Richards, Jr. entitled “‘ A Revision of the North American species of the Phoberia-Melipotis-Dras- teria group of moths (Lepidoptera, Phalaenidae), Ent. Americana, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1939, pp. 1-2. Richards does not follow the Erste Zutrdge and discusses the usage of Melipotis vs. Heliothis. Finally, I will repeat the position of Franclemont and myself (see Nye, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Pt. 1, pp. 77 and 79) that even if the Erste Zutrdge were ruled to be published, the subsequent publication of the plates of the Erstes Hundert of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge [sic] in 1809-1813 should not be con- strued as validating the names that were nomina nuda in the Erste Zutrdge, 1808. 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 712 FORTY-SEVEN GENERA OF DECAPOD CRUSTACEA: PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) the emendation to Dorhynchus of the generic name Dorynchus Thomson, 1873, is hereby validated ; the emendation to stirhynchus of the specific name originally published in the combination Axius stirynchus by Leach in 1815 is hereby validated ; the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) diacantha Latreille, 1825, as published in the binomen Portunus diacantha; (ii) tridens Herbst, 1790, as published in the binomen Cancer tridens; all designations of type-species for the genus Callinectes Stimpson, 1860, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896, is hereby desig- nated to be the type-species of that genus; it is hereby directed that the family-group name POTAMIDAE Ortmann, 1896, is to be given precedence over the family-group names THELPHUSIDAE Macleay, 1838, TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853, and PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893, by any zoologist who considers the type-genera of these families as belonging to the same family-group taxon. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Acanthonyx Latreille, 1827 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Maia lunulata Risso, 1816 (Name No. 1603); Achaeopsis Stimpson, 1857 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Achaeopsis spinulosus Stimpson, 1857 (Name No. 1604); Achaeus Leach, 1817 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Achaeus cranchii Leach, 1817 (Name No. 1605); Anamathia Smith, 1885 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, through Amathia Roux, 1828, Amathia rissoana Roux, 1828 (Name No. 1606); Anapagurus Henderson, 1886 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Holthuis, 1962, Pagurus laevis Bell, 1845 (Name No. 1607); Atelecyclus [Leach, 1814] (gender: masculine), type-species, by mono- typy, Cancer (Hippa) septemdentatus Montagu, 1813 (Name No. 1608); Axius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Axius stirhynchus Leach, 1815 (Name No. 1609); Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. (h) (i) (j) (k) (I) (m) (n) (0) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) (w) (x) (y) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337 Brachynotus De Haan, [1833] (gender: masculine), type-species, by subsequent monotypy; Goneplax sexdentatus Risso, 1827 (Name No. 1610); Calappa Weber, 1795 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Latreille, 1810, Cancer granulatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1611); Calcinus Dana, 1851 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Dana, 1852, Cancer tibicen Herbst, 1791 (Name No. 1612); Callinectes Stimpson, 1860 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(d) above, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 (Name No. 1613); Calocaris Bell, 1846 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Calocaris macandreae Bell, 1846 (Name No. 1614); Catapaguroides A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 (gender: mascu- line), type-species, by designation by Holthuis, 1962, Catapaguroides microps A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 (Name No. 1615); Charybdis De Haan, [1833] (gender: feminine), type-species, by desig- nation by Glaessner, 1929, Cancer feriatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1616); Clibanarius Dana, 1852 (gender: masculine), type-species, by tauto- nymy, Cancer clibanarius Herbst, 1791 (Name No. 1617); Cymonomus A. Milne Edwards, 1880, (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Cymonomus quadratus A. Milne Edwards, 1880 (Name No. 1618); Dorhynchus (emend. under the plenary powers of Dorynchus) Thomson, 1873 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Dorhynchus thomsoni Thomson, 1873 (Name No. 1619); Ergasticus Studer, 1883 (gender: masculine), type-species, by mono- typy, Ergasticus clouei Studer, 1883 (Name No. 1620); Eriphia Latreille, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Cancer spinifrons Herbst, 1785 (Name No. 1621); Ethusa P. Roux, 1830 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Fowler, 1912, Cancer mascarone Herbst, 1785 (Name No. 1622); Eurynome (Leach, 1814] (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cancer asper Pennant, 1777 (Name No. 1623); Harpilius Dana, 1852 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Harpilius lutescens Dana, 1852 (Name No. 1624); Herbstia H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cancer condyliatus Fabricius, 1787 (Name No. 1625); Heterocrypta Stimpson, 1871 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Cryptopodia granulata Gibbes, 1850 (Name No. 1626); Heteropanope Stimpson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Balss, 1933, Heteropanope glabra Stimpson, 1858 (Name No. 1627); 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (z) Jlia Leach, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cancer nucleus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1628); (aa) Jaxea Nardo, 1847 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Jaxea nocturna Nardo, 1847 (Name No. 1629); (bb) Latreillia P. Roux, 1830 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Latreillia elegans P. Roux, 1830 (Name No. 1630); (cc) Leucosia Weber, 1795 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Holthuis, 1959, Cancer craniolaris Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1631); (dd) Medaeus Dana, 1851 (gender: masculine), type-species, by subsequent monotypy, Medaeus ornatus Dana, 1852 (Name No. 1632); (ee) Munida Leach, 1820 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Pagurus rugosus Fabricius, 1775 (Name No. 1633); (ff) Munidopsis Whiteaves, 1874 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Munidopsis curvirostra Whiteaves, 1874 (Name No. 1634); (gg) Myra Leach, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Leucosia fugax Fabricius, 1798 (Name No. 1635); (hh) Nematopagurus A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 (gender: mascu- line), type-species, by monotypy, Nematopagurus longicornis A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 (Name No. 1636); (ii) | Ocypode Weber, 1795 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Latreille, 1810, Cancer ceratophthalmus Pallas, 1772 (Name No. 1637); (jj) Pachygrapsus Randall, 1840 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Kingsley, 1880, Pachygrapsus crassipes Randall, 1840 (Name No. 1638); (kk) Paguristes Dana, 1851 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Stimpson, 1858, Paguristes hirtus Dana, 1851 (Name No. 1639); (ll) Palicus Philippi, 1838 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Palicus granulatus Philippi, 1838 (Name No. 1640); (mm) Paromola Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (gender: feminine), type- species, by monotypy, Dorippe cuvieri Risso, 1816 (Name No. 1641); (nn) Philyra Leach, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Cancer globus Fabricius, 1775 (Name No. 1642); (oo) Pilumnopeus A. Milne Edwards, 1867 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Balss, 1933, Pilumnopeus crassimanus A. Milne Edwards, 1867 (Name No. 1643); (pp) Plagusia Latreille, 1804 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Latreille, 1810, Cancer depressus Fabricius, 1775 (Name No. 1644); (qq) Potamon Savigny, 1816 (gender: neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Potamon fluviatile Savigny, 1816 (Name No. 1645); (rr) Richardina A. Milne Edwards, 1881 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Richardina spinicincta A. Milne Edwards, 1881 (Name No. 1646); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 (ss) Rochinia A. Milne Edwards, 1875 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Rochinia gracilipes A. Milne Edwards, 1875 (Name No. 1647); (tt) Uca [Leach, 1814] (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782 (Name No. 1648); (uu) Xaiva Macleay, 1838 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Xaiva pulchella Macleay, 1838 (Name No. 1649). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) asper Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Cancer asper (type- species of Eurynome [Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 1995); (b) ceratophthalmus Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Cancer ceratophthalmus (type-species of Ocypode Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1996); (c) clibanarius Herbst, 1791, as published in the binomen Cancer clibana- rius (type-species of Clibanarius Dana, 1852) (Name No. 1997); (d) clouei Studer, 1883, as published in the binomen Ergasticus clouei (type-species of Ergasticus Studer, 1883) (Name No. 1998); (e) condyliatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Cancer condyliatus (type-species of Herbstia H. Milne Edwards, 1834) (Name No. 1999); (f) cranchii Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Achaeus cranchii (type-species of Achaeus Leach, 1817) (Name No. 2000); (g) craniolaris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer cranio- laris (type-species of Leucosia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 2001); (h) crassipes Randall, 1840, as published in the binomen Pachygrapsus crassipes (type-species of Pachygrapsus Randall, 1840) (Name No. 2002); (i) curvirostra Whiteaves, 1874, as published in the binomen Munidopsis curvirostra (type-species of Munidopsis Whiteaves, 1874) (Name No. 2003); (j) cuvieri Risso, 1816, as published in the binomen Dorippe cuvieri (type- species of Paromola Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891) (Name No. 2004) ; (k) | depressus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer depressus (type-species of Plagusia Latreille, 1804) (Name No. 2005); (1) elegans P. Roux, 1830, as published in the binomen Latreillia elegans (type-species of Latreillia P. Roux, 1830) (Name No. 2006); (m) feriatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer feriatus (type-species of Charybdis De Haan, [1833]) (Name No. 2007); (n) fugax Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Leucosia fugax (type-species of Myra Leach, 1817) (Name No. 2008); (0) glabra Stimpson, 1858, as published in the binomen Heteropanope glabra (type-species of Heteropanope Stimpson, 1858) (Name No. 2009) ; (p) globus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer globus (type-species of Philyra Leach, 1817) (Name No. 2010): 340 (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) (w) (x) (y) (z) (aa) (bb) (cc) (dd) (ee) (ff) (gg) (hh) (ii) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature gracilipes A. Milne Edwards, 1875, as published in the binomen Rochinia gracilipes (type-species of Rochinia A. Milne Edwards, 1875) (Name No. 2011); granulata Gibbes, 1850, as published in the binomen Cryptopodia granulata (type-species of Heterocrypta Stimpson, 1871) (Name No. 2012); granulatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer granulatus (type-species of Calappa Weber, 1795) (Name No. 2013); hirtus Dana, 1851, as published in the binomen Paguristes hirtus (type- species of Paguristes Dana, 1851) (Name No. 2014); laevis Bell, 1845, as published in the binomen Pagurus laevis (type- species of Anapagurus Henderson, 1886) (Name No. 2015); longicornis A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, as published in the binomen Nematopagurus longicornis (type-species of Nematopagurus A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892) (Name No. 2016); lutescens Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen Harpilius lutescens (type-species of Harpilius Dana, 1852) (Name No. 2017); macandreae Bell, 1846, as published in the binomen Calocaris macan- dreae (type-species of Calocaris Bell, 1846) (Name No. 2018); major Herbst, 1782, as published in the combination Cancer vocans major (type-species of Uca [Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 2019); mascarone Herbst, 1785, as published in the binomen Cancer mascarone (type-species of Ethusa P. Roux, 1830) (Name No. 2020); microps A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, as published in the bi- nomen Catapaguroides microps (type-species of Catapaguroides A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892) (Name No. 2021); nocturna Nardo, 1847, as published in the binomen Jaxea nocturna (type-species of Jaxea Nardo, 1847) (Name No. 2022); nucleus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer nucleus (type-species of Ilia Leach, 1817) (Name No. 2023); ornatus Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen Medaeus ornatus (type-species of Medaeus Dana, 1851) (Name No. 2024); quadratus A. Milne Edwards, 1880, as published in the binomen Cymonomus quadratus (type-species of Cymonomus A. Milne Edwards, 1880) (Name No. 2025); rissoana P. Roux, 1828, as published in the binomen Amathia rissoana (type-species of Anamathia Smith, 1885) (Name No. 2026); rugosus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Pagurus rugosus (type-species of Munida Leach, 1820) (Name No. 2027); sexdentatus Risso, 1827, as published in the binomen Goneplex sex- dentatus (type-species of Brachynotus De Haan, [1833]) (Name No. 2028); spinicincta A. Milne Edwards, 1881, as published in the binomen Richardina spinicincta (type-species of Richardina A. Milne Edwards, 1881) (Name No. 2029); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 (jj) spinulosus Stimpson, 1857, as published in the binomen Achaeopsis spinulosus (type-species of Achaeopsis Stimpson, 1857) (Name No. 2030); (kk) stirhynchus (emend. under the plenary powers of stirynchus) Leach, 1815, as published in the binomen Axius stirhynchus (type-species of Axius Leach, 1815) (Name No. 2031).; (ll) thomsoni Thomson, 1873, as published in the binomen Dorhynchus thomsoni (type-species of Dorhynchus Thomson, 1873) (Name No. 2032); (mm) tibicen Herbst, 1791, as published in the binomen Cancer tibicen (type- species of Calcinus Dana, 1851) (Name No. 2033); (nn) rotundatus Olivi, 1792, as published in the binomen Cancer rotundatus (Name No. 2034); (00) verrucosus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer verruco- sus (Name No. 2035); (pp) caronii P. Roux, 1830, as published in the binomen Cymopolia caronii (Name No. 2036); (qq) serratifrons Kinahan, 1858, as published in the binomen Qzius (?) serratifrons (Name No. 2037); (rr) potamios Olivier, 1803-1804, as published in the binomen Cancer potamios (Name No. 2038); (ss) biguttatus Risso, 1816, as published in the binomen Portunus biguttatus (Name No. 2039); (tt) fluviatilis Herbst, 1785, as published in the binomen Cancer fluviatilis (Name No. 2040); (uu) sapidus Rathbun, 1896, as published in the binomen Callinectes sapidus (type-species of Callinectes Stimpson, 1860) (Name No. 2041); (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) ATELECYCLIDAE Ortmann, 1893 (type-genus Ate/ecyclus [Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 369); (b) AXMNDAE Huxley, 1879 (type-genus Axius Leach, 1815) (Name No. 370); (c) CALAPPIDAE (correction of CALAPPIDEA) De Haan, [1833] (type-genus Calappa Weber, 1795) (Name No. 371); (d) _ILIINAE Stimpson, 1870 (type-genus J/ia Leach, 1817) (Name No. 372); (€) LATREILLIIDAE (correction of LATREILLIDEA) Stimpson, 1858 (type-genus Latreillia P. Roux, 1830) (Name No. 373); (f) | LEUCOSIIDAE (correction of LEUCOSIADAE) Samouelle, 1819 (type-genus Leucosia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 374); (g) OCYPODIDAE (correction of OCyPODIA) Rafinesque, 1815 (type-genus Ocypode Weber, 1795) (Name No. 375); (h) PALICIDAE Rathbun, 1898 (type-genus Palicus Philippi, 1838) (Name No. 376); (i) | PLAGUSIINAE (correction of PLAGUSINAE) Dana, 1851 (type-genus Plagusia Latreille, 1804) (Name No. 377); 342 (j) (k) (1) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature POTAMIDAE (correction of POTAMONIDAE) Ortmann, 1896 (type-genus Potamon Savigny, 1816) (to be given precedence under the plenary powers over the family-group names PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893, THELPHUSIDAE Macleay, 1838, and TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853, by any zoologists who consider Potamon Savigny, Pseudothelphusa De Saussure, Thelphusa Latreille and/or Trichodactylus Latreille as belonging to the same family-group taxon) (Name No. 378). PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893 (type-genus Pseudothelphusa De Saussure, 1857) (not to be given precedence over POTAMIDAE Ortmann, 1896, by any zoologists who consider Potamon Savigny and Pseudothelphusa De Saussure as belonging to the same family- group taxon ) (Name No. 379); TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853 (type-genus Trichodactylus Latreille, [1828]) (not to be given precedence over POTAMIDAE Ortmann, 1896, by any zoologists who consider Potamon Savigny and Trichodactylus Latreille as belonging to the same family-group taxon) (Name No. 380). (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (1) (m) Acanthonyx Hampson, 1902 (a junior homonym of Acanthonyx Latreille, 1827) (Name No. 1711): Amathia P. Roux, 1828 (a junior homonym of Amathia Lamouroux, 1812) (Name No. 1712); Axius Mulsant, 1850 (a junior homonym of Axius Leach, 1815) (Name No. 1713); Brachynotus Kirby, 1837 (a junior homonym of Brachynotus De Haan, [1833]) (Name No. 1714); Calappa Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym and a junior objective synonym of Calappa Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1715); Charybdis Cocco, 1832 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 1716); Clibanarius Gozis, 1882 (a junior homonym of Clibanarius Dana, 1852) (Name No. 1717); Cymopolia P. Roux, 1830 (a junior homonym of Cymopolia Lamou- roux, 1816) (Name No. 1718); Dorynchus Thomson, 1873 (Ruled under the plenary powers to be an incorrect original spelling for Dorhynchus) (Name No. 1719); Eriphia Meigen, 1826 (a junior homonym of Eriphia Latreille, 1817) (Name No. 1720); Eriphia Herrich-Schaeffer, 1850-1856 (a junior homonym of Eriphia Latreille, 1817) (Name No. 1721); Eriphia Chambers, 1875 (a junior homonym of Eriphia Latreille, 1817) (Name No. 1722); Eriphis Latreille, 1817 (an incorrect original spelling for Eriphia Latreille, 1817) (Name No. 1723); (n) (0) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) (w) (x) (y) (z) (aa) (bb) (cc) (dd) (ee) (ff) (gg) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 Eurynoma Latreille, 1829 (an incorrect spelling for Eurynome [Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 1724); Eurynome Rafinesque, 1815 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 1725); Eurynome Chambers, 1875 (a junior homonym of Eurynome (Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 1726); Eurynone De Haan, [1839] (an incorrect spelling for Eurynome (Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 1727); Goniosoma A. Milne Edwards, 1860 (a junior objective synonym of Charybdis De Haan, [1833]) (Name No. 1728); Herbstia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1851 (a junior homonym of Herbstia H. Milne Edwards, 1834) (Name No. 1729); Ilia Hartmann, 1881 (a junior homonym of //ia Leach, 1817) (Name No. 1730); Latreillia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (a junior homonym of Latreillia P. Roux, 1830) (Name No. 1731); Leucosia Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1732). Leucosia Rambur, 1866 (a junior homonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1733); Leucosia Dybowski, 1875 (a junior homonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1734); Leucosides Rathbun, 1897 (a junior objective synonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1735); Numida Hope, 1851 (an incorrect spelling for Munida Leach, 1820) (Name No. 1736); Ocypoda Lamarck, 1801 (an incorrect spelling for Ocypode Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1737); Ocypode Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym and a junior objective synonym of Ocypode Weber, 1795) (Name No. 1738); Palicus Stal, 1866 (a junior homonym of Palicus Philippi, 1838) (Name No. 1739); Philyra De Haan, [1833] (a junior homonym of Philyra Leach, 1817) (Name No. 1740); Philyra Laporte, 1836 (a junior homonym of Philyra Leach, 1817) (Name No. 1741); Plagusia Jarocki, 1822 (a junior homonym of Plagusia Latreille, 1804) (Name No. 1742); Uca Latreille, 1819 (a junior homonym of Uca [Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 1743); (6) 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) diacantha Latreille, 1825, as published in the binomen Portunus diacantha (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) (i) above) (Name No. 797); 344 (b) (c) (d) (f) (g) (h) (i) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature globosus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Cancer globosus (a junior objective synonym of globus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775) (Name No. 798); globulosa Bosc, 1801-1802, as published in the binomen Leucosia globulosa (a junior objective synonym of globus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775) (Name No. 799); heterochelos Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Ocypoda heterochelos (a junior objective synonym of major, Cancer vocans, Herbst, 1782) (Name No. 800): sexdentatus Herbst, 1783, as published in the binomen Cancer sexden- tatus (a junior objective synonym of feriatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 801); stirynchus Leach, 1815, as published in the binomen Axius stirynchus (Ruled under the plenary powers to be an incorrect original spelling for stirhynchus) (Name No. 802); tridens Herbst, 1790, as published in the binomen Cancer tridens (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) (11) above) (Name No. 803); tridens Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Cancer tridens (a junior homonym of tridens, Cancer, Herbst, 1790) (Name No. 804); una [Leach, 1814], as published in the binomen Uca una (a junior objective synonym of major, Cancer vocans, Herbst, 1782) (Name No. 805). (7) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) CALAPPIDEA De Haan, [1833] (type-genus Ca/appa Weber, 1795) (an incorrect original spelling for CALAPPIDAE) (Name No. 405); CYMOPOLIIDAE Faxon, 1895 (type-genus Cymopolia P. Roux, 1830) (invalid because the name of the type-genus is a junior homonym) (Name No. 406); LATREILLIDEA Stimpson, 1858 (type-genus Latreillia P. Roux, 1830) (an incorrect original spelling for LATREILLIDAE) (Name No. 407); LEUCOSIADAE Samouelle, 1819 (type-genus Leucosia Weber, 1795) (an incorrect original spelling for LEUCOSIIDAE) (Name No. 408); OcCYPODIA Rafinesque, 1815 (type-genus Ocypode Weber, 1795) (an incorrect original spelling for ocyPODIDAE) (Name No. 409); PLAGUSINAE Dana, 1851 (type-genus Plagusia Latreille, 1804) (an incorrect original spelling for PLAGUSIINAE) (Name No. 410). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1499) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in August 1961. Dr. Holthuis’ application was sent to the printer on 20 October 1961 and was published on 16 July 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 232-253. 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 (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 one specialist serial. No objection was received. In two letters to the Secretary (6.xi.62 and 29.xi.62) Dr. Holthuis made the following corrections to his application: ** |. (: 236, para. 7). Ina comment on the present case Mr. W. I. Follett and Miss Lillian J. Dempster quite correctly point out that under the new Code, in the case of multiple original spellings of a scientific zoological name, the correct spelling is decided by the action of the first reviser, and not the first subsequent user as I had it. The first reviser in the case of Eriphia is, as far as I can ascertain, Schulze, Kikenthal, Heider & Hesse, 1929, Nomencl. anim. -genr. subgenr. 2 (10) : 1191. In this nomenclator the name Friphia Latreille, 1817, is cited correctly, while under Eriphis is mentioned: “* Eriphis (pro Eriphia] Latreille, 1817’, which in my opinion clearly is an action giving preference to Eriphia over Eriphis. 2. Miss Janet Haig drew my attention to two corrections that are needed in my application. In the first place the original description of the name Cliban- arius by Dana is not the one published in 1852—Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 (1) : 6—but that published (in the same year) in Amer. Journ. Sci. Arts (2) 13 : 122. 3. Another error pointed out to me by Miss Haig is that the first type selec- tion for the genus Calcinus Dana, 1851, is not by Stimpson, 1858, but by Dana, 1852, Amer. Journ. Sci. Arts (2) 13 : 122.” Commissioners were informed of these corrections at the time of voting. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 11 December 1963 Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63) 38 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 247-253. At the close of the pre- scribed Voting Period on 11 March 1964 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-five (25), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Hering, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Riley, Miller, Stoll, Jaczewski, Binder, Vokes, Simpson, Brinck, Tortonese, do Amaral, Alvarado, Bonnet, Uchida, Obruchev, Mertens, Forest, Hubbs, Evans, Kraus. Negative votes—two (2): Ride, Sabrosky. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commissioner Borchsenius returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (9.iii.64): “* Only the good sense, great care, and collabora- tion taken in this application cause me to vote “ for”; in general, such mass approvals are dangerous. I rather disapprove of correcting spellings (Dorhyn- chus ; stenorhynchus) but now have no chance to vote against these applications. Such special plenary emendations make it necessary to check the Official Lists as well as original descriptions.” Dr. W. D.L. Ride (9.11i.64): “ | regret that I am unable to vote in the affirma- tive for this as a package-deal since it contains much which will be useful. If it were broken down and re-submitted as separate items I would vote— 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Against 7.(1) (a)—The case as made out does not satisfy me that confusion will arise, or stability or universality be upset if the Code is followed. 7.(1) (b)—No case is made out in the application, unless it be under- stood to be the same as in 7.(1) (a). 7.(5) (i) —follows from 7.(1) (a). 7.(6) (f }—follows from 7.(1) (b). For—(with necessary amendment to original spelling for Dorynchus and stirynchus) 7.(2) and 7.(3) (a). For—the remainder.” Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (11.1ii.64): “‘ Iam opposed to mass treatment of a list of names involving different matters—correction of spelling, suppression of nomina dubia, exception to the Law of Priority, etc. This is potentially dangerous, even though the application is the result of much careful work, as I am sure it is from the list of distinguished carcinologists involved in the project. Several errors have already come to light, as indicated in the supplemental information. I would take exception to several items noted in my reading of the applica- tion, and might note others if more careful study were possible. I note that a number of the names are admittedly of little importance, and I see no reason why the Commission should have its time taken with such names. In other cases, there is no real problem to which we should address our time and attention. I am thoroughly opposed to placing nomina nuda on the Official List. Nomenclaturally, they do not exist. I am also opposed to filling the Official Index with junior homonyms and objective synonyms. Note on Potamonidae: Plenary powers are not needed to protect Potamon- idae from Thelphusidae. See article 40a. They would be for the other two names involved, under Article 23d (ii). pp. 249-251—Does this list of 33 junior homonyms, errors and nomina nuda establish a precedent for including the thousands on thousands of those types of names in entomology on the Official Index? This is going too far. The project on a check list of the Decapoda of the Mediterranean is an admirable one, and needed in many groups, but I see no reason why all of their nomen- clatural and zoological decisions must be brought to the attention of the Com- mission. It is astounding to hear of type-species that were based on composite series, but have existed for 100-140 years without lectotype or restriction. I applaud efforts to clear up this confusion, but see in most cases no reason for the Commission to be involved.” After the end of the Voting Period Dr. Holthuis wrote to the Secretary pointing out that the etymologically correct form for a family-group name based on Potamon was Potamidae and not Potamonidae. Consequently Potamidae has been added to the Official List in the Ruling of the present Opinion. During the preparation of the present Opinion it was discovered that Maia lunulata Risso, 1816 (type-species of Acanthonyx Latreille, 1827) had already been placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 522 (List No. 1560). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for Generic Names placed on the Official List and Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Acanthonyx Hampson, 1902, Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 2 : 318, 323 Acanthonyx Latreille, 1827, Ency. Méth. 10 (Ins.) : 698 Achaeopsis Stimpson, 1857, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 9 : 219 Achaeus Leach, 1817, Malac. podophth. Brit. (16) : text to pl. 22C Amathia P. Roux, 1828, Crust. Médit. (1) : pl. 3 Anamathia Smith, 1885, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 7 : 493 Anapagurus Henderson, 1886, Proc. Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Glasgow (n. ser.) 1: 337 Atelecyclus [Leach, 1814], in Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7(2) : 430 Axius Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 335, 343 Axius Mulsant, 1850, Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyon (2) 2 (Spec. Col. Securipalpes) : 1002 Brachynotus De Haan, [1833], in Siebold, Fauna japon (Crust.) (1) : 5 Brachynotus Kirby, 1837, in Richardson’s Fauna Bor. Amer. 4 : 249 Calappa Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 309, 345 Calappa Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr. : 92 Calcinus Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 268 Callinectes Stimpson, 1860, Ann. Lyc. nat. Hist. New York 7 : 220 Calocaris Bell, 1846, Hist. Brit. stalk-eyed Crust. (5) : 231 Catapaguroides A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) (as ZV Charybdis Cocco, 1832, Effem. Sci. Lett. Sicil. 2 : 204 Charybdis De Haan, [1833], in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Crust.) (1) : 3, 10 Clibanarius Dana, 1852, Amer. J. Sci. Arts (2) 13 : 122 Clibanarius Gozis, 1882, Mitt. Schweiz. entom. Ges. 6 : 295 Cymonomus A. Milne Edwards, 1880, Bull. mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 8 (1) : 26 Cymopolia P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Médit. (5) : pl. 21 Dorhynchus Thomson, 1873, Depths of the Sea : 174, 175 Dorynchus Thomson, 1873, an incorrect original spelling for Dorhynchus q.v. Ergasticus Studer, 1883, Abh.K.-preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin 1882 (2) : 7 Eriphia Chambers, 1875, Canad. Ent. 7 : 55 Eriphia Herrich-Schaeffer, 1850-1856, Aussereurop. Schmett. 1 : 16 Eriphia Latreille, 1817, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 10 : 404 Eriphia Meigen, 1826, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins. 5 : 206 Eriphis Latreille, 1817, an incorrect original spelling for Eriphia q.v. Ethusa P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Médit. (4) : pl. 18 Eurynoma Latreille, 1829, Cuvier’s Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 4 : 57 Eurynome Chambers, 1875, Cincinnati Quart. J. Sci. 2 : 304 Eurynome (Leach, 1814], in Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7 (2) : 431 Eurynome Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 99 Eurynone De Haan, [1839], in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Crust.) (4) : pl. G Goniosoma A. Milne Edwards, 1860, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) (4) 14 : 218, 224, 263 Harpilius Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 17 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Herbstia H. Milne Edwards, 1834, in Roret’s Suites 4 Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust. 1: 301 Herbstia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1851, Ann. Soc. ent. France (2) 9 : 184 Heterocrypta Stimpson, 1871, Ann. Lyc. nat. Hist. New York 10 : 102 Heteropanope Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 35 Ilia Hartmann, 1881, Cat. Gen. “‘ Partula”’ : 8 Ilia Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 19, 24 Jaxea Nardo, 1847, Sinon. moderna Opera Chiereghin : 4 Latreillia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mém. Acad. roy. Sci. Inst. France 2 : 104 Latreillia P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Médit. (5) : pl. 22 Leucosia Dybowski, 1875, Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Pétersb. (7) 22 (8) : 36 Leucosia Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.: 313, 349 Leucosia Rambur, 1866, Cat. syst. Lepid. Andalousie (2): 267 Leucosia Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr. : 92 Leucosides Rathbun, 1897, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 11 : 160 Medaeus Dana, 1851, Amer. J. Sci. (2) 12 : 125 Munida Leach, 1820, Dict. Sci. nat. 18 : 52 Munidopsis Whiteaves, 1874, Amer. J. Sci. (3) 7 : 212, 213 Myra Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 19, 23 Nematopagurus A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) ia 7 209 Numida Hope, 1851, Cat. Crost. Ital. : 14 Ocypoda Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertebr. : 149 Ocypode Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 312, 347 Ocypode Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr. : 92 Pachygrapsus Randall, 1840, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 8 : 126 Paguristes Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 268, 269, 271 Palicus Philippi, 1838, Jahresber. Ver. Naturk. Cassel 2 : \1 Palicus Stal, 1866, Hemipt. Afric. 4 : 120 Paromola Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 7 : 267 Philyra De Haan, [1833], in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Crust.) (1) : 5 Philyra Laporte, 1836, Rev. ent. 4 (2) : 53 Philyra Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 18, 22 Pilumnopeus A. Milne Edwards, 1867, Ann. Soc. ent. France (4) 7 : 277 Plagusia Jarocki, 1822, Zoologiia 4 : 295 Plagusia Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24 : 125 Potamon Savigny, 1816, Mém. Anim. sans Vertébr. 1 : 107 Richardina A. Milne Edwards, 1881, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 93 : 933 Rochinia A. Milne Edwards, 1875, Rech. zool. Hist. Faune Amér. centr. Mexique 5 (3) : 86 Uca Latreille, 1819, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 35 : 96 Uca [Leach, 1814], in Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7 (2) : 430 Xaiva Macleay, 1838, in Smith’s J/lustr. Zool. S. Africa (Invert.) : 62 The following are the original references for specific names placed on the Official List and Index in the Ruling of the Present Opinion. asper, Cancer, Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4: 8 biguttatus, Portunus, Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 31 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 caronii, Cymopolia, P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Médit. (5) : pl. 21 ceratophthalmus, Cancer, Pallas, 1772, Spicil. Zool. 9 : 83 clibanarius, Cancer, Herbst, 1791, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 2 (1) : 20 clouei, Ergasticus, Studer, 1883, Abh. K. -preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin 1882 (2) : 7,8 condyliatus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Ins. 1 : 324 cranchii, Achaeus, Leach, 1817, Malac. podophth. Brit (16) : text to pl. 22C craniolaris, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 626 crassipes, Pachygrapsus, Randall, 1840, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 8 : 127 curvirostra, Munidopsis, Whiteaves, 1874, Amer. J. Sci. (3) 7 : 212 cuvieri, Dorippe, Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 35 depressus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 406 diacantha, Portunus, Latreille, 1825, Ency. méth. 10 (Ins.) : 190 elegans, Latreillia, P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Médit. (5) : pl. 22 feriatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 627 fluviatilis, Cancer, Herbst, 1785, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1 (6) : 183 Jugax, Leucosia, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 351 glabra, Heteropanope, Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 35 globosus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Ins. 1 : 315 globulosa, Leucosia, Bosc, 1801—1802, in Castel’s Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 238 globus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 401 gracilipes, Rochinia, A. Milne Edwards, 1875, Rech. zool. Hist. Faune Amer. centr. Mexique 5 (3) : 86, pl. 18, fig. 1 granulata, Cryptopodia, Gibbes, 1850, Proc. amer. Assoc. Ady. Sci. 3 : 173 granulatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 627 heterochelos, Ocypoda, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 150 hirtus, Paguristes, Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 272 laevis, Pagurus, Bell, 1845, Hist. Brit. stalk-eyed Crust. (4) : 184 longicornis, Nematopagurus, A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) (7) 13 : 210 lutescens, Harpilius, Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 25 macandreae, Calocaris, Bell, 1846, Hist. Brit. stalk-eyed Crust. (5) : 233 major, Cancer vocans, Herbst, 1782, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1 (1): 83 mascarone, Ethusa, Herbst, 1785, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1 (6) : 191 microps, Catapaguroides, A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) (7) 13 : 211 nocturna, Jaxea, Nardo, 1847, Sinon. moderna Opera Chiereghin : 4 nucleus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 627 ornatus, Medaeus, Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 76 potamios, Cancer, Olivier, 1803-1804, Voyage Empire Othoman 4 : 240 quadratus, Cymonomus, A. Milne Edwards, 1880, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 8 (1) : 26 rissoana, Amathia, P. Roux, 1828, Crust. Médit. (1) : pl. 3 rotundatus, Cancer, Olivi, 1792, Zool. Adriat. : 47 rugosus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 412 350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature sapidus, Callinectes, Rathbun, 1896, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 18 : 352 serratifrons, Ozius (?), Kinahan, 1858, J. roy. Dublin Soc. 1 (3) : 113 sexdentatus, Cancer, Herbst, 1783, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1 (2-5) : 153 sexdentatus, Goneplax, Risso, 1827, Hist. nat. princip. Prod. Europ. mérid. 5 : 13 spinicincta, Richardina, A. Milne Edwards, 1881, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 93 : 933 spinulosus, Achaeopsis, Stimpson, 1857, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 9 : 219 stirhynchus, Axius, Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 343 stirynchus, Axius, Leach, 1815, an incorrect original spelling for stirhynchus q.v. thomsoni, Dorhynchus, Thomson, 1873, Depths of the Sea: 174, 175 tibicen, Cancer, Herbst, 1791, Versuch Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 2 (1) : 25 tridens, Cancer, Herbst, 1790, Versuch. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1 (8) : 267 tridens, Cancer, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 340 una, Uca, [Leach, 1814], in Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7 (2) : 430 yerrucosus, Cancer, Forskal, 1775, Descr. Anim. : 93 The following are the original references for family-group names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: ATELECYCLIDAE Ortmann, 1893, Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.) 7 : 27 AXIIDAE Huxley, 1879, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1878 : 785 CALAPPIDAE De Haan, [1833], in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Crust.) (1) : 1x CALAPPIDEA De Haan, 1833, an incorrect original spelling for CALAPPIDAE q.V. CYMOPOLIIDAE Faxon, 1895, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 18 : 38 ILIINAE Stimpson, 1870, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 2 : 155 LATREILLIIDAE Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 226 LATREILLIDEA Stimpson, 1858, an incorrect original spelling for LATREILLIIDAE q.v. LEUCOSIADAE Samouelle, 1819, an incorrect original spelling for LEUCOSIIDAE q.v. LEUCOSIIDAE Samouelle, 1819, Entom. useful Compendium : 91 OCYPODIA Rafinesque, 1815, an-incorrect original spelling for OCYPODIDAE q.V. OCYPODIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 96 PALICIDAE Rathbun, 1898, Bull. Lab. nat. Hist. State Univ. Iowa 4 : 280 PLAGUSIINAE Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 247, 252 PLAGUSINAE Dana, 1851, an incorrect original spelling for PLAGUSIINAE q.V. POTAMIDAE Ortmann, 1896, Zool. Jabrb. (Syst.) 9 : 445 PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893, Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.) 7 : 487 TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) (3) 20 : 163 The following are the original references for the designation of type-species for genera concerned in the present Ruling: For Anapagurus Henderson, 1886: Holthuis, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 242 For Calappa Weber, 1795: Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. partic. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 95, 422 For Calcinus Dana, 1851: Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 234 For Catapaguroides A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892: Holthuis, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 243 For Charybdis De Haan, [1833]: Glaessner, 1929, Fossil. Cat. Anim. 41 : 113 ——_ ————— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35] For Eriphia Latreille, 1817: H. Milne Edwards, 1837, in Cuvier’s Régne Anim. (Discip. ed.) 18 : pl. 14, fig. 1 For Ethusa P. Roux, 1830: Fowler, 1912, Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 590 For Heteropanope Stimpson, 1858: Balss, 1933, Capita Zool. 4 (3) : 32 For Leucosia Weber, 1795: Holthuis, 1959, Rumphius Memorial Volume : 106 For Ocypode Weber, 1795: Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. partic. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 95, 422 For Pachygrapsus Randall, 1840: Kingsley, 1880, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1880 : 198 For Paguristes Dana, 1851: Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 235 For Philyra Leach, 1817: H. Milne Edwards, 1837, in Cuvier’s Régne Anim. (Discip. ed.) 18 : pl. 24, fig. 4 For Pilumnopeus A. Milne Edwards, 1867: Balss, 1933, Capita Zool. 4 (3) : 33, 34 For Plagusia Latreille, 1804: Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. partic. Crust. Arachn. Ins.) 965422 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63) 38 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that Voting Paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 712. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 August 1964 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR COENONYMPHA OCHRACEA EDWARDS, 1861. Z.N.(S.) 1607 (see volume 20, pages 447-448) By Cyril F. dos Passos (Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.) I have studied the application of Mr. F. Martin Brown proposing that the Com- mission designate a neotype under the plenary powers for Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861, as well as his more detailed paper entitled ‘“‘ A neotype for Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, (1861) ”’ published in the 1963 Entomological News, volume 74, pp. 211-219 and favor action by the Commission as requested by Brown. Perhaps at the same time it would be appropriate for the Commission to set aside the designation of a lectotype by F. H. Chermock and P. M. Chermock in Knudson and Post (Butterflies of Bottineau County, 1963, North Dakota Insects—Publication No. 2, p. 27) for ochracea and the designation of the type locality as the West Coast of Lake Winnipeg, north of McCreary, Manitoba as not having been made in accor- dance with the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961, Chapter XVI, pages 75-83, Articles 74 and 75). The specimen selected by those authors is the 2 syntype referred to by Brown in his application. 352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 713 RANA FASCIATA SMITH, 1849 (AMPHIBIA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST WITH SUPPRESSION OF RANA FASCIATA BURCHELL, 1824, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy: (a) fasciata Burchell, 1824, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata; (b) all other uses of the specific name fasciata, in the combination Rana fasciata prior to that by Smith, 1849. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: - (a) fasciata Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata, as interpreted by the specimen designated as neotype of Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824, by Parker & Ride, 1962 (a lectotype) (Name No. 2042); ~ (b) grayi Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Rana grayi, as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Parker & Ride, 1962 (Name No. 2043). (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) fasciata Burchell, 1824, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No. 806); (b) fasciata, all other uses of, in the combination Rana fasciata prior to that by Smith 1849 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name No. 807). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1253) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission in September 1957. An agreed application was finally sent to the printer on 31 January 1962 and published on 10 September 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 290-292. 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 (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials. The further history of the case is explained in the note sent to Commissioners with Voting Paper (63) 40 and reproduced below: “Dr. H. W. Parker and Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 290- 292) have made application to the Commission for the preservation of the name Rana fasciata in its accustomed sense by designation of a neotype for Burchell’s species. (Alternative A). This application was supported by Dr. J. C. Poynton (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 20 : 255). ** Professor Hobart M. Smith, whilst in agreement with the need to conserve the name Rana fasciata for the species to which it has been applied for over 100 years, disagrees with the proposed method of achieving this. Professor Smith proposes instead that the Commission should suppress the name Rana fasciata Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. _ ? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 353 Burchell, 1824, together with all other uses of the same name prior to that by Andrew Smith 1949, and that the proposed neotype for Burchell’s species (one of Andrew Smith’s specimens) should be designated as lectotype of Rana fasciata Andrew Smith, 1849 (Alternative B). The exact proposals needed to achieve this are set out below: (1) to suppress under the plenary powers, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy, the specific name fasciata Burchell, 1824, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata, and all other uses of the specific name fasciata, in the combination Rana fasciata prior to that by Smith, 1849: (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) fasciata Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata (as interpreted by the specimen designated as neotype of R. Jasciata Burchell, 1824, by Parker & Ride, 1962) (a lectotype) (b) grayi Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Rana grayi (as inter- preted by the lectotype designation by Parker & Ride, 1962) (3) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) fasciata Burchell, 1824, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (b) fasciata, all other uses of, in the combination Rana fasciata prior to that by Smith, 1829 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above).”’ DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 11 December 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63) 40, in Part 1, either for or against the use of the plenary powers to preserve the specific name Rana fasciata in its accustomed sense, and in Part 2, for either Alternative A or Alternative B, as set Out in the accompanying note (see above). At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 11 March 1964, the state of the voting was as follows: Part 1. Affirmative votes—twenty-seven (27), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Hering, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Riley, Miller, Stoll, Binder, Vokes, Simpson, Brinck, Jaczewski, Tortonese, do Amaral, Alvarado, Bonnet, Uchida, Obruchev, Mertens, Forest, Hubbs, Ride, Evans, Kraus, Sabrosky. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Part 2. For Alternative A—thirteen (13): China, Boschma, Hering, Holthuis, Mayr, Riley, Tortonese, Bonnet, Mertens, Ride, Evans, Kraus, Sabrosky. For Alternative B—fourteen (14): Lemche, Miller, Stoll, Binder, Vokes, Simpson, Brinck, Jaczewski, do Amaral, Alvarado, Uchida, Obruchev, Forest, Hubbs. Commissioner Borchsenius returned a late affirmative vote in favour of Alternative A. 354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In returning his Voting Paper Dr. Carl Hubbs made the following comment: “* As I have strong feelings on the alternative solutions that you so properly submit for voting, I want to express my emphatic support for the use of the plenary powers to preserve the customary use of the specific name Rana fasciata, and particularly to express my emphatic approval of the solution (B) proposed by Hobart M. Smith. His solution is the same as Follett and I have favored in similar cases, and will propose in an application to preserve current and vir- tually universal but technically invalid usages for certain important Californian fishes. “* Surely when a well-known species is found to have long been passing under a technically inadequate name, the best solution is to select a usage, preferably an early usage, that appears definitely to agree with current opinion, then to have the name with the author of that usage designated by plenary powers as the valid name, with all earlier usages suppressed. Thus the familiar name is retained, with a change only in authorship and date. This course is ever so much more logical, and more likely to remain effective, than the devious method of applying the name, with the first author, to a species unknown to that author. The species name is the important element.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: fasciata, Rana, Burchell, 1824, Travels Interior South Africa 2 : 32 fasciata, Rana, A. Smith, 1849, T/lust. Zool. S. Africa 2 : pl. 78, figs. 1, la—c grayi, Rana, A. Smith, 1849, I/lustr. Zool. S. Africa 2 : pl. 78, figs. 2, 2a—c CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63) 40 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained as Alternative B 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. 713. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 August 1964 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF AMAUROBIUS KOCH, 1837, AND COELOTES BLACKWALL, 1841. Z.N.(S.) 1625 (see this volume, pages 150-153) By Richard L. Hoffman (Radford College, Virginia, U.S.A.) Although under normal circumstances I tend to favor strict application of the rules of priority at least as regards most arthropod groups, I do feel that in this particular case, the authors have presented a special case worthy of individual attention and exception to the rules, and I therefore strongly support all of the actions proposed in paragraph 13 of the paper cited. By B. J. Kaston (Central Connecticut State College, New Britain, Connecticut, U.S.A.) I agree wholeheartedly with the views of H. W. Levi and O. Kraus and have always used the names in the same sense that they are indicating as desirable. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355 OPINION 714 MORCH, 1852-53, CATALOGUS CONCH YLIORUM: VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH THE DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PSEUDAMUSSIUM MORCH, 1853 (PELECYPODA) RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the work of Mérch, 1852-1853, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso D’ Aguirra et Gadea Comes de Yoldi, Pts. 1 & II, Hafniae, is hereby validated in spite of the fact that this work was not published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature: (b) all designations of type-species for the generic name Pseudamussium Mérch, 1853, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Pecten septemradiatus Miller, 1776, is hereby designated to be type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Pseudamussium Mirch, 1853 (gender : neuter), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Pecten septemradiatus Miiller, 1776, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1650. (3) The specific name septemradiatus Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Pecten septemradiatus (type-species of Pseudamussium Morch, 1853) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2044. (4) The following entry is hereby made on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number 41. Morch (O.A.L.), 1852-1853, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso D’ Aguirra et Gadea Comes de Yoldi Hafniae. Pts. Dik HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N((S.) 1501) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. T. Soot-Ryen in September 1961. Dr. Soot-Ryen’s application was sent to the printer on 20 October 1961 and was published on 16 July 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 254-256. 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 (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two malacological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. Henning Lemche and Dr. Myra Keen (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 164). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 11 December 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)39 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 - 255, and a supplementary proposal that the title of Mérch’s work be added to the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 11 March 1964 the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Affirmative votes—twenty-five (25), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Hering, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Riley, Miller, Stoll, Binder, Jaczewski, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Alvarado, Bonnet, Uchida, Obruchev, Mertens, Forest, Hubbs, Ride, Evans, Kraus, Sabrosky. Negative votes—two (2); Simpson, do Amaral. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Commission Borchsenius returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. Per Brinck (23.1.64): From a principle point of view, I think sale cata- logues with limited distribution should not be available for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. In this particular case I do accept the proposal, however, as numerous supraspecific names in the catalogue are in use today and as I take it for granted that there will be no confusion. Dr. G. G. Simpson (23.i.64). 1. The validation of a work known not to have been published for purposes of nomenclature is a dangerous precedent. 2. There is no showing that names dated from MO6rch are in fact in general usage, or that names in general usage would in fact be changed if Mérch’s catalogue were not validated. Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (9. 111.64): I have consulted Dr. Joshua L. Baily on this proposal. He knows no objection to the listing of Pseudamussium nor for the validation of the Mérch Catalogus, says that the names of MOrch are in current use, and recommends a “ for ”’ vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Pseudamussium MoOrch, 1853, Catalogus Conchyliorum (2) : 59 septemradiatus, Pecten, Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 248 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (63)39 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained 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. 714. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 August 1964 ites Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 357 LYGAEUS QUADRATUS FABRICIUS 1798 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1560 By G. G. E. Scudder (Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, B.C., Canada) and E. Wagner (Hamburg-Lagenhorn 1, Moorreye 103, Germany) The purpose of this application is to clarify the identity of the species Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 1798. 2. Fabricius in 1798 (Suppl. ent. Syst. : 232) described the Lygaeid Lygaeus quadratus as follows: “ thorace cinereo: macula antica nigra; elytris cinereis: macula postica nigra; tibiis rufis”’. This description is vague and was based on material that had been collected near Paris by Bosc d’Antic. 3. Coquebert (1799, Jil. icon. ins. Mus. paris, ed. J. C. Fabricius 1 : 37, tab. 9, fig. 12) supposedly figured the type of Lygaeus quadratus in his illustrations of the Fabricius type material in Paris. 4. In the first few years after its description, Lygaeus quadratus was trans- fered to various genera, and Stal (1872, Ofv. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhanadl. 1872(7) : 57) included it in his new genus Xanthochilus, the latter in more recent literature having been considered as a subgenus of Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826. The early systematic changes and literature are adequately covered by Oshanin (1912, Ann. Mus. zool. St. Petersbourg 11-14 : 1 : 354): we may note here that L. quadratus F. is the type species of Yanthochilus Stal. 5. Until relatively recently, most European hemipterists have been consis- tent in their interpretation of L. quadratus F., viz. Stichel (1925-38, J/lustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der deutschen Wanzen: 89, fig. 248), Hedicke (1935, Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas 4(3) Insekten 1. Heteroptera : 10, 91), Kiritschenko (1951, Opred. Faun. U.S.S.R. 42 : 286), etc. These interpreted quadratus to be the same as the species figured by Coquebert. This same species, however, was described as Rhyparochromus quadratus var. immaculatus Royer 1919 (Bull. Assoc. Nat. Vall. Loing 2 : 38) and Rhyparochromus brevirostris Ribaut 1920 (Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Toulouse 48 : 68). 6. Reuter (1885, Rev. ent. Caen 4: 227) applied the name quadratus to a species that he considered to be the same as L. quadratus Fabricius, but this was subsequently described as a new species by Horvath in 1911 under the name omissus (Ann. Mus. nat. Hung. 9 : 582): this species will not be considered further since it has no bearing on the present problem. 7. In the course of a revision of the genus Rhyparochromus, Wagner (1955, Acta ent. Mus. nat. Prague 30: 279) discovered this conflicting interpretation of quadratus: the Reuter concept of quadratus F. was not the same as the Stal concept of this species. Wagner examined the specimen considered as type of Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 1798, located in Paris, and stated that it was con- specific with a third species, namely Trapezonotus dispar Stal 1872 (Ofv. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 1872(7) : 56) and that Stal and most authors Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature had misinterpreted the former species: L. quadratus auct. nec. F. was stated to be synonymous with Rhyparochromus immaculatus Royer (= Rhyparochromus brevirostris Ribaut). 8. Since the above synonymy results in considerable taxonomic rearrange- ment and the introduction of new names, and since Coquebert appears to have figured a species not conspecific with the type (according to Wagner) whilst in Paris in 1960, Scudder undertook to investigate this situation further in con- nection with his revision of the world genera of Rhyparochrominae. Seiden- stucker (1963, Acta ent. Mus. nat. Prague 35 : 427) has recently also con- sidered this problem and has again applied the name Lygaeus quadratus F. to the species Rhyparochromus immaculatus Royer: Seidenstucker considers the figure in Coquebert to clearly illustrate the type of quadratus F. and suggests that the type-specimen in Paris is incorrectly labelled. 9. Since the discussion in the present problem involves the identity of two species, namely guadratus sensu Wagner 1955 and quadratus sensu Stal, it is helpful to have details on their distinguishing characters. The following key will serve to separate the two species: the characters have been taken from specimens in the authors’ collections and the Stal collection in Stockholm. 10. Key to separate quadratus sensu Wagner and quadratus sensu Stal: (i) Membrane pale with a central black longitudinal streak and with black veins; pronotum with three pale spots on anterior margin and pos- terior lobe near postero-lateral angles with obscure longitudinal fuscous streaks, lateral margin with pale carina rather wide and widest at level of dorsal valerie spiracles on abdominal segments III and IV dorsal ae . .. quadratus sensu Stal (ii) Membrane fuscous with pale veins; pronotum without pale spots on anterior margin and without black streaks on posterior lobe, lateral margin with pale carina narrow and not expanded at level of dorsal impression; spiracles on abdominal segment IV only, dorsal quadratus sensu Wagner 11. With the aid of the above key, it is possible to establish the following points: (a) The specimen labelled “‘ TYPE” of Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 1798 located in Box 43 of the Amyot collection in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, is identical with quadratus sensu Wagner and is not the same as quadratus sensu Stal. (b) The figure of Lygaeus quadratus in Coquebert agrees with quadratus sensu Stal and not quadratus sensu Wagner. (c) A specimen in the Kiel collection of Fabricius standing under ‘‘ guad- ratus F.”’ and labelled “‘ quadratus”’, apparently in Fabricius’ hand- writing, agrees perfectly with quadratus sensu Stal. (d) In the Paris collection of Amyot, which contains many of the specimens from the collection of Louis Auguste Guillaume Bosc d’Antic des- cribed by Fabricius, in 1960 there was no specimen of quadratus sensu Stal labelled as quadratus in Fabricius’ handwriting. However, there were other specimens in the collection labelled quadratus, apparently Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 359 in the handwriting of Fabricius, but these were not conspecific with either quadratus sensu Stal or quadratus sensu Wagner. (e) Specimens in the Stal collection at the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Stockholm, labelled by Stal as guadratus and dispar (= quadratus sensu Wagner), are not confused. 12. It is concluded that Fabricius labelled several different species guadratus, and that perhaps the Bosc material, when placed in the Amyot collection, was split up and placed under different species. Certainly, Coquebert figures a species belonging to the genus Xanthochilus Stal and the specimen in Paris now labelled type belongs to Trapezonotus Stal. 13. We must assume that a mistake has been made in the selection of the type specimen of Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 1798. Undoubtedly the type label must have been placed on the specimen in Paris subsequent to any des- cription: the type concept was not evolved in 1798. Prior to this labelling of a type, perhaps the specimen used for the description by Fabricius and that figured by Coquebert had been lost. 14. Summarizing, it seems obvious that there has been a misidentification of the type. 15. It is necessary to reject the specimen in Paris now labelled as type and to select a neotype which preserves the name quadratus as used by Stal and the majority of workers over the past 80 years. 16. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is there- fore asked: (a) to use its plenary powers to reject the type specimen of Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 1798 at present labelled as such in the Paris Museum. (b) to place the specific name quadratus Fabricius 1798, as published in the binomen Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 1798, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, this to be interpreted in future by reference to the neotype here selected. 17. Selection of neotype of Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 1798. A neotype of Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 1798 is here selected and will be placed in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. It is a male speci- men from Northern Germany glued to a card and bearing two labels as follows: one of white paper with the printed data “* Hannover, Neu-Darchau, 22.7.35 ” and the other of red paper with the information ‘‘ Neotype of Lygaeus quad- ratus F., Scudder and Wagner 1964”’. A full description and figure of quadratus F. is given under the name Rhy- parochromus immaculatus Royer by Wagner (1961, Deut. ent. Zeit., N.F. 8: 96-97, figs. 10e, 11d and 12f). 360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SARDINA PILCHARDUS (WALBAUM, 1792): PROPOSED PRESERVA- TION AS THE NAME FOR THE EUROPEAN SARDINE (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1614 By Alwyne Wheeler (British Museum (Natural History), London) Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) has been the name accepted for the European Sardine or Pilchard by the overwhelming majority of ichthyologists and fishery biologists since the revision of the clupeid fishes by Regan (1916, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 18 : 1-19). However, a few workers have used an earlier alleged binominal name Arengus minor ...Cornide, 1788. The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to reject for nomenclatural purposes the work of Cornide, J., 1788, entitled Ensayo de una historia de los Peces .. . de la costa de Galicia, . . . [264 pp.], [Corunna]. The intention of this action is to secure the availability of the generic name Sardina Antipa, 1904 (Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien 41 : 302), and of the specific name pilchardus as used in the combination Clupea pilchardus by Walbaum, J., 1792 (Artedi Ichthyologia 3 : 38). The purpose of the application to suppress the work of Cornide (1788) is to seek an official ruling that any new names in this work are not binominal in accordance with Article 11 (c). A brief statement of the facts follows. 2. The work of Cornide (1788) follows the arrangement of the genera and species of Linnaeus (1766, Systema Naturae, 12th edition). On page 91 under the Spanish name Sardina, and before the pages devoted to the genus Clupea, Cornide gives a brief diagnosis of the fish, as follows, “Sp. 1. Arengus minor maxillis aequalibus ’. In the discussion (page 92) he concluded (correctly at that date) that there was no valid name for the European Sardine, which differed from the ‘‘ Arenque ” (Herring, Clupea harengus Linnaeus, 1758) of northern Europe in several ways, and he therefore proposed to call it ‘“‘ Arengus minor ”. This name is used in both the index to the vernacular names under Sardina (page 236) and in the Latin name index under Arengus (page 246). 3. In the indices to the work, however, the names employed in the majority of cases appear to be binominal, but this is because the indices comprise the first two words of the diagnoses. Occasional three word entries in the index appear, viz. ‘‘ Clupea alosa parva, Echinus ovarius mar[inus], Concha venerea cyp[rea], Gadus dipteryg[ius] imb[erbis] ”, which lends support to the view that even the indices to this work are not consistently binominal. In addition, the last example ‘‘ Gadus dipteryg[ius] imb[erbis] ”’ forms the first three words of the Linnean diagnosis of the Hake, Gadus merluccius Linnaeus, 1758, but Cornide, although recognising it as this species, did not employ the Linnean name. 4. The proposal that this work should be rejected for nomenclatural purposes on the grounds that Cornide did not consistently employ the principles of bi- nominal nomenclature either in the body of the work or in the indices, is supported by the statement of Sherborn, C. D. (1902, Index Animalium : xix) that it was non-binominal. Such names as Cornide used, have with the single exception of Arengus (which has been used only by very few ichthyologists), been ignored by zoologists. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361 5. Later authors were either unaware of Cornide’s name for the European Sardine or rejected it as non-binominal (e.g. Giinther, A. C. L. G., 1868, Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, 7 : 439), and for many years the accepted name for this fish was Clupea pilchardus Walbaum, 1792. Antipa (1904), however, proposed the generic name Sardina (non Sardinia Poey, 1858, see paragraph 6) for a species of Sardine Sardina dobrogica in the Black Sea, which was regarded as conspecific with Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) by Regan (1916). Following Regan’s revision, the name Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) has been widely used in the European literature. In the voluminous fisheries literature of this species, as well as in European ichthyo- logical works the Sardine has been referred to almost without exception as either Clupea pilchardus or Sardina pilchardus and the latter name embodying as it does, the basis of the vernacular names of this fish in all the major European languages, is well known. 6. The generic name Sardina was first published in a summary of Antipa’s paper (by Steindachner, 1904, Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien, 41 : 302) which included a diagnosis. This was published a year before the full text. In one place (page 303) in this summary the generic name is mis-spelt as Sardinia but elsewhere (page 302) it is correctly given as Sardina. In the full text of Antipa’s paper (1905, Denkschr. Akad. Wien, 78 : 54), however, the form used is consistently Sardina, and this spelling has been consistently used by later authors. The status of the generic name Sardina Antipa, 1904 is not threatened under the Law of Homonymy by Sardinia Poey, 1858 (Article 56(a)). Hubbs, C. L. (1929, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4) 18 : 261-265) provided good evidence that Sardinia Poey referred to fishes of the genus Sardinella Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1847, and is thus a junior synonym of that name. 7. The generic name Arengus Cornide was revived by de Buen (1935, Jnst. Espanol. Oceanog. Notas y Resumes (2) 88 : 43) who used it in the combination Arengus pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792). De Buen had earlier (1931, Rapp. Proc. -verb. Réunions. Comm. int. Explor. Sci. Mediterranée, 6 (new series) : 289-290) attempted to revive Sardinia Poey for the European Sardine despite Hubb’s (1929) demonstration that it was not available for the fish; however, in later publications, de Buen continued to use the name Arengus pilchardus, but his example has not been widely followed by ichthyologists, and one, Svetovidov (1952, (Clupeidae) Table. anal. Faune U.R.S.S. N.S. No. 48 (No. 1) : 186) ina comprehensive revision has specifically rejected it. In extra-European literature it has been rarely used, for example by Smith, J. L. B., (1949, Sea Fishes of Southern Africa : 92) and Fowler, H. W., (1941, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. No. 100 (13) : 620-626) who both employ it as a senior synonym of Sardinops Hubbs, 1929. Both these authors refer to the type species of Arengus Cornide as Arengus minor Cornide, 1788. 8. Cornide’s book is possibly a border line case as a binominal work. In following the arrangement of the twelfth edition of the Systema Naturae it employs mainly Linnean names, but they are not differentiated from the species diagnosis in a clearly binominal manner. For example, under the Spanish name Murena (page 1) he lists “ Sp. 2. Muraena ophis cauda aptera cuspidata corpore tereti ’, which is, with only minor variation both the binomen and the 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature diagnosis given by Linnaeus, “* Muraena ophis. 2. M. cauda aptera cuspidata, corpore tereti”’. Except in six cases the binomen is in no way distinguished from the diagnosis, either typographically or by punctuation, and it seems doubtful from the text whether Cornide had more than a loose conception of binominal nomenclature. 9. Accordingly, I request the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature to take the following action: (1) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Arengus as rejected as published in a non- binominal work; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected Specific Names in Zoology the name minor, as published in the combination Arengus minor and rejected as published in a non-binominal work; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, Sardina Antipa, 1904, type species by monotypy Sardina dobrogica Antipa, 1904. [= Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792)]; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, pilchardus Walbaum, 1792, as published in the combination Clupea pilchardus Walbaum, 1792; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, the publication of Cornide, J., 1788, Ensayo de una historia de los Peces y otras producciones marinas de la Costa de Galicia, arreglado al sistema del caballero Carlos Linneo.. . [264 pages], [Corunna] (a work in which the author did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULING ON THE TYPE-SPECIES OF SCIAENA LINNAEUS, 1758 Z.N.(S.) 850 (see volume 20, pages 349-360) By E. Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) As a student of the living fishes, I was especially interested in E. Trewavas’ paper on Sciaena. As the few Sciaenidae living in the Mediterranean are well-known and economi- cally important species, it is very important to have their names fixed; we have too often had changes, and stability is highly desired by students and others. Therefore, may I support Trewavas’ action. Having personally considered this question, I think that the species involved must be so named: Sciaena umbra, Umbrina cirrosa, Argyrosomus regius. Alternative (i) as explained on page 353 of the paper quoted above, is therefore preferred. It also has the advantage of avoiding such names as “‘ Coracinus umbra ”’ and “ Sciaena cirrosa ”’ that are definitely unfamiliar to the Mediterranean student; with alternative (i) we may reach stability according to the rules and avoid too drastic changes. ——— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363 CIMOLESTIDAE MARSH, 1889 (MAMMALIA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1630 By William Clemens (Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence), Malcolm C. McKenna (Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York), Donald E. Russell Unstitut de Paléontologie, Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris), Robert E. Sloan (Geology Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis) and Leigh Van Valen (Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York) The family CIMOLESTIDAE was established by Marsh (1889, Amer. J. Sci. (3) 38 : 89) for the supposedly marsupial genus Cimolestes. Clemens (un- published results) has discovered that the type-species of Cimolestes, C. incisus is not a marsupial but a placental belonging to the family now known as the PALAEORYCTIDAE. 2. Thelast use of a family-groupname based on Cimolestes was by Hay in 1930 (Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub. 390, 2 : 391). Then and previously it was believed to apply only to marsupials, but even in this usage it has been superseded in the literature by the subfamily PEDIOMYNIAE of the family DIDELPHIDAE. 3. The name PALAEORYCTIDAE dates from the use by Winge in 1917 (Saertryk Vidensk. Meddel. Dansk Naturh. Foren. 68 - 161) of “ Palaeoryctae ” at the level of a tribe. McDowell combined the families PALAEORYCTIDAE and DELTATHERIDIIDAE in 1958 (Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 115 - 117-214), retain- ing the former name. He has been followed in this usage by everyone doing original research on this family since that date: McKenna (1960, Univ. California Pub. Geol. Sci. 37 : 1-130), McKenna, Robinson, and Taylor (1962, Amer. Mus. Novitates 2102 : 1-33), and Papers now in press or in preparation by Russell, Van Valen, Sloan, Clemens, and McKenna. 4. The union of Cimolestes incisus and the PALAEORYCTIDAE differs in two respects from the usual union of families: (1) Only one species of the former family CIMOLESTIDAE is being transferred, the others remaining in the DIDELPHIDAE or being too poorly known for familial allocation. (2) The union causes no substantial change in the concept of the PALAEORYC- TIDAE. Cimolestes may actually be a senior synonym of one of the genera currently referred to the PALAEORYCTIDAE. 5. For the reasons given in paragraphs 3 and 4, we request the Commission (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the family-group name CIMOLES- TIDAE Marsh, 1889, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place the family-group name suppressed in (a) above on the Official Index of rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CNEMIDOPHORUS SEPTEMVITTATUS COPE OR CNEMIDOPHORUS SCALARIS COPE, 1892 (REPTILIA): AN APPEAL FOR USE OF PLENARY POWERS TO SET ASIDE THE RULE OF THE FIRST REVISER. Z.N.(S.) 1634 By Ralph W. Axtell (Dept. of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Alton, Illinois) The following is addressed as an appeal to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to set aside, in this case, the ‘‘ rule of the first reviser ”’ so that nomenclatoral stability may be established and maintained. The relevant history of this case follows. 1. In 1892, Cope (Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc., 17) described Cnemidophorus septemvittatus (p. 40), Cnemidophorus gularis scalaris (p. 47), and Cnemidophorus gularis semifasciatus (p. 49). 2. In 1950, Burger (Nat. Hist. Misc. (65) : 4-5) synonymized the name septemvittatus with semifasciatus, but treated both scalaris and semifasciatus as different sub-species of Cnemidophorus sacki—a name used for this group by Smith (1949, Jour. Wash. Acad. Sci., 39 (1) : 34-43). Burger realized that Cope’s name Cnemidophorus septemvittatus had page priority over Cnemido- phorus gularis semifasciatus, but he considered it preferable to “ disregard page priority ” in this case because the locality for septemvittatus (El Dorado Co., California) was subject to question. As Burger (op. cit.) made a clear choice between two names (semifasciatus over septemvittatus) his action qualifies as that of “ first reviser ’’ under Article 24 of the 1961 Code. 3. Duellman and Zweifel (1962, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 123 : 155-210) failed to use Burger’s legal selection of semifasciatus, but readopted the name Cnemidophorus septemvittatus. They included both scalaris and semifasciatus as trinomials of C. septemvittatus. 4. In 1963, Williams and Smith (Herpetologica, 19 (1) : 68-9) pointed out misuse of the name septemvittatus by Duellman and Zweifel. However, in reverting to a substitute name for septemvittatus, Williams and Smith bypassed semifasciatus, which by Burger’s earlier action had priority over septemvittatus. Instead they chose to make additional selection as “ first revisers ”” between the two remaining names, scalaris and semifasciatus. Their choice went to scalaris because it has page priority over semifasciatus. Discussion: 1. Five revisers, Cope (1892), Gadow (1906, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1 (24) : 277-375), Burt (1931, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. (154) : viii + 386), Burger (1950) and Duellman and Zweifel (1962) have contributed to our knowledge of the teiid genus Cnemidophorus. 2. Until the recent synopsis by Duellman and Zweifel, the names scalaris and semifasciatus have consistently been used as trinomials. Cnemidophorus septemvittatus was employed as a binomial originally, but has been considered a synonym of various species of Cnemidophorus subsequently. None of these Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 365 names have appeared in the literature (as binomens) consistently enough to warrant retention on grounds of usage. 3. Revisionary work prior to that of Duellman and Zweifel (op. cit.) has been notoriously incomplete and subjective. Earlier investigators included little or no quantitative data to demonstrate relationships between the forms under consideration, so their basis for synonymization was based mainly upon sim- ilarities in color pattern. All subsequent work on this group of Cnemidophorus will, by necessity, stem from the work of Duellman and Zweifel. It is extremely important, therefore, that the names used in this publication be preserved. To abrogate this usage now because of a technical flaw in their selection of a name would seem to be completely out of context with the intended usage and purpose of the Code. 4. The type locality for Cnemidophorus septemvittatus, with which Burger (1950) was concerned (supra), had actually been considered and clarified earlier by Burt (1931 : 124, 129), who restricted the type locality to the region of Marfa, Presidio County, Texas. 5. Therefore, I appeal to the International Commission to take the following action, which would be least disturbing to, and most effective in, maintaining nomenclatural stability: (a) to use its plenary powers to set aside the action of Burger (1950 : 4, 5) as first reviser, thereby validating the name Cnemidophorus septemvittatus Cope, 1892, as the oldest name available for this group of lizards; (b) to place the specific name septemvittatus Cope, 1892, as published in the binomen Cnemidophorus septemvittatus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 366 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORNITHOLOGIA BRITANNICA, 1771: PROPOSED VALIDATION OF FOUR SPECIFIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1636 by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress Chairman: Finn Salomonsen The anonymously published work entitled Ornithologia britannica issued in 1771 and believed to have been written by M. Tunstall was accepted for nomen- clatorial purposes by the I.C.Z.N. (Opinion 38), but this opinion was sub- sequently cancelled and in Direction 38 (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(D.) : 83-94) this work was rejected for all nomenclatorial purposes. The only exception to the rejection is the generic name Pyrrhocorax, which was validated in Opinion 404 (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 (5) : 87-106). There are, however, four specific names published in the work in question which are in current use for common and widespread birds and, therefore, should be validated, just like Pyrrhocorax. Our attention has been drawn to this case by a note recently published by Messrs C. H. B. Grant & C. W. Mackworth-Praed (1957, Bull. Brit. Ornith. Club 77 : 48-49) in which substitute names have been proposed. The four names are: (1) Falco Peregrinus (p. 1), the name for the Peregrine Falcon. This name has been in continuous use since it was given, that is in almost 200 years, and a change now must be considered quite out of question. The substitute name, if Tunstall’s name is rejected, would be Falco communis Gmelin 1788, which is a subjective synonym. (2) Faleo A@salon (p. 1), the name of the European Merlin, used as such in many countries since it was given, and universally adopted about 50 years ago. There are no objective synonyms, but many subjective ones. Falco regulus Pallas 1773 has often been used, but is now by many students applied to the N.E. Russian—W. Siberian populations, which are considered separable from the European ones. According to Grant & Mackworth-Praed Falco columbarius alaunicus Fediushin 1927 is the first available name, being a subjective synonym to aesalon. According to the most recent Russian hand-book (Dementievy, 1951, Ptitsy Sovetskogo Soiusa 1: 136) both regulus and alaunicus are syn- onyms of aesalon, and this makes regulus the oldest available substitute name for aesalon. Waving now, 50 years ago, achieved uniformity in the naming of the European Merlin it would be most infortunate to make name changes again. (3) Alauda Rubescens (p. 2), used in the combination Anthus spinoletta rubescens as the designation for the American Water-Pipit. This name has been universally used for at least 30 years. The first available synonym is Alauda pensilvatica Latham, 1787, which has been much used in former times. It would, however, be most confusing and would serve no purpose to revert to this name. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367 (4) Motacilla cinerea (p. 2), used for the Grey Wagtail. The oldest available synonym is Motacilla boarula Linnaeus, 1771, formerly often used. The inconvenience and confusion caused by breaking the present uniformity and stability and changing the name of this common and widespread bird are just as great as in the three other, above mentioned cases. Recommendations In the light of the considerations set forth in the present application the International Commission is asked to take the following action for the purpose of keeping the present stability and uniformity and avoiding any confusion in the nomenclature of the species concerned, namely that it should:— (1) use its plenary powers to validate the following specific names which are published in the work Ornithologia britannica in 1771 no doubt by M. Tunstall, a work which has been rejected by the Commission for all nomenclatorial purposes: (a) peregrinus [Tunstall], 1771, as published in the combination Falco Peregrinus. (b) aesalon [Tunstall], 1771, as published in the combination Falco Aésalon. (c) rubescens [Tunstall], 1771, as published in the combination Alauda Rubescens. (d) cinerea [Tunstall], 1771, as published in the combination Motacilla cinerea. (2) place the above-mentioned four names, validated under 1 a—d, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. FINN SALOMONSEN, Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen. GEORGE C. A. JUNGE. Rijks-Museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden. ALDEN H. MILLER, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. ERWIN STRESEMANN, Zoologisches Museum der Universitit, Berlin. 1 March 1958 368 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MOEHRING, 1758, GESLACHTEN DER VOGELEN: PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.S.) 1637 Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature of the International Ornithological Congress Chairman: Finn Salomonsen The work Geslachten der Vogelen edited by Nozeman & Vosmaer, Amster- dam, 1758, has generally been considered a new edition of Moehring’s work of 1752, and being, therefore, a re-edition of a pre-Linnean work, has been rejected by the International Commission in Opinion 241 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 15-21, 1954) and placed on the Official Index of rejected Works with the List Number 6. Recently Messrs. C. H. B. Grant and C. W. Mack- worth-Praed have examined both editions and arrived at the conclusion that the 1758-edition is not a reprint of the 1752-edition, but a new work with a different pagination and additions of various kinds (cf. Grant & Mackworth-Praed, 1956, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 9 : 774-778). This view is held also by Mr. A. C. Townsend, Principal Librarian of the British Museum (Natural History), Mr. W. H. T. Tams, Entomological Department, British Museum (Natural History), and Lieut.-Colonel W. P. C. Tenison, Editor, Zoological Record (Aves), who have examined the two editions, too. This leaves a new situation and necessitates new action by the Commission. 2. Moehring’s names have often been discussed, first, we think, by Sundevall, 1857 (J. Ornith. 5 : 242-257), and most students have agreed in rejecting them. The acceptance of Moehring’s names in his 1758-edition would result in an endless confusion and would involve changes in name for even the most common and wide-spread birds. As examples can be cited: Curruca Moehring antedates Curruca Bechstein, 1802 (used for sylviids) and would replace Terpsiphone Gloger, 1827, as the generic name for the Paradise-Fly- catchers. Ciconia Moehring antedates Ciconia Brisson, 1760 (used for storks) and would replace Balearica Brisson, 1760 as the generic names for an African group of Cranes, while the storks should be renamed Melanopelargus Reichen- bach, 1852. Scops Moehring antedates Scops Briinnich, 1772 (used for owls) and would replace Anthropoides Vieillot, 1816, as the generic name for the Demoiselle Crane. There are a total of 54 generic names in Moehring’s work which antedate generic names of later authors and necessitate change of names, at least change of author and date. In no less than 21 cases a most confusing change of generic names will be necessary, such as those mentioned above. It would not serve any purpose to make all these name changes, on the contrary it would cause utter confusion, and would certainly not contribute to the main- tainance of stability and uniformity in nomenclature. The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, therefore, ask the International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 369 to use the plenary powers to reject for all nomenclatorial Purposes Moehring’s work Geslachten der Vogelen, published in 1758 in Amsterdam. FINN SALOMONSEN, Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen. GEORGE C. A. JUNGE, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden. ALDEN H. MILLER, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. ERWIN STRESEMANN, Zoologisches Museum der Universitit, Berlin. 370 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MELES MONTANUS RICHARDSON, 1829, AND MELES JEFFERSONII HARLAN, 1825: PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA) Z.N.(S.) 1639 By Charles A. Long (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.) The purpose of this proposal is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the species-group name montanus Richardson, 1829 (Fauna Boreali-Americana (\) : 41), published in the combination Meles montanus, and concomitantly to ensure that the name berlandieri Baird, 1858 (Mammals of North America : 205), published in the combination Taxidea berlandieri, shall be conserved as a species-group name; and, furthermore, to suppress the species-group name jeffersonii Harlan, 1825 (Fauna Americana... : 309), published in the combination Meles jeffersonii, and concomitantly to ensure that the name neg/ecta Mearns, 1891 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 3 : 250, June 5), published in the combination Taxidea americana neglecta, shall be conserved as a species-group name. 2. In 1651, Francisco Hernandez (Nova plantarym, animalivm et min- eralivm mexicanorym historia a Francisco Hernandez ...{Rervm medicarym Novae-Hispaniae thesaurus . . .], Rome, p. 6) described a Mexican mammal then commonly known as Quauhpecotli or Texon [=coati?], and referred to it as ‘‘ Mele montano”’. Its description fits the North American badger well, ex- cepting mention of a long tail (which, incidentally, is rather long in the Mexican subspecies). Its description also fits the coati, Nasua narica (Linnaeus), excepting mention of dark pelage. In 1829, Richardson in his account of the North American badger mentions briefly the description of “* Fernandez ” (= Hernandez), uses the name “ Meles montanus,” and publishes a_ brief description (‘‘long tail”). The name montanus Richardson is, therefore, available, and the type-locality, mentioned by Hernandez, is Mexico. 3. The description of Hernandez, pertaining to badger or coati, results in the name being used arbitrarily. Richardson applied the name to a badger (“« Meles ’’), although he stated that the animal probably belonged to a different genus. 4. In 1858, Baird named and described Taxidea berlandieri from a type- specimen taken at Llano Estacado, present day Texas; the taxon (subspecies) to which this name applies has been recognized continuously since then under Baird’s name, and has been often termed the Mexican badger. If the name of Richardson applies to a badger, both berlandieri Baird and montanus Richardson apply to one and the same subspecies. 5. Ifthe name montanus Richardson, 1829, pertains to a coati, probably the name Nasua narica molaris Merriam, 1902, would be supplanted, perhaps the name Nasua narica narica (Linnaeus) would become the senior synonym of montanus Richardson, or some other disruptive change might be made necessary. 6. In 1950, Schantz (Jour. Mamm. 31 : 90, February 21) named and des- cribed Taxidea taxus montana, a subspecies of badger from the state of Montana. If montanus Richardson, 1829, is referred to Taxidea, the name of Schantz is an Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 371 active, junior secondary homonym, of Taxidea montana (Richardson), 1829, and must be rejected in favor of its earlier synonym. 7. On the basis of comparisons of numerous badgers from North America, I regard the populations known as montana Schantz to be inseparable from those currently known by the older name Taxidea americana neglecta (= Taxidea taxus 8. However, Meles Jeffersonii (= Taxidea taxus Jeffersonii) Harlan, 1825, is North America : 928, 1959). The type-locality of jeffersonii is the “ open plains of Columbia,” a region within the geographic range of neglecta. The name jeffersonii is based by Harlan only ona description of Lewis and Clark. 9. By the automatic Provisions of the Code, therefore (excluding from consideration the as yet unsettled nomen oblitum clause), the name montana Schantz, must be rejected in favor of Jeffersonii (Harlan), and the long-used name neglecta Mearns, 1891, is unavailable as a junior synonym of jeffersonii (Harlan), which name has not been used for 100 years. Furthermore, the well- specimen, (3) which has an imprecise type locality, and (4) which has been overlooked for more than 130 years. 10. As the names of taxa of badgers, neglecta Mearns and berlandieri Baird have been used continuously for 73 and 106 years, respectively, and the latter name has appeared in especially many scientific and popular writings, change of these names would result in tremendous confusion. Taxonomic confusion would probably also result if the name montanus Richardson is referred to the coatis, Nasua. 11. For the reasons listed above, I now request the International Com- mission 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 montana Richardson, 1829, as published in the binomen Meles montanus; (b) the specific name Jeffersonii Harlan, 1825, as published in the binomen Meles Jeffersonii, (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) berlandieri Baird, 1858, as published in the binomen Taxidea berlandieri; (b) neglecta Mearns, 1891, as published in the combination Taxidea americana neglecta: (3) 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. 372 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THE NAME CACATUA BRISSON, 1760 (AVES): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1647 By Ernst Mayr (Museum Comp. Zool. Cambridge, Mass.), Allen Keast (Queen’s Uniy., Kingston, Ontario) and D. L. Serventy (C.S.I.R.O., Nedlands, W. Australia) 1. In his recent application dealing with Brisson’s generic names for birds, Mr. Hemming stated (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 19 : 14) that special action may be required for the names Cacatua and Lorius. The present application deals with the name Cacatua (see also Direction 105, 1963, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 20 : 343- 344). The name Cacatua was proposed by Brisson in volume 4, p. 204, of his Ornithologie. Brisson includes species 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in his genus Cacatua, giving them the following Latin designations: Number 8, Cacatua (p. 204), no. 9 Cacatua luteocristata (p. 206), no. 10 Cacatua rubrocristata (p. 209), no. 11 Cacatua minor (p. 212), and no. 12 Cacatua alis et cauda rubris. 2. As in the case of the name Gallinago (Hemming, 1956, Direction No. 39), there is no doubt that Brisson uses the name Cacatua in a generic sense. As was customary with him, he uses mononomials in the case of tautonymy, but all subsequent authors have accepted this fact of tautonymy to indicate that species No. 8 (= Psittacus albus Miiller) is the type-species of his genus Cacatua. On the other hand, Brisson did not include the name Cacatua in the index of the Ornithologie, which is the reason why the name was rejected by many authors, particularly within the last 50 years. Most of these accepted the name of Cacatua as of Vieillot (1817, Nouveau Dictionaire d’ Histoire Naturelle 17 : 6). Unfortunately, between 1760 and 1817, five other names were introduced into ornithology, for which it has been claimed that they are valid generic designa- tions for the cockatoos. The following comments deal with these five names. 3. Kakatoe.—In the synoptic Table 2 in his Legon d’ Anatomie Comparée, 1800, Cuvier lists the name Kakatoe corresponding to the equivalent French vernacular. The name at this place is clearly a nomen nudum, but according to Opinion 39, ‘‘ Those of Cuvier’s names in these synoptic tables are available which can be identified through bibliographic references given on page XIX of the introduction to the Legon.” The majority of subsequent authors have refused to consider this an establishment of the Cuvier names, since in most cases only the vernacular names give any clue as to the identity of the Latin names. Nevertheless, the late James L. Peters adopted Cuvier’s name. In all of his other writings, Cuvier only uses vernaculars for the various subdivisions of the genus Psittacus (parrots). This is particularly true for the Tableau élémen- taire 1798 (p. 236) and for the Régne Animal 1817 (p. 433). 4. Cacatoes.—In the Zoologie Analytique, Duméril uses only French names in his diagnostic key on p. 51, but on p. 50 he refers to the cockatoes in the nebulous sentence: ‘‘ Les perroquets (psittacus) et les deux genres suivans, qui ont conservé le méme nom [? as in French] d’ara et de cacatoes en latin. .” It does not seem to us that such a reference to the vernacular name saves the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 373 name Cacatoes from being a nomen nudum, and this has been the virtually unaminous opinion in ornithological systematics. 5. Cacatoes.—In the German edition of Duméril prepared by Froriep, the species Psittacus cristatus L. is quoted in connection with the generic name Cacatoes which would validate the name as of Froriep. To the best of our knowledge, Mathews (see below) is the only author who has ever intimated that Froriep’s name would make the Duméril name available by having cited a definite species with the generic name. 6. Cacatus.—In 1815, Rafinesque in his Analyse de la Nature, p. 64, proposed the name Catacus (sic!), because he considered Cacatoes a vernacular name and not acceptable. No subsequent author, to the best of our knowledge, has adopted Rafinesque’s replacement name. 7. Plyctolophus.—Vieillot in 1816 (Analyse : 26) proposed the name Plyctolophus for the cockatoos. There is a description which might refer to a number of species, but the only two species cited are the “ Kakatoes noir ” (Probosciger ater) and “‘ a huppe rouge, Buffon ” (Cacatua moluccensis). 8. Vieillot in the next year (Nouveau Dictionaire 17 : 6, 1917) rejected his own name Plyctolophus as unsuitable for most species of cockatoos and adopted the name Cacatua Brisson. Subsequent to this action the name Cacatua, as of Brisson, was adopted by the majority of authors and after about 1840 until 1910, virtually unanimously. 9. Mathews in 1912 revived some of the older names and in the following years he wavered in his various writings between Kakatoe, Cacatoes, and other synonyms. He appeared finally to have settled on the form Kakatoe for the genus (Check List of the Birds of Australia, part I [issued as Supplement No. 1 to his The Birds of Australia], 1920). The R.A.O.U. Official Checklist of Australian birds, 1926, adopted this usage and subsequently all contributors to the Emu had to follow suit. The majority of non-Australian authors continued to use the name Cacatua until 1937, when Peters, in the Check-List of Birds of the World, vol. 3, p. 173, followed Mathews in adopting Cuvier’s Kakatoe. A considerable number of later authors followed Peters, others rejected Cuvier’s name as a nomen nudum and essentially a vernacular name. Furthermore, some authors insisted that the name Cacatua, having been in virtually universal use for 100 years and being the name used in the entire classical literature on parrots, had acquired a standing that would not justify a shift to Kakatoe or any other name. Numerous uses of the name Cacatua in the recent literature could. be cited, for example: Brereton, Proc. XIII Intern. Ornithol. Congr. 1 : 499-517, 1963; Condon, A Handlist of the Birds of South Australia, S.A. Ornithol. 23 : 112, 1962; Mayr, List of New Guinea Birds : 65, 1941; Mayr, Birds of the Southwest Pacific : 232, 1945; Serventy and Whittell, Birds of Western Australia, 3rd edition, 1962. The name Cacatua also forms the basis of names in the family group of names either as a subfamily or a family name Cacatuinae and Cacatuidae. 10. Considering that all the names given to the cockatoos between 1800 and 1817 are of doubtful nomenclatural validity, it would seem best to avoid all future difficulties by placing the name Cacatua Brisson on the Official List of Generic Names and thereby make all the other competing names automatically 374 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature junior synonyms. This action would seem to be in the best interest of stability in ornithological nomenclature. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested : (1) to use its plenary powers to validate the generic name Cacatua Brisson, 1760, with Psittacus albus Miiller, 1776, as type-species: (2) to place the generic name Cacatua Brisson, 1760, type by designation in (1) above Psittacus albus P.L.S. Miiller, 1776, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) to place the specific name albus P.L.S. Miiller, 1776 (Syst. Nat. Suppl. : 76, No. 50) as published in the binomen Psittacus albus, type of the genus Cacatua Brisson, 1760, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. ae ™_ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 375 LAEMOPHLOEUS IMMUNDUS REITTER, 1874 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1649 By L. P. Lefkovitch (Agricultural Research Council. Pest Infestation Laboratory, London Road, Slough, Bucks., U.K 4) The purpose of the present application is to request the suppression of the binomen Laemophloeus immundus Reitter and to validate the binomen Laemo- phloeus turcicus Grouvelle. The case is one in which the latter, a junior sub- jective synonym of the former, now pointed out for the first time, has been widely used in Applied Zoology. 2. E. Reitter, 1874 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 24: 519), when describing Japanese Cucujidae, named one species Laemophloeus immundus. Four syntypes of this species are deposited in the British Museum (Natural History). A. Grouvelle, 1876 (Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (5) 4: xxxii) described and named a species, which had been infesting dried fruit originating from Turkey, as Laemophiloeus turcicus. The syntypes of this species were given as being in the Grouvelle and Javet collections but as I noted in 1959 (Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 111 : 107), no material of this species could be found in either the Musée Nationale d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris or the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Berlin where the main bodies of these collections are now maintained. However, specimens of L. turcicus, formerly in the Grouvelle collection, are deposited in the British Museum (Natural History) and one of these has been selected as lectotype (L. P. Lefkovitch, 1959, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. £147: 107). 3. A comparison between the syntypes of L. immundus and the lectotype L. turcicus has shown that these specimens represent the same species. Thus, according to the Rules, L. immundus and L. turcicus are subjective synonyms, the former being the valid name of the species. 4. The name turcicus, in either the binomen Laemophloeus turcicus Grou- velle or Cryptolestes turcicus (Grouvelle), has been widely used for this species, which is of economic importance. The library of the Pest Infestation Labora- tory has about 50 references to this species, a selection of which are given below, under the name furcicus in one of these two combinations. It has not been possible to find any mention of L. immundus apart from the original description and taxonomic and faunistic catalogues. The name immundus, in the binomen L. immundus, has hitherto not been associated with any pest. 5. In order to maintain nomenclatoral stability in Applied Zoology, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name immnundus Reitter, 1874, as published in the binomen Laemophloeus immundus for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for that of the Law of Homo- nymy; (2) to place the name immundus Reitter, 1874, as published in the binomen Laemophloeus immundus, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964, 376 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) to place the name turcicus Grouvelle, 1876, as published in the binomen Laemophloeus turcicus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Selection of references to Laemophloeus turcicus Grouvelle or Cryptolestes turcicus (Grouvelle) (see para. 4). Anatomy:—Surtees, G. 1961. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 36: 144-152 Biochemistry:—Gurta, P. D. and Sinna, R. N. 1960. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 53: 632-638 Biology:—BisHop, G. W. 1959. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 52 : 657-665 LEFKOVITCH, L. P. 1962. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 138 : 23-35 SoLomon, M. E. and Apamson, B. E. 1955. Bull. ent. Res. 46 : 311-355 Control:—CorNWELL, P. B., Crook, L. J. and Butt, J. O. 1957. Nature, Lond. 179 (4561) : 670-672 Cotton, R.T. 1962. Northw. Miller 266 : 31-33 Damage to products and records:—BartA Neves C. M. 1953. Vida Agric. (93) Jan.-Feb. 2 pp. Howe, R. W. and Lerkovitcu, L. P. 1957. Bull. ent. Res. 48 : 795-809 Joy, N.H. 1925. Ent. mon. Mag. 61 : 16 LECHANTEUR, F. 1950. Feuill. Nat. 5 : 87-92 LeFKovitcu, L. P. 1962. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 31 : 71-72 RICHARDS, O. W. and HerForD, G. V. B. 1930. Ann. appl. Biol. 17 : 367-395 Riett, R. O. and WeIGEL, R. D. 1956. J. econ. Ent. 49: 154-156 WEIDNER, H. 1952. Mitt. Hamburg. zool. Mus. 51 : 90-173 Genetics:—Dyte, C. E. and BLAcKMAN, D. 1961. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 36 : 168-172 Natural enemies:—FINLAYSON, L. H. 1952. Trans. 9. int. Congr. Ent. (Amsterdam 1951) 1 : 369-374 Taxonomy:—GANGLBAUER, L. 1899. Kafer Mitteleuropa 3 : 1046 pp. LeFKovitcH, L. P. 1959. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 111 : 95-118 LEFKOvITCH, L. P. 1962. Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Ent. 12 : 165-245 Reip, J. A. 1942. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 17: 27-33 STEEL, W. O. and Howe, R. W. 1952. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 25 : 86-88 my i i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 377 PAMPHAGIDAE BURMEISTER, 1840, AND PYRGOMORPHIDAE BRUNNER VON WATTENWYL, 1874: PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY, AND FURTHER PROPOSALS ARISING THEREFROM (INSECTA: ORTHOPTERA). Z.N. (S). 1650 By. D. Keith McE. Kevan (Department of Entomology, McGill University, Macdonald College, Province of Quebec, Canada) The earliest grouping of genera belonging to what is currently known as the family Pyrgomorphidae (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) was that of Brullé (1835), who took exception to Audinet-Serville’s (1831) recognition, as separate genera, of Poekilocerus Audinet-Serville, 1831 (which Brullé emended to Poecilocerus and called ‘‘ les Poecilocéres ’’), Phymateus Thunberg, 1815 (“les Phymatées ”’), Petasia Audinet-Serville 1831 [ = Dictyophorus Thunberg, 1815] (“* les Pétasies”’) and Romalea Audinet-Serville, 1831 (“‘ les Romalées). Brullé regarded all as “‘ divisions ” of a single “‘ sous-genre ’’, Dictyophorus Thunberg (“les Dictyophores’’). Romalea is not now placed in the same family, but the others were then the only described genera that are now referable to the Pyrgomorphidae. It cannot, however, be argued that the earliest name for the family now known as the Pyrgomorphidae is Dictyophoridae, based on Brullé’s (1835) vernacular name “* Dictyophores”’, since this does not meet the conditions of Article 11(e) of the 1961 International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature. Brullé merely used the name as a simple generic plural, it was not directly latinized subsequently, and is not ‘“‘ generally accepted by zoologists interested in the group concerned as dating from the first publication in verna- cular form.” The first acceptable usage of a family-group name based on Dictyophorus is that of Kirby (1902), who used Dictyophorinae—without comment, but nevertheless availably under Article 16(a) (iv) of the Code—in place of Petasiae of Bolivar (1884). The latter is a family-group name based on Petasia Audinet- Serville, 1831 (Orthoptera), a junior synonym of Dictyophorus—see Karsch (1893)—and a junior homonym of Petasia Stephens, 1828 (Lepidoptera)—see Kirby (1902a). Tapesi[i]nae of Bolivar (1904) is a junior synonym of Dictyo- phorinae, its type-genus, Tapesia Bolivar, 1904, proposed to replace Petasia Audinet-Serville, also being a junior synonym of Dictyophorus—see Kevan (1953). With Audinet-Serville’s (1838) grouping of the “* Famille Acridites ” (present superfamily Acridoidea) into various “‘ divisions,” two of the genera referred to above, Phymateus and Petasia [= Dictyophorus|—together with Romalea, Tropinotus Audinet-Serville, 1831 [preoccupied = Diedronotus Bolivar, 1906], several species erroneously placed in Xiphicera Lamarck, 1817, and the pam- phagids, Akicera Audinet-Serville, 1831, and Porthetis Audinet-Serville, 1831— were included in his division “‘ Conophori.”” Another, of the genera referred to, Poekilocerus, he placed in the division ‘* Truxalides,” which also included Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 378 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Truxalis, [subgenus] Pyrgomorpha, erected in the same work. The only other genus described by that time, and at present included in the Pyrgomorphidae, was Chrotogonus Audinet-Serville, [1838], and this he placed in his sub-division “ Mutici ” of the division “* Acridites proprié dicti.” The dispersion of pyrgomorphid genera among several groups of Acridoidea persisted until the time of Stal (1873), but Burmeister (1840) disagreed in part with Audinet-Serville (1838), and transferred Poekilocerus (emended to Poecilo- cera) to the Conophori, within which he erected two “ Unterabtheilungen.” Xiphoceridae (more correctly Xiphiceridae) and Poeciloceridae (more correctly Poekiloceridae). The former contained the American genera, Romalea (emended to Rhomalea), Tropinotus (emended to Tropidonotus and, like it, preoccupied) and Xiphicera (sensu Serville, emended to YXiphocera). The Poeciloceridae comprised Old World genera, and were divided into two “ Sektionen ”: Pamphagidae and Phymatidae (more correctly Phymateidae). This was the original proposal of the currently used family-group name based on Pamphagus Thunberg 1815, and also of family-group names based on Poekilo- cerus and Phymateus. The Pamphagidae, in addition to the type genus, also dubiously included the unrelated Teratodes Brullé, 1835. The name “ Phy- matidae,”’ however, is an objective synonym of “ Poeciloceridae ”’ since the type genus of the latter was included within it. Phymateus and Petasia [= Dictyo- phorus], the only other included taxa, were regarded as mere “* Sektionen ” [subgenera] of Poecilocera | =Poekilocerus]. The oldest available name for the family currently known as Pyrgomorphidae is undoubtedly Poekiloceridae Burmeister, 18401, but as Kevan (1953a) has pointed out, the name has remained virtually unused for the family since its proposal. Scudder (1868) and Thomas (1873) both used it, but only in out- lining previous classificatory systems.’ The family-group name “‘Poecilocerae ” was, however, introduced later by Bolivar (1884) for a subordinate taxon (“* sub- tribu ” or “* sub-tribus ”’). In contrast to the lack of use of Poekiloceridae, the name Phymat[e]idae (or variations of it) was used quite frequently in the literature, at first in more or less the same sense as Burmeister (1840)—e.g. by Scudder (1868), Walker (1870, 1870a), Thomas (1873), and Girard (1876)4—but later, following Stal (1873), in a more modern sense to include Pyrgomorpha, Chrotogonus and other genera (Stal, 1876; Seoane, 1878; Kirby, 1889; Yakobson, 1902; Kuzrutzov in Sharp, ! Kevan (1952) incorrectly attributed the name to Scudder (1868) and suggested that it could not be used because the type genus was not referred to. The error was corrected shortly after- wards (Kevan, 1953a). : * The paper was presented at the 14th International Congress of Zoology, but was inad- vertently omitted from the published Proceedings and appeared only in a short-lived mimeo- graphed periodical with a limited circulation. ® Kevan (1953a) mentions only the first of these works. _ _* Girard used the form Phymatini (as did Thomas, op. cit., in his general text); he also used it in a very wide sense, more or less equivalent to the old Conophori of Audinet-Serville (1838). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 379 1910). Stal probably used ‘* Phymatidae ’’ independently from Burmeister (1840), and regarded the group as a subfamily of the family Acridoidea (=Acrididae, sensu lato). Kirby (1889) used the modern subfamily termination and regarded the “* Phymatinae ” as a subfamily of “* Locustidae ” (=Acrididae, sensu lato). Bolivar (1876) and Targioni Tozzetti (1882) also followed Stal (op. cit.), but used the vernacular (“* Fimatinos ” and ‘ Fimatini”’ respectively). Yakobson (1920) recognized the group as a family (*‘ semeistov ’?) and emended the spelling to its correct form, Phymateidae (see also Kuzrutzov in Sharp, 1910). Kevan (1952) also used the emended spelling, but as a subfamily: Phymateinae (see below). A family-group name for a subordinate taxon, “ sub-tribu ” or ** sub-tribus ’”’ Phymateae, was also introduced by Bolivar (1884), but, as in the case of ‘‘ Poecilocerae ’’ (above), this usage (and that of subsequent, similarly based family-group names for subordinate taxa) should not be confused with names applicable to the family (or subfamily) as a whole. In view of the pro- posed replacement of Poekiloceridae and Phymateidae by Pyrgomorphidae (see below), the names of these subordinate taxa can scarcely be regarded as co- ordinate with those of the higher taxa in the generally accepted sense of the Code. The name Pyrgomorphidae did not appear in the literature until after Stal (1873) had placed Pyrgomorpha in the Phymatf[e]idae: first in the vernacular form “* Zunft der Pyrgomorphiden ” (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1874) and then in Latin (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882). Brunner von Wattenwyl (1874) regarded the “* Pyrgomorphiden ” as distinct from his “* Zunft der Phymatiden,” but Bolivar (1884), in the first monograph of the group, did not. He followed Stal (1873), but adopted the name Pyrgomorphidae® in place of Phymat[e]idae— which it soon ousted completely from the literature, except for references by Yakobson (1902), Kuzrutzov (in Sharp, 1910; Pyrgomorphidae also used) and Kevan (1952). This was because there was a danger of confusion which the family-group name Phymatidae Costa, 1838°, also in use in the Insecta (Hemip- tera) and based on the generic name Phymata Latreille, 1802 (see also Yakobson, 1902). Phymatidae (Orthoptera), in fact, appeared to be a junior homonym. Bolivar(1884) presumed that Brunner von Wattenwyl had changed the name of the group because of this, but the latter author (1874) divided the Phymat[eJidae in two; he did not change the name of the group containing Phymateus, with which his later (1882) work was not concerned. Other reasons for the general adoption of the name Pyrgomorphidae were: (1) that Bolivar (1904-05, 1909) continued to use Pyrgomorphidae; and (2), that Brunner von Wattenwyl’s (1882) mono- graph, in which the latinized form of the name, Pyrgomorphidae, was established was the standard European work on Orthoptera for a very long time. Only one year later, Finot (1883) adopted the name Pyrgomorphidae. As no generally accepted formal rules of priority governed family-group nomenclature at the time, the name became firmly entrenched in the literature. The fact that Yakobson (1902), a stickler for priorities and the rules of nomenclature gener- ally, had shown that there was in fact no homonymy if the name Phymateidae 5 Bolivar (1884), in the title of this work, uses “‘ Pirgomorfinos”’, but once in the text “*pyrgo- morphidae * appears. § “* Familia Phymatini ’ of Costa (1838), later changed to Phymatidae by Costa (1852). 380 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was correctly formed (cf. Article 55(b) of the 1961 Code), left no impression on orthopterists—probably because his work was in an (at the time) unfamiliar language (Russian), and to judge from its rarity, not generally accessible to western authors. A more recent general interest among zoologists in establishing the priority rule for family-group names, together with changes in the composition of the group, led Kevan (1952) to suggest a return to the prior (and non-homonymous) name Phymateinae. With the realization of the intricacies of the situation, and in the interests of stability in nomenclature, however, he soon reversed his stand (Kevan, 1953a) and recommended the recognition of the name Pyrgomorphinae. All subsequent authors tacitly supported this view. Dirsh (1961) also made a very brief, but firm, statement preferring Pyrgomorphidae to Phymateidae. The only previous author he mentioned was Yakobson (1902). Only once in more than fifty years (Kevan, 1952), and only a few times in the last ninety years, has any family-group name other than Pyrgomorphidae (or variants of it) been used for other than subordinate taxa. It is therefore proposed that the name Pyrgomorphidae be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology on the grounds that the reintroduction of the oldest available name, Poekiloceridae, or the better known, but synonymous Phymateidae, would upset general usage [Article 23(d) (ii) of the 1961 Code]. The question now arises whether the name Pyrgomorphidae should be regar- ded as dating from its original proposal in vernacular form (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1874), or from the time of its first latinization (Brunner von Watten- wyl, 1882). Article 11(e) (iii) of the 1961 Code permits the adoption of the earlier date, provided that the name “ has been latinized by later authors and that it has been generally accepted by zoologists interested in the group con- cerned as dating from the first publication in vernacular form.” There is little evidence to establish that the latter condition has been met, as earlier authors, and most recent ones, have not concerned themselves with the matter. No latinized form of the name “ Phymatiden ”’ in Brunner’s sense was ever used subsequently so that this need not be considered further. However, Brunner von Wattenwyl (1882) himself seems to have regarded his earlier work as initiat- ing the use of the name Pyrgomorphidae, and Bolivar (1884), in adopting it, attributed it to Brunner. It is therefore proposed that 1874 be accepted as the actual date of the name Pyrgomorphidae’. But the story does not end here. Family-group names that are not synony- mous with one another, and which are based on Poekilocerus and Phymateus as well as on Pyrgomorpha, are in current use for subordinate taxa below subfamily rank. It would seem illogical to recognize such family-group names based on the first two as being of Burmeister (1840)—since his names are synonymous ? This proposal has already been made by Kevan (1953a), whose suggestions regarding the whole question of vernacular family-group names have been largely incorporated in the 1961 Code. Chopard (1949) attributed the family name to Brunner von Wattenwy! (1893), but it is not clear why he did so. It cannot have been because this was the first occasion on which full family status was given to the group under this name, for this was not done. A paper by Karsch (1891) seems to qualify for this distinction, previous authors having considered the Pyrgomorphidae (despite a ‘‘ family * termination) to be a subfamily or tribe of the family Acridoidea (=Acrididae, sensu /ato). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 381 with each other and with Pyrgomorphidae—and they cannot be replaced by names based on Pyrgomorpha. It is therefore proposed to recognize the names of these subordinate taxa from their first proposal as subordinate (“* subtribal ”’) names by Bolivar (1884), in the forms “* Poecilocera ” and “‘ Phymateae ’’8. The name of the subordinate taxon first recognized as such by Bolivar (op. cit.) in the form “ Pyrgomorphae ” must, however, be co-ordinate with Pyrgomorphidae Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1874. The question also arises as to the status, authorship and date of another currently recognized, subordinate taxon: namely, that based on Dictyophorus. As already mentioned above, the vernacular name, ‘‘ Dictyophores ”’ of Brullé (1835), is not available, and the earliest name for the group was “‘ subtribus ” or “subtribu ” Petasiae of Bolivar (1884). According to Article 39 of the 1961 Code, the fact that the type genus Petasia is a junior homonym (see above) pre- cludes the use of any family-group name based upon it. The name, author and date of this group, giving a tribal termination, should thus be: Dictyophorini Kirby, 1902—see p. 377. In view of what has been written above, and in the interests of stability in zoological nomenclature, the following proposals are made for consideration by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: 1. To place the following on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) Family Pamphagidae, proposed as [Sektion] Pamphagidae by Burmeister (1840, Z. Ent. (Germar) 2(1):45, 46). Type-genus Pamphagus Thunberg, 1815—see 2(a). (b) Family Pyrgomorphidae, proposed as “ Zunft der Pyrgomorphiden ”’ by Brunner von Wattenwyl (1874, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 24 : 225) to replace Phymat[e]idae of Stal (1873), the latter being equivalent, for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, to Phymat[e]idae of Bui meister (1840), an invalid synonym of Poeciloceridae [emend. Poekiloceridae] of Burmeister (1840)—see 4 (a, b, c). Type-genus Pyrgomorpha Audinet-Serville, [1838]—see 2(b). (c) Tribe Poekilocerini, proposed as “ sub-tribu’’ (and “ sub-tribus ”’) Poecilocerae by Bolivar (1884, An. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 13 : 20, 24, 447, 496). This name should not be regarded as co-ordinate with Poecilo- ceridae of Burmeister (1840)—see 4(a)—to which it is subordinate. For the purposes of zoological nomenclature the name should date from 1884, not from 1840. Type-genus Poekilocerus Audinet-Serville, 1831—see 2(c). (d) Tribe Phymateini, proposed as “sub-tribu’’ (and “ sub-tribus ”’) Phymateae by Bolivar (1884, An. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 13 : 20, 25, 456, 497). This name should not be regarded as co-ordinate with Phymat[e]idae of Burmeister (1840), nor of Stal (1873)—see 4(b, c)—to which it is subordinate. For the purposes of zoological nomenclature § Another solution to the problem would be to replace these family- -group names with new ones based on other included genera, but this would be impossible in the case of the first because recent work (in press) has now shown the group to be monogeneric. 382 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the name should date from 1884, not from 1840 nor from 1873. Type genus Phymateus Thunberg, 1815—see 2(d). (e) Tribe Dictyophorini, proposed as [subfamily] Dictyophorinae by Kirby (1902 [Feb. 4], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1902 : 97; 1902 [Apr. 14] Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1902 : 85), replacing Petasiae of Bolivar (1884)—see 4(d). For the purposes of zoological nomenclature the name Dictyo- phorini should date from 1902, not from 1884. Type genus Dictyo- phorus Thunberg, 1815—see 2(e). 2. To place the following in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Pamphagus Thunberg, 1815, Mém. Acad. Sci. St.-Pétersb. 5 : 217, 260 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Kirby (1910, Syn. Cat. Orth. 3: 352), Gryllus Locusta elephas Linnaeus, 1758*; (b) Pyrgomorpha Audinet-Serville, [1838], Hist. nat. Ins. Orth. 583 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Kirby (1910, Syn. Cat. Orth. 3 : 324), Truxalis rosea Charpentier, 1825 [a junior subjective synonym of Acrydium conicum Olivier, 1791]; (c) Poekilocerus Audinet-Serville, 1831, Ann. Sci. Nat., Paris (Zool.) 22: 275 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Kirby (1910, Syn. Cat. Orth. 3 : 317), Poekilocerus sonneratii Audinet-Serville, 1831 [a junior subjective synonym of Gryllus pictus Fabricius, 1775]; (d) Phymateus Thunberg, 1815, Mém. Acad. Sci. St.-Pétersb. 5 : 214, 216, 217 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Kirby (1910, Syn. Cat. Orth. 3: 312), Gryllus Locusta morbillosus Linnaeus, 1758; (e) Dictyophorus Thunberg, 1815, Mém. Acad. Sci. St.-Pétersb. 5 : 214, 217, 258 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Kirby (1902, Trans. ent Soc. Lond. 1902 : 88), Gryllus spumans Thunberg, 1787; 3. To place the following on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) elephas, type-species of Pamphagus Thunberg, 1815, as published in the combination Gryl/us Locusta elephas Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 431. (b) conicum, type-species of Pyrgomorpha Audinet-Serville, [1838], as pub- lished in the combination Acrydium conicum Olivier, 1791, Encyel. méthod. Hist. Nat. 6 : 230. (c) pictus, type-species of Poekilocerus Audinet-Serville, 1831, as published in the combination Gryllus pictus Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 289. *Kirby (1890, Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc. 6 : 588) regarded Stal [written Stoll (sic)](1873, Recens. Orth. 1 : 25) as having made this type-designation erroneously. In this he was incorrect: Stal included more than one species in Pamphagus and made no statement that could be interpreted as a type-designation. Kirby (/.c.) also argued that Gryllus serripes Fabricius (1787, Mantissa Ins. 1 : 236) had become the type-species of Pamphagus because of the action of Burmeister (1839, Handb. Ent. 2 : 615). His argument was unsound, but it could be con- strued, under Article 69a(iii) of the Code, that G. serripes, and not G. elephas, should be regarded as the type-species of Pamphagus. However, neither Kirby himself (1910, Syn. Cat. Orth. 3 : 352) nor any subsequent author had so regarded it. G. serripes is a subjective junior synonym of Gryllus Bulla carinatus Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 :427) and Acrydium dentatum De Geer, (1773 Mém. Hist. Ins. 3 : 496, pl. 42, fig. 3), the latter of which is the type- species of Porthetis Audinet-Serville (1831, Ann. Sci. nat. 22 : 270), by subsequent designation (Kirby, 1890, Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc., 6 : 588). Too rigid an interpretation of Article 69a(iii) would thus lead to considerable confusion in nomenclature, and, in the interests of stability it is therefore desirable not to regard Kirby’s 1890 remarks as constituting a proper type-designation. Re Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 383 (d) morbillosus, type-species of Phymateus Thunberg, 1815, as published in the combination Gry//us Locusta morbillosus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) Ps 431, (e) spumans, type-species of Dictyophorus Thunberg, 1815, as published in the combination Gry//us spumans Thunberg, 1787, Mus. Nat. Acad. Upsal. 3.; 59, 4. To place the following on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) Poekiloceridae, proposed as “ Unterabtheilung Poeciloceridae’’ by Burmeister (1840, Z. Ent. (Germar) 2(1) : 45, 46) and based on Poekilocerus Audinet-Serville, 1831. Rejected as a nomen oblitum and replaced by Pyrgomorphidae—see 1(b). Subordinate taxa should retain names based on the same type-genus as of Bolivar (1884)—see l(c). (b) Phymateidae, proposed as “ [Sektion] Phymatidae”’ by Burmeister (1840, Z. Ent. (Germar) 2(1) : 45, 46) and based on Phymateus Thunberg, 1815. Rejected as a synonym of 4(a) and as a virtual nomen oblitum, but not as a homonym of Phymatidae Costa, 1838 (Hemiptera); replaced by Pyrgomorphidae—see 1I(b). Subordinate taxa should retain names based on the same type-genus as of Bolivar (1884)—see 1(d). (c) Phymateidae, proposed independently of 4(b)[?], as ‘‘ Subf[amilia] Phymatidae ” by Stal (1873, Recens. Orth. 1 : 3, 8) and as “‘Zunft der Phymatiden ” by Brunner von Wattenwyl (1874, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 24 : 227), and based on Phymateus Thunberg, 1815. Rejected for the same reasons as 4(b) and similarly replaced by Pyrgomorphidae— see I(b). (d) Petasiae, proposed as “ sub-tribu ” (and “* sub-tribus ’’) by Bolivar (1884, An. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 13 : 21, 25, 471, 497) and based on the pre- occupied generic name Petasia Audinet-Serville, 1831. Invalidated on the basis of junior homonymy of the type-genus—see 5(a). (ec) Tapesiinae, proposed as “‘ Subfam[ilia] Tapesinae ’’ by Bolivar (1904, Bol. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 4 : 308) and based on Tapesia Bolivar, 1904. Invalidated on the basis of junior objective synonymy with 1(e). (f) “les Dictyophores, les Poecilocéres, les Phymatées, les Pétasies, les Romalées”’, vernacular names proposed by Brullé (1835, in Audouin et Brullé, Hist. nat. Ins. 9 : 220) and based on the generic names Dictyophorus Thunberg, 1815, Poekilocerus Audinet-Serville, 1831, Phymateus Thunberg, 1815, Petasia Audinet-Serville, 1831, and Romalea Audinet-Serville, 1831. Rejected as mere vernacular generic plurals never directly latinized by subsequent authors nor recognized as of Brullé, 1835. 5. To place the following on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: ; (a) Petasia Audinet-Serville, 1831, Ann. Sci. nat. (Zool.) 22 : 278. Invali- dated as a junior homonym of Petasia Stephens, 1828 (Insecta, Lepi- doptera). 384 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Tapesia Bolivar, 1904, Boll. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 4 : 309, 310. Invalidated as an objective junior synonym of Dictyophorus Thunberg, 1815—see Kevan (1953). REFERENCES AUDINET-SERVILLE, J. G. 1831. Revue méthodique des insectes de l’ordre des Orthoptéres [II]. Ann. Sci. nat. (Zool.) 22 : 262-292 ___ 1838. Historie naturelles des Insectes. Orthoptéres. Jn Roret, Collection des Suites a Buffon. Paris. 776 pp., 14 pl. [dated 1839] Bocivar [y Urrutia], I. 1876. Sindpsis de los Ortdpteros de Espafia y Portugal [Il]. An. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 5 : 259-304 ——— 1884. Monografia de los Pirgomérfinos. Jbid. 13 : 1-73, 420-500, pl. 1-4 —— 1904. Notas sobre los Pirgomérfidos (Pyrgomorphidae). Bol. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 4 : 89-111, 306-326, 393-418, 432-459 —— 1905. Idem. Ibid.5 : 105-115, 196-217, 278-289, 298-307 —— 1909. Fam. Acridiidae. Subfam. Pyrgomorphinae. Gen. Ins. 90 : 40 pp., 1 pl. BRULLE, A. 1835. Cinquiéme Ordre. Orthopteéres [I]. Jn AUDOUIN, V. et BRULLE, Histoire naturelle des Insectes Paris. 9(5) : i-iv, 1-225, pl. 1-9 BRUNNER VON WATTENWYL, [C.] 1874. Ueber Systematik der Orthoptera und die Recensio orthopterorum von C. Stal. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien. 24 : 225-230 —— 1882. Prodromus der europdischen Orthopteren. Leipzig. xxxii + 466 pp. + 12 pl. 1893. Révision du Systéme des Orthoptéres et description des Espéces rappor- tées par M. M. Leonardo Fea de Birmanie. Ann. Mus. Stor. nat. Genova 33 {(2) 13] : 1-230, pl. 1-6 BurMEISTER, H. 1840. Audinet-Serville, historie naturelle des Orthoptéres. Paris 1839. 8. verglichen mit H. Burmeister, Handbuch d. Entomologie. II. Bd. 2. Abth. 1. Hilfte, (vulgo Orthoptera). Berlin 1838. 8. Z. Ent. (Germar), 2 : 1-82 Cuoparb, L. 1949. Ordre des Orthoptéres. Jn Grasst, P.-P. Traité de Zoologie. Paris. 9 : 617-722. Costa, A. 1838. Cimicum Regni Neapolitani Centuria. Cent. 1. Napoli : 76 pp., 1 pl. [also republished 1847 in Atti. Ist. Sci. nat. Napoli, 7 : 143-216, 1 pl.) —— 1852. Idem. Conspectus methodicus cimicum in Regno Neapolitano huc usque detectorum. Napoli : 9 pp. [also republished 1855, Ibid. 8 : 291-299.] Dirso, V. M. 1961. A preliminary revision of the families and subfamilies of Acridoidea (Orthoptera, Insecta). Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Ent. 10 : 351-419. Finot, A. 1883. Les Orthoptéres de la France. Perce-Oreilles, Blattes, Mantes, Criquets, Sauturelles et Grillons. Paris, 199 pp., | pl. Girarp, M. 1876. Ordre des Orthoptéres. In Traité d’Entomologie. Paris. 2(1) : 1-259, pl. 61-63 KarscH, F. 1891. Verzeichniss der von Herrn Dr. Paul Preuss in Kamerun erbeuteten Acridiodeen. Berl. ent. Z. 36 : 175-196 — 1893. Springheuschrecken—Orthoptera Saltatoria—von Adeli. Jn Die Insek- ten der Berglandschaft Adeli in Hinterlande von Togo (Westafrika) nach dem von den Herren Hauptmann Eugen Kling (1888 und 1889) und Dr. Richard Biittner (1890 and 1891) gesammelten Materiale, mit einem Vorworte von Dr. Richard Biittner. I. Abtheilung: Apterygota, Odonata, Orthoptera Saltatoria, Lepidoptera Rhopalocera. Ibid. 38 : 49-166 KEVAN, D. K. McE. 1952. On the systematic position of two anomalous genera previously placed in the subfamily Pyrgomorphinae (Orth., Acrididae). Ent. mon. Mag. 88 : 205-272 —— 1953. The generic name Dictyophorus Thunberg, 1815 (Orth., Acrididae). Ibid. 89 : 103-105 —— 1953a. Some difficulties raised in Applying the Rule of Priority to Supra- Generic Nomenclature, as illustrated by the Name Pyrgomorphinae (Insecta : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 385 Orthoptera) and its Alternatives. Communication read at the XIVth Inter- national Congress of Zoology Copenhagen, 7 August, 1953. Spec. Pap. Univ. Nottm. Sch. Agric. Zool. Sect. 1: ii + 11 p Kirsy, W.F. 1889. Orthoptera. Jn AITCHISON, J.E. oo (Ed.). The Zoology of the Afghan Delimitation Commission. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. (2) Zool. 5 : 137- 140 —— 1902. List of a small collection of orthopterous insects formed by Sir Harry Johnston in British Africa and Uganda in 1899 and 1900 with descriptions of five new species. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1902 : 93-102 —— 1902a. Report on a collection of African Locustidae formed by Mr. W. L. Distant, chiefly from the Transvaal. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1902 : 57-114. Scupper, S. H. 1868. Catalogue of the Orthoptera of North America described previous to 1867. Smithson. misc. Coll. 189 : xx + 89 pp. SEOANE, V. L. 1878. Die Orthopteren der Spanisch-Portugiesischen Halbinsel. Stettin. 16 pp. SHarp, D. 1910. Insects, Cambridge Natural History [Russian edition, transl. N.Ya. KUZRUTZOV.] : xiv + 1059 pp. STAL, C. 1873. Recensio Orthopterorum, Revue critique des Orthoptéres décrits par Linné, de Geer et Thunberg. Stockholm. 1: iv + (20) + 154 pp. — 1876. Observations orthoptérologiques 2[1]. Les genres des Acridiodées de la faune européene. Bih. svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl. 4 (5) : 1-35 TARGIONI TozzetTTI, A. 1882. Ortotteri agrari cioé dei diversi insetti dell’ordine degli Ortotteri nocivi ovantaggiosi all’agricoltura o all’economia domestica e principalmente delle cavallette. Ann. Agric. (Firenze-Roma), 1882: VIII + 238 pp. THoMAS, C. 1873. Synopsis of the Acrididae of North America. Rep. U.S. geol. Sury. Terr. 5 (1) : x + 262 pp., 1 pl. WALKER, F. 1870. Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the Collection of the British Museum, London. 3 : i-iv + 425-604 — 1870a. List of the Dermaptera discovered by J. K. Lord, Esq., in Egypt, and in the adjoining regions; with descriptions of the new species. Zoologist, (2) 1870 : 2296-2303 YAKOBSON, G. G. 1902. Pryamokrylyya i Saranchevyya. Jn YAKOBSON, G. G., i BIANKI, B. L., 1902-1905. Pryamokrylyya i Lozhnosétchatokrylyya Rossiiskoi imperii i sopredel’ nykh stran, S. Peterburg. Fasc. III : 162-264, pl. X—XIII; Fasc. IV : 265-320, pl. XIV—-XVII. 386 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANTHUS ROSEATUS BLYTH, 1847 (AVES): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1654 By Finn Salomonsen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen), and Charles Vaurie (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) The well known Roseate, or Hodgson’s Pipit of Central Asia and the Himalayas was named Anthus roseatus by Blyth (1847, J. asiat. Soc. Bengal 16 : 437) and this name had been in almost universal use in the ornithological litera- ture since the time of Hartert (1905, Die Végel der paldarktischen Fauna : 279). The only exception that we have been able to trace is Sharpe (1909, Hand-List Genera and Species of Birds 5 : 146) who used Anthus rosaceus “‘ Hodgson ” J. E. Gray (1844, Zool. Miscellany : 83). for the Roseate Pipit, but this last scientific name which had been used by most authors prior to Hartert, is admit- tedly a nomen nudum. In 1960, H. Deignan (Bull. British Orn. Club 80 : 120) called attention to the applicability of the name Anthus pelopus J. E. Gray, which had been published one year earlier than Anthus roseatus Blyth, in 1846, in J. E. Gray’s (Catalogue of the Specimens and Drawings of Mammalia and Birds of Nepal and Thibet presented by B. H. Hodgson Esq. to the British Museum : 154). Anthus pelopus had been a nomen oblitum until 1960. We believe this name should not replace the well known Anthus roseatus Blyth, and among the more modern works of systematic reference which have followed Hartert in using Anthus roseatus, we may cite such important reference publications as: Baker, 1926, Fauna British India, Birds 3; La Touche, 1930, Handbook of the birds of eastern China (5); Delacour and Jabouille, 1931, Les oiseaux de I’Indochine Francaise 4; Cheng, 1958, Distributional List of Chinese Birds 2; Vaurie, 1959, Birds of the Palearctic Fauna, Passeriformes; and ‘‘ Peters,” 1960, Check-list of Birds of the World 9. Ripley (1961, Synopsis of the birds of India and Pakistan), and Biswas (1961, Jour. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 58 : 454) have followed Deignan in replacing Anthus roseatus Blyth by Anthus pelopus J. E. Gray, but we note that in the most recent work on the birds of India, Salim Ali’s “ Birds of Sikkim ”’ published in 1962, the use of Anthus roseatus is adhered to. The International Code provides under Article 23 that nomina oblita are not to be used. Although this Article was adopted in London in 1958, the Code was not published until 1961, and it may be argued that Deignan’s 1960 comment on Anthus pelopus J. E. Gray revived that name and justified subsequent use after 1960. However, to treat Deignan’s action as a valid revival would be giving an effect contrary to the Principle of Conservation adopted in Copenhagen in 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, 1953, p. 25) and in force in 1960 when he published. Admittedly this point is arguable and had resulted in disparity of nomen- clature. In order, therefore, to avoid any question and to promote stability and universality in nomenclature, we request that the International Commission: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name pelopus J. E. Gray, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 387 1846, as published in the binomen Anthus pelopus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name roseatus Blyth, 1847, as published in the binomen Anthus roseatus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 388 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GOBIUS ORCA COLLETT, 1874 (PISCES): PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SET ASIDE A FIRST REVISER SELECTION Z.N.(S.) 1655 By P. J. Miller (Zoology Dept., The University, Glasgow W.2, Scotland) 1. In the present application, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to use its plenary powers to set aside a long over- looked “‘ first reviser ” selection of a specific name for a monotypic gobiid genus. The species in question is a small, infrequently encountered inhabitant of offshore waters in the Eastern Atlantic boreal region, and was originally named twice in the same publication. Both specific names have been in use until recently, under the impression that they have referred to separate taxa. The name having page precedence in the original publication was employed by the present author in a modern revision which gives, for the first time, supporting evidence that the two names are synonymous. A much earlier worker, however, fulfilling the require- ments of a “ first reviser ’’ as laid down in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961) (Article 24), reached a similar conclusion but chose as senior synonym the second specific name proposed in the original paper. According to Article 24(a) of the Code, “‘ if more than one name for a single taxon ... [is] published simultaneously . . . relative priority is determined by the action of the first reviser’’, the rule of page precedence in determining priority, adopted at the Paris Session of the International Commission in July 1948 (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 4 : 330-331; 1950), having been annulled among the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature (1953, Pt. 2, Sect. 2, Art. 28, pp. 66-67). In the present case, what technically qualifies as the first revision of the two nominal species was long neglected and not adopted by subsequent workers, and the extensive modern treatment of the taxon has appeared under the species name which has page priority but which was not selected in the first revision. By making the present application, it is felt that stability in nomenclature of this notoriously difficult group of bony fishes would be best served by setting aside the nomenclatural result of the hitherto forgotten first revision, and adding to the Official List the specific name currently in use. _ Full details of the nomenclature of the two nominal species involved are provided in the following paragraphs. 2. In 1874, Robert Collett published a short article which comprised des- criptions of two new, supposedly distinct species of European gobiid fishes, named respectively Gobius orca (p. 446) and Gobius scorpioides (p. 447). Collett (1875) later provided more detailed accounts and also figures of these two nominal species (G. orca, pp. 172-175, Pl. III, figs. 1-3; G. scorpioides, pp. 175-179, Pl. II, figs. 4-6). The type specimens of both nominal species are in the collections of the Zoologisk Museum, Universitetet i Oslo, Norway: they consist of the holotype of G. orca (No. J3999), a male from Espevaer, Hardangerfjord, Norway, dredged in 145-180 m. during July 1873, and two syntypes of Gobius scorpioides (Nos. J4020, J4021), both females, from Hvittings6, Stavangerfjord, Norway, and Lyngholmen, Hardangerfjord, dredged in 37 and 110 m. during July 1872 and August 1873 respectively. Further details of these specimens are given by Miller (1963, p. 218, Table VI). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 389 3. Winther (1877), after examination of an additional specimen (Universi- tetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, No. 91), which he referred to Gobius scorpioides, proposed that the two species should be removed from the genus Gobius L. into a new genus, which was termed Lebetus, thus (p. 49): ** Lebetus n. gen. Den anden af de for vor Fauna nye Arter, Gobius scorpioides Collett, opstilles her som Repraesentant for en ny Slaegt. Udsondringen af denne Art tilligemed den naerstaaende Gob. orca (Collett) fra Gobius Cuv. er motiveret ved den Eiendommelighed, at begge disse Arter mangle det Hovedsaerkjende, de tragtformet sammenvoxede Bugfinner, hvorved Slaegten Gobius fra Cuviers Tid har vaeret skarpt skilt fra de naermest staaende Slaegter.”’ etc. An English translation of the above by the late Dr. A. Bruun is given by Whitley (1931, p. 156). Whether or not Gobius scorpioides may be regarded as the type-species of Lebetus by original designation is perhaps debatable under Article 67(c) (i) of the Code. If this is not the case, then the first valid designa- tion of a type-species for the genus (satisfying Article 69(a) (iii)) is that by Jordan (1919, p. 392), who regarded G. scorpioides Collett as the “ orthotype ” (i.e. type by original designation [Frizzell, 1933, p. 659]) of Lebetus Winther 1877. As well as including Leberus, Jordan (1920, p. 487) also lists the nominal genus “ Lebistes Smitt 1899: 543 ” with the orthotype given as “ L. Scorpioides Smitt.”’ As noted by Koumans (1931, p. 148, 162), this is clearly an erroneous reference to Lebetus, which was recognised by Smitt (1900, p. 554) as a subgenus of Gobius containing a single species, G. Sscorpioides Collett. The generic name Lebistes is, of course, preoccupied by Lebistes Filippi (1862, p. 69) among the cyprinodont teleosts, and, to replace this name within the Gobiidae, Whitley (1930, p. 123) Proposed Butigobius (type-species “ Lebistes scorpioides Smitt’’ by original designation). Later, Whitley (1931) reviewed the nomenclatural situation con- sequent upon his inability to consult Smitt’s work before proposing Butigobius, and stated that the latter was to be regarded as a junior synonym of Lebetus Winther, of which Gobius Scorpioides Collett was cited as the type-species by “virtual haplotypy”. Since Winther (1877) clearly included the two species G. orca and G. scorpioides when founding Lebetus, it would seem that this state- ment by Whitley and his choice of type terminology (see Frizzell, 1933, p. 650) implies acceptance of Smitt’s conclusion, discussed in the next paragraph, that the two nominal species of Lebetus are synonymous. Although quoted in full by Whitley, it was not commented upon by him. 4. In his “ Preliminary notes on the arrangement of the genus Gobius, with an enumeration of its European species”, Smitt (1900) included Lebetus Winther as a subgenus of Gobius, thus (p. 554): “ BB: Cheek longer than the postorbital part of the head.—LEBET. US, WINTHER.—Gobius Scorpioides COLL. (3 = Gob. orca, COLL.).” In thus defining the relationship between Collett’s two nominal species, Smitt cited both synonyms involved, indicated that they applyto the same species, chose Gobius scorpioides as the name of this taxon, and therefore, qualifies as “ first reviser ’’ of the two species, according to Article 24(a) (i). This revision, 390 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which contains no evidence for the union of the two species, was overlooked or ignored in subsequent important references to this complex (e.g. Collett, 1902; Holt & Byrne, 1903; Grieg, 1913; Fage, 1918; Petersen, 1919; Duncker, 1928; De Buen, 1930 a, b, 1931; Koumans, 1931; Ehrenbaum, 1936; Taning, 1940, etc.*) until noted by Miller (1961, p. 676). When published in 1900, there was no reason for selection of the name scorpioides in preference to orca on the grounds of appropriateness or of much greater frequency of usage, since, up to that date, the binomen Gobius scorpioides had appeared in eight publications, Lebetus scorpioides in three, Gobius orca in seven, and Lebetus orca in two (Miller, 1963, pp. 216-217). 5. Recently, the present author (Miller, 1961; 1963) has confirmed that Gobius orca and G. scorpioides are based on sexual dimorphism within a single species, with supporting evidence for this conclusion drawn from a study of coloration, meristic characters, body proportions, and distribution. Acting on the order in which these specific names were first published (see para. 1), orca was selected as the senior synonym and employed for the species in the binomen Lebetus orca (Collett 1874), Gobius scorpioides Collett 1874 being regarded as a junior subjective synonym (Miller, 1961, p. 676). Under the former name, a redescription of the species was provided, including, for the first time, details of the modified lateral-line system and the skeleton which have contributed towards a better understanding of systematic position, as well as an account of geographical and ecological distribution, diet, reproduction, and sexual dimorphism (Miller, 1963). 6. Accordingly, in the interest of stability in nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is herein asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside the selection made by Smitt (1900), as first reviser, of scorpioides Collet 1874 in preference to orca Collett 1874, both names in the binomina Gobius scorpioides and Gobius orca having been published in the same work and on the same date, and being currently regarded as applicable to the same taxon, and, having done so, (b) to grant precedence to the specific name orca Collett 1874, as published in the binomen Gobius orca, over scorpioides Collett 1874, as published in the binomen Gobius scorpioides. (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the specific name orca Collett 1874, as published in the binomen Gobius orca, to take precedence over the specific name scorpioides Collett 1874, as published in the binomen Gobius scorpioides, by the Ruling given under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above. 7. 1 am indebted to Dr. R. M. Bailey, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., and to Mr. D. Heppell, Zoology Department, Glasgow University, for advice on nomenclatural rulings and procedure. By this help, neither is necessarily committed to supporting this application. * given in full by Miller (1963, pp. 249-253). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 391 REFERENCES CoLLeTT, R. 1874. On two apparently new species of Gobius from Norway. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 13 : 446-447 — 1875. Bidrag til Kundskaben om Norges Gobier. Forh. Vid. Selsk. Christi- ania 1874 : 151-179 Fiuipp!, F. 1862. Note zoologiche. Arch. Zool. Anat. Fisiol. 1 : 52-76 FRIZZELL, D. L. 1933. Terminology of types. Amer. Midl. Nat. 14 : 637-668 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 1950. The official record of proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature at their session held in Paris in July 1948. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 1-760 — 1953. Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature. 135 pp. London — 1961. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology. 176 pp. London JORDAN, D.S. 1919. The Genera of Fishes. Part III, 285-410 pp. Stanford — 1920. The Genera of Fishes. Part IV, 412-576 pp. Stanford KouMaAns, F. P. 1931. A Preliminary Revision of the Genera of the Gobioid Fishes with United Ventral Fins. 174 pp. Lisse MILLER, P. J. 1961. The species of the teleostean genus Lebetus. Nature, London. 192 : 675-676 — 1963. Taxonomy and biology of the genus Lebetus (Teleostei-Gobioidea). Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Zool. 10 : 205-256 SmitT, F. A. 1900. Preliminary notes on the arrangement of the genus Gobius, with an enumeration of its european species. Ofv. K.svensk. Vetensk.- Akad. Forh. 1899 : 543-555 WHitTLey, G. P. 1930. Additions to the check-list of the fishes of New South Wales (No. 3). Austr. Zool., Sydney 6 : 117-123 — 1931. Studies in ichthyology, No. 5. Rec. Austr. Mus., Sydney 18 : 138-160 WINTHER, G. 1877. Om de danske fiske af slaegten Gobius. Naturh. Tidsskr. Kjobenhavn (3) 11 : 41-56 392 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COLUBER DOLIATUS LINNAEUS, 1766 (REPTILIA: SERPENTES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1656 By Hobart M. Smith, John D. Lynch and B. Gail Puckette (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) For 32 years, from 1917 to 1948, during perhaps the most important period of name-stabilization in the history of U.S. herpetology, the Red Kingsnake was consistently known by the name Lampropeltis triangulum (Lacépéde, 1788). Important works in stabilization of the name are Blanchard’s monograph (1921) of the genus Lampropeltis, five editions of Stejneger and Barbour’s Checklist of North America’s amphibians and reptiles (1917, 1923, 1933, 1939, 1943), and Roger Conant’s (1943) revisionary study of the eastern subspecies of the Red Kingsnake. Hundreds of other, mostly lesser, references to various races of this abundantly polytypic and widespread species appeared in this span, all using the specific name triangulum. Prior to 1917 the specific name used for the Red Kingsnake was consistently Lampropeltis doliata (Linnaeus, 1766). Many works using this name appeared through the 19th century and up to 1917, but collectively they are not as signi- ficant in name-stabilization as those of the 1917-1948 period. In fact it was Stejneger himself (1918) who was responsible for the view (Stejneger and Barbour, 1917) that Coluber doliatus Linnaeus is not applicable to the Red Kingsnake. Klauber (1948) argued that indeed the name doliatus was based by Linnaeus upon the Red Kingsnake, and he has been followed since then by most herpetolo- gists, although not by all. Influential works adopting doliatus include Schmidt’s 1953 edition of the Checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles and Conant’s field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern United States (1958). On the other hand, through the influence of Mittleman (1952) and Smith (1952), who disagreed with Klauber’s conclusions, works of some significance continued to appear throughout this period using the name triangulum; Stebbins’ (1954) hand book of herpetozoa of western North America, H. M. Smith’s Handbook of amphibians and reptiles of Kansas (1956), P. W. Smith’s comparable review for Illinois (1961), and a review of Colorado herpetology (Smith, Maslin, and Brown, in press) are examples, and several others exist. It is therefore apparent that, after 32 years of stability (1917-1948) of nomenclature for this snake there have followed some 15 years of instability. As commonly as the species is cited, obviously a fixation of the valid name, by exercise of the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature if need be, is in order. Two sorts of criteria may be used in approach to the problem: (1) evaluation of data bearing on the identity of doliatus, and (2) consideration of the central aim of nomenclature and the Code pertaining thereto—establishment and main- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 393 tenance of stability of nomenclature. Let us first consider the data bearing upon the identity of doliatus. 1. The Identity of Coluber doliatus Information given in Linnaeus (1766 : 376) is extremely brief. It includes only the ventral count (164), caudal count (43), source (“ C. D. Garden. Habitat in Carolina”), and a brief colour description: ‘* Minutus, albidus annulis s. scutis nigris, quorum duo semper propiora. Hae fasciae nigrae non perfecte cingunt abdomen, sed lateribus connectuntur cum remotiori, unde perfecti annuli dorsales.”” In view of the fact that most recent workers have regarded the color descrip- tion as ambiguous, we were much surprised to find that on the contrary it is extraordinarily succinctly explicit. We are indebted to a famed Linnaean scholar, Dr. Donald P. Rogers of the Department of Botany of the University of Illinois, for the analysis of Linnaeus’ description. The first two words modify ** Coluber,” which is understood ; they reveal that the type is “* small, whitish ”— presumably faded, the rest of the description pertains to the pattern: “* (With) rings or (“‘s ” = “‘ sive ”) black scales (= black-scaled areas), of which two (are) always nearer (to each other). These black bands (do) not perfectly girdle (the) abdomen, but on the sides are connected with the more remote (black bands), whence (forming) perfect dorsal rings.” Conventionally the type-locality for Garden-collected specimens is accepted as Charleston, South Carolina (Mittleman, 1952), since this is where Garden lived (Klauber, 1948). Thus limited, the type of doliatus could not possibly have been a Lampropeltis, for the only form of Red Kingsnake occurring near Charleston is the subspecies long known as elapsoides (the Scarlet Kingsnake), and that subspecies is explicitly excluded by Linnaeus’ color description, since in elapsoides the black rings are transverse in direction throughout their extent, not connected with each other (across the red zone) on the sides of the body. It is especially useful, in visualizing Linnaeus’ description, to refer to plate 21 in Conant’s fieldbook (1958), wherein both Cemophora and the Scarlet Kingsnake are illustrated in color in a pose that reveals the disposition of the black rings on the sides of the body. The fact that Linnaeus’ snake was small and faded should be kept in mind; the reds and yellows undoubtedly had been lost. Lin- naeus describes the narrow lateral connections on the sides of the body between the anterior black ring of one pair of black rings and the posterior ring of the preceding pair, a condition occurring only in Cemophora, never in elapsoides. The lateral connections he described border the red zones, as we now know, although he very likely did not. He did, however, note the formation through the presence of those connections of “perfect dorsal rings,” which we interpret as descriptive of the complete black circles that enclose each red blotch on the dorsal and lateral surfaces of Cemophora. In fact, a faded Cemophora viewed from above gives the definite impression of having a series of large oval light- centered black circles (“ perfect dorsal rings”) down the length of the body. In the Kingsnake of the Carolinas, on the contrary, the red extends onto the belly and the black rings are transverse throughout their extent, failing to show any 394 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature evidence whatever of connecting with each other across the red zones on the sides of the body. This interpretation of Linnaeus’ description is so explicitly clear in application to Cemophora and equally explicit in exclusion of the Kingsnake that we see no doubt whatever that the name dol/iatus is properly applicable to the Scarlet snake, Cemophora. The scale counts of Linnaeus’ specimen were the strongest point on which Mittleman (1952) and Smith (1952) rested their cases, and they remain strongly supportive of their view (which coincides with our present analysis), although the pattern description is now regarded as being as even more strongly conclusive. Through the courtesy of the Charleston Museum we have examined 18 speci- mens of the Kingsnake from the vicinity of Charleston, and none of them have so few ventrals as 164: 10 males have 166-180, mean 173-4, 8 females 172-181, mean 177-4. Conant (1943 : 10) does list an elapsoides from the Carolinas with 164 ventrals, but obviously counts as low as 164 seldom occur in the region of Charleston; Mittleman’s estimate (1942 : 23) of about 3 chances in 100 is borne out by our additional data. This count is, however, of frequent occurrence in Cemophora, with a recorded range of 156-188 (Brown, 1901); 164 is close to the mean for male Cemophora (166-5) for the Carolinas (Mittleman, 1952 : 23). Certain other indirect evidences advanced by Klauber (1948) in support of the kingsnake allocation for doliatus are effectively countered by Mittleman (1952); the discussion does not warrant repetition here. In conclusion, data now available unequivocally demonstrate that Coluber doliatus Linneaus, is applicable solely to Cemophora and definitely not to the Red Kingsnake otherwise known as Lampropeltis triangulum. 2. Stability of Nomenclature The nomenclatural adjustment necessary if strict adherence to the Law of Priority is maintained in this case is considerable. The Scarlet snake has been consistently referred to as Cemophora coccinea Blumenbach (1788) throughout its history except for a very few, scattered, non-influential uses of doliatus after 1952. The law of priority would now require replacement of coccinea by doliata. Stejneger (1918) realized that very likely doliatus was based upon a Cemophora, but although he was sure enough that it was not the Kingsnake to change its name (seemingly influenced by an unwillingness to use a name for a taxon to which it clearly does not apply), he was not sure enough that it was the Scarlet snake to risk upsetting its name. He preferred to leave doliatus with the status of a nomen dubium—a conclusion certainly not in accord with known facts, but perhaps justified in the interest of nomenclatural stability. ; In addition, the preponderant although not universal custom in the past 15 years of application of doliatus to the Red Kingsnake and all its subspecies would be reversed. The next available name, triangulum Lacépéde 1788, did however enjoy considerable popularity in an earlier era and is still used occasionally; therefore the change for this species would be only slightly disruptive. Maintenance of stability, based upon current preponderant usage, would require fixation of doliatus with the race of the Red Kingsnake otherwise known as elapsoides; this could be done by appeal to the International Commission on Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 395 Zoological Nomenclature. It is strongly distasteful however to apply a name to a species to which it clearly does not belong, so long as thete is a reasonable alternative. Contrariwise, clearly it would be undesirable to change the name of Cemophora coccinea, which has been so long established. The most desirable alternative, it appears to us, is to appeal for suppression of doliatus, thus pre- serving coccinea from Cemophora, and restoring triangulum for the Red King- snake. We accordingly now request the Commission: (1) to suppress the specific name doliatus as used in the combination Coluber doliatus by Linnaeus, 1766 : 376, for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place said specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name triangulum as used in the combination Coluber triangulum by Lacépéde, 1788: (table methodique) 86, 331, types originally in the Mus. nat. Hist. nat. Paris, not now in existence; type- locality “‘America,” restricted by Schmidt, 1953 to “ vicinity of New York City, New York,” on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; and (4) to place the specific name coccineus as used in the combination Coluber coccineus by Blumenbach, 1788: 11, pl. 1 (types apparently not in existence; type-locality “ Florida”), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED BLUMENBACH. 1788. Beytrag zur Naturgeschichte der Schlangen Magazin f.d. neuste aus d. Physik u. Naturg. 5 (1) : 1-13, pl. 1. Brown, A. E. 1901. A review of the genera and species of American snakes, north of Mexico. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia 53 : 10-110 CONANT, RoGeR. 1943. The milk snakes of the Atlantic coastal plain. Proc. New England Zool. Club, 22 : 2-24 —— 1958. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of the eastern United States and Canada east of the 100th meridian. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, xviii, 366 pp., 248 maps, 62 figs., 40 pls. (mostly in color) KLAuBER, L. M. 1948. Some misapplications of the Linnaean names applied to American snakes. Copeia 1948 : 1-14 LacEPEDE, B. G. E. 1788-9. Histoire naturelle des quadrupédes ovipares et des serpens.. Paris. Vol. 2, 144 + 527 pp. LINNAEUS, CAROLUS. 1766. Systema naturae... Vol. 1, Part 2. Editio Duo- decima, Reformata. Holmiae, 532 pp. MITTLEMAN, M. B. 1952. Another interpretation of Coluber doliatus Linnaeus. Herpetologica 8 : 22-25 SCHMIDT, KARL P. 1953. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. Sixth edition. Univ. of Chicago Press SmitH, Hopart M. 1952. Commentary on the identity of Coluber doliatus. Herpeto- logica 8 : 26-27 STEBBINS, ROBERT C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of Western North America. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, xxiv, 528 pp., 104 pls., 52 figs. 396 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature STEJNEGER, LEONHARD. 1918. Nomenclatorial notes on milk snakes. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 31 : 99 — and Barpsour, THOMAS. 1917. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Univ. Press — 1923. Ibid. Second edition —— 1933. Ibid. Third edition —— 1939. Jbid. Fourth edition — 1943. Ibid. Fifth edition ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 397 RHABDOSPHAERA HAECKEL, 1894 (COCCOLITHOPHORIDA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND DESIGNATION OF A LECTOTYPE FOR COCCOLITHUS OCEANICUS SCHWARZ, 1894. Z.N.(S.) 1658 By Trygve Braarud (Universitetet I Oslo, Blindern, Norway) M.N. Bramlette (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) Georges Deflandre (Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, France) Erwin Kamptner (Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien, Austria) Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr. (California Research Corp., La Habra, California, U.S.A.) i Erlend Martini (Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitdt, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) Helen Tappan (University of California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) 1. The genus Coccosphaera was proposed by Wallich, 1877, p. 348, with two included species, C. pelagica and C. carteri, neither designated as type. Loeb- lich and Tappan (1963, p. 192) designated C. pelagica Wallich as type-species of Coccosphaera. In 1894, Haeckel (p. 111) used the name Coccosphaera for a different type of coccolith (a simple imperforate disk), and proposed the name Cyathosphaera for forms such as those included by Wallich in Coccosphaera (two imperforate disks connected by a short tube). Hay and Towe, 1962, p. 507, designated Coccosphaera pelagica Wallich as the type-species of Cyathosphaera Haeckel, 1894. 2. Also in 1894 (p. 346) Schwarz proposed “for all the forms hitherto described, recent and fossil, the one name Coccolithus oceanicus, mihi.’ He illustrated several specimens, of which two were referred to under this name, without citing the source of his material except to state that he had found abun- dant coccoliths in the Lias of the Dorset coast, but also used material from the Chalk of Taplow and the Gault of Folkestone. However, no type-specimen was designated by Schwarz nor by later workers for C. oceanicus. The recogni- tion of this genus hinges upon the nature of the type-specimens, but as the source of those illustrated by Schwarz is questionable, selection of one of these as lecto- type would leave the genus in doubt. As originally defined, all previously described coccolithophorids were expressly included, hence any of these is equally available for designation as type. Hence we here designate the specimen figured as C. pelagica by Wallich, 1877, pl. 17, fig. 1 as lectotype for C. oceanicus Schwarz, 1894. 3. The earliest generic name, Coccosphaera Wallich, 1877, was a junior homonym of Coccosphaera Perty, 1852, and Lohmann, 1902, p. 93, 136, 137, proposed the new name Coccolithophora for Coccosphaera Wallich, but this name is a junior synonym of both Coccolithus Schwarz, 1894, and Cyathosphaera Haeckel, 1894. The generic name Cyathosphaera Haeckel, 1894, and Cocco- lithus Schwarz, 1894, had equal status of priority (both November, 1894) and are Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 5. November 1964. 398 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature isotypic, their type-species both recognized on the basis of Coccosphaera pelagica Wallich, 1877. The first reviser to consider their relative status was Poche, 1913, p. 157, who noted that Coccolithophora Lohmann, 1902, p. 93, 136, 137 (proposed as a replacement name for Coccosphaera Wallich, 1877, non Perty, 1852) was itself a junior synonym of both Coccolithus Schwarz and Cyathos- phaera Haeckel. Poche stated that as first reviser he recognized the name Coccolithus Schwarz for this taxon and based upon it the family COCCOLITHIDAE. Coccolithus thus has priority over Cyathosphaera, and on this basis Kamptner (1928, p. 23) and others have used Coccolithus for the generic taxon in question [Code Art. 23(e), 24(a)(i)]. 4. Huxley (1868, p. 206) described and figured Cyatholithus, without includ- ing any named species. Loeblich and Tappan (1963, p. 192) designated Coccosphaera pelagica Wallich, 1877, as the type-species of Cyatholithus, thus making it a senior isotypic synonym of Coccosphaera Wallich, 1877, Cyathos- phaera Haeckel, 1877, and Coccolithophora Lohmann, 1902. However, during nearly a century since its original proposal, the name Cyatholithus has not been used in combination with any specific name, hence [Code Art. 23(b) (ii)] should be regarded as a nomen oblitum. The next available name for this taxon (i.e. Coccolithus) has to date (early 1964) been used in 83 different specific combina- tions for the coccolithophorids, and in the interests of nomenclatural stability should be preserved. 5. Coccolithophorids were also found whose platelets have elongate tubular extensions. These were termed rhabdoliths (‘‘ Rhabdolithen ”’) by Schmidt, and the generic name Rhabodolithes was proposed (Schmidt, 1870, p. 680) although no species were named. Voeltzkow later (1902, p. 493) placed two species in the genus, Rhabdolithes tubifer [formerly Rhabdosphaera tubifer Murray and Blackman, 1898] and R. claviger [formerly Rhabdosphaera claviger Murray and Blackman, 1898]. The latter, Rhabdolithes claviger (Murray and Blackman) Voeltzkow was designated as type-species of Rhabdolithes Schmidt by Loeblich and Tappan, 1963, p. 193. 6. Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894 (p. 111), was also described for forms with rhabdolith skeletal elements, but without original included species, the first species to be there placed being Rhabdosphaera tubifer Murray and Blackman, 1898 (p. 438, 439, pl. 15, figs. 8-10) and R. claviger Murray and Blackman, 1898 (p. 438, 439, pl. 15, figs. 13, 14). Ostenfeld (1900, p. 200) removed R. tubifer to the genus Discosphaera Haeckel, 1894, leaving only R. claviger then remaining in Rhabdosphaera. Rhabdosphaera claviger Murray and Blackman, 1898, was cited as type-species by Hay and Towe, 1962, p. 504. The prior type-designation by Vekshina, 1959, p. 74, of Rhabdosphaera elliptica Vekshina, 1959, as type- species of Rhabdosphaera was invalid, as this species was not among the first included species [Code Art. 69(a)(ii)]. Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894, is thus a junior isotypic synonym of Rhabdolithes Schmidt, 1870, 7. During the nearly 100 years since Rhabdolithes was originally proposed, only two species have been there referred (solely by Voeltzkow, 1902, as men- tioned above), and none have been there placed, nor has the generic name been used (other than the citation in Neave, 1940, p. 27, where it was erroneously credited to Voeltzkow) for over 6 decades, hence Rhabdolithes should be regarded Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 399 as a nomen oblitum [Code Art. 23(b)(ii)]._ In contrast, 42 specific combinations have been used with Rhabdosphaera. The similarity in spelling and pronuncia- tion of Rhabdolithes Schmidt, 1870, and Rhabdolithus Kamptner ex Deflandre in Grassé, 1952, allows for additional nomenclatural confusion if this taxon were to replace Rhabdosphaera. 8. In the interests of nomenclatural stability, and in order to maintain current usage at the generic level and lessen the possibility of confusion of both generic and specific taxa, the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the undermentioned generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: Cyatholithus Huxley, 1868 and Rhabdolithes Schmidt, 1870; (2) to place the undermentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Hay and Towe, 1962, p. 504, Rhabdo- sphaera claviger Murray and Blackman, 1898); (b) Coccolithus Schwarz, 1894 (gender: masculine) (type-species by original monotypy, Coccolithus oceanicus Schwarz, 1894 [=Coco- sphaera pelagica Wallich, 1877}); (3) to place the undermentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) claviger Murray and Blackman, 1898, as published in the combina- tion Rhabdosphaera claviger (specific name of type-species of Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894); (b) pelagica Wallich, 1877, as published in the combination Coccosphaera pelagica, [a senior synonym of oceanicus Schwarz, 1894, as pub- lished in the combination Coccolithus oceanicus and defined by the lectotype designated in the present application]; (4) to place the undermentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Cyatholithus Huxley, 1868 and Rhabdolithes Schmidt, 1870,as suppressed under the plenary powers under (1) above; and (5) to place the family group name COCCOLITHIDAE Poche, 1913, (type-genus Coccolithus Schwarz, 1894), on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES DEFLANDRE, GEORGES. 1952. Classe des Coccolithophoridés in Grassé, P.P., Traité de zoologie, anatomie, systématique, biologie. Tome 1, fasc. 1, Phylogenie, Pro- tozaires, généralitiés, flagellés. Masson et Cie, Paris, pp. 439-470. HAECKEL, ERNST. 1894. Systematische Phylogenie der Protisten und Pflanzen. Georg Reimer, Berlin, v. 1, pp. 1-400. Hay, W. W. and Towe, K. M. 1962. Electron microscope examination of some coccoliths from Donzacq (France), Eclogae Geol. Helvet., v. 55, no. 2, pp. 497-517, pls. 1-10. Huxtey,T.H. 1868. Onsome organisms living at great depths in the North Atlantic Ocean, Roy. Micros. Soc., Trans., n. ser., v. 15, pp. 203-212, pl. 4. 400 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature KAMPTNER, ERWIN. 1928. Uber das System und die Phylogenie der Kalkflagellten, Arch. Protistenk., v. 64, p. 19-43. Loes.icn, A. R., JR. and TAPPAN, H. 1963. Type fixation and validation of certain calcareous nannoplankton genera, Biol. Soc. Washington, Proc., v. 76, pp. 191-196. LOHMANN, H. 1902. Die Coccolithophoridae, eine Monographie der Coccolithen bildenden Flagellaten, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Mittelmeerauftriebs, Arch. Protistensk., v. 1, pp. 89-165, pls. 4-6. Murray, GEORGE, and BLACKMAN, V. H. 1898. On the nature of the coccospheres and rhabdospheres, Roy. Soc. London, Philos. Trans., ser. B. Biol. ser., v. 190, pp. 427-441, pls. 15, 16. Neave, S. A. 1940. Nomenclator zoologicus. Zoological Society London, v. 4, pp. 1-758. . OsTENFELD, C.H. 1900. Uber Coccosphaera, Zool. Anz., v. 23, no. 612, pp. 198-200. PocHE, FRANZ. 1913. Das System der Protozoa, Arch. Protistenk., v. 30, pp. 125-321. Scumipt, O. 1870. Uber Coccolithen und Rhabdolithen, K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math-Nat. K1., Sitzungsber., Abt. 1, v. 62, Heft 10, pp. 669-682, pls. 1, 2. SCHWARZ, E.H.L. 1894. Coccoliths, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 6, v. 14, pp. 341-346. VEKSHINA, V. N. 1959. Kokkolitoforidy maastrikhskikh otlozheniy zapadno- sibirskoy nizmennosti [Coccolithophoridae of the Maastrichtian deposits of the west Siberian lowland], Sibirskogo Nauchno-Issledov. Inst. Geol., Geofiz. i Mineral. Syr’ya (SNIIGGIMS), Trudy, vyp. 2, pp. 56-77, pls. 1, 2. VorLtzkow, A. 1902. Uber Coccolithen und Rhabolithen nebst Bemerkungen iiber den Aufbau und die Entstehung der Aldabra-Inseln, Senckenb. naturforsch. Gesell., Abh., v. 26, pp. 467-537. Wa tticu, G. C. 1877. Observations on the coccosphere, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 4, v. 19, pp. 342-350, pl. 17. 1964 1 ai DEC CET : : f 7 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, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant: Margaret Doyle, 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 Opinion 712 (47 Decapod Genera) Opinion 713 (Rana fasciata Smith, 1849) Opinion 714 (Mérch’s 1852-1853 work) New Cases Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1798 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Proposed desig- nation of a neotype under the plenary powers (G.G.E. Scudder & E. Wagner) Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792): Proposed preservation as the name for the European Sardine (Pisces) (Alwyne Wheeler) . : CIMOLESTIDAE Marsh, 1889 (Mammalia): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (W. Clemens, M. C. McKenna, D. E. Russell, R. E. Sloan & L. Van Valen) Cnemidophorus septemvittatus Cope or Cnemidophorus scalaris Cope, 1892 (Reptilia): An appeal for the use of the plenary powers to set aside the Rule of the First Reviser (Ralph W. Axtell) : Ornithologia Britannica, 1771: Proposed validation of four specific names (The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, Chairman Finn Salomonsen) Moehring, 1758, Geslachten der Vogelen: Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, Chairman: Finn Salomonsen) . . Meles montanus Richardson, 1829, and Meles jeffersonii Harlan, 1825; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Mammalia) (Charles A. Long) Cacatua Brisson, 1760 (Aves): Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Ernst Mayr, Allen Keast & D. L. Serventy) . Laemophloeus immundus Reitter, 1874 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (L. P. Lefkovitch) PAMPHAGIDAE Burmeister, 1840, and PYRGOMORPHIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera): Proposed addition to the Page 336 352 355 337 360 363 364 366 368 370 372 S15 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and further propo- sals arising therefrom (D. Keith McE. Kevan) . Anthus roseatus Blyth, 1847 (Aves): Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Finn Salomonsen & Charles Vaurie) . Gobius orca Collett, 1874 (Pisces): Proposed use of the plenary powers to set aside a First Reviser selection (P. J. Miller) .. ‘ Coluber doliatus Linnaeus, 1766 (Reptilia): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Hobart M. Smith, John D. Lynch & B. Gail Puckette) .. Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894 (Coccolithophorida): Proposed validation under the plenary powers and designation of a lectotype for Coccolithus oceanicus Schwarz, 1894 (Trygve Braarud et al.) . Comments Gari Schumacher, 1817, revised proposals concerning the name of the type-species (Henning Lemche) . : Alternative proposal to the suppression under the plenary powers of Eulachnus Del Guercio, 1909 (V. F. Eastop) Comment on the proposed designation of type-species for Yoldia Moller, 1842, and for Portlandia Moérch, 1857, and on the proposed rejection of Yoldia arctica M@ller, 1842 (A. H. Clarke, Jr.) : Comment on the Heteropteran family-group name GERRIDAE (Carl W. Schaefer) Further comments on “the proposed rejection of the neotype and type- locality of Thamnophis sirtalis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Francis R. Cook) . Comments on the proposed stabilization of the generic name Macropus Shaw, 1790 (H. H. Finlayson; T. C. S. Morrison-Scott; E. Le G. Troughton & Donald F. McMichael) . es Comment on the validation of Boriomyia Banks, 1905 (Bo Tjeder) Comments on the proposed rejection of Hiibners Erste Ziitrage (M. Beier; Ch. Boursin; D. F. Hardwick; I. F. B. Common; E. L. Todd) Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861 (Cyril F. dos Passos) : Comments on the proposed preservation of Amaurobius Koch, 1837, and Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 (R. L. Hoffman; B. J. Kaston) Comment on the proposed ruling on the type-species of Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758 ¥. ne : s, © 1964. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 377 386 388 392 397 323 325 326 326 327 329 331 333 351 354 362 i _ Volume 21. Part 6 31st December 1964 pp. 401-476/T.P.—XII, 3 pls. 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: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as — sa? OE Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 401 (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 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1. 1964 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Acting Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cxina (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning LEMcuHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MerTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OBRUCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) Pos) Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. BorcHsENIus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) ae Ww. as Cuna (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting ‘ecretary Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. SToLt (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum yan Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (President) Professor Ernst MAyYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Rwwe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE \ all Volume 21, Part 6 (pp. 401-476/T.P.—XII 3 pls.) 31st December, 1964 NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin:— (1) Validation of the probable vernacular usage of “ tergipes”’ in a generic sense by Cuvier, 1805; suppression of Tergipes dicquemari Risso, 1818, and Tergipes brochi Risso, 1818 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1044. (2) Grant of precedence to Eolis farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844, over Amphorina alberti Quatrefages, 1844 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1102. (3) Suppression of Kalydon Hutton, 1884, Murex mancinella Linnaeus, 1758, Triplex foliatus Perry, 1810, Fusus duodecimus Gray, 1843 and Murex hippocastanum Linnaeus, 1758; designation of type-species for Mancinella Link, 1807, Polyplex Perry, 1810 and Thalessa H. & A. Adams, 1853 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1623. (4) Designation of type-species for Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1641. (5) Either (a) removal from the Official List of Specific Names, and suppres- sion for the purposes of the Law of Priority of Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758, or (b) designation of a neotype for Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia). Z.N.(S.) 1643. (6) Emendation to Stringocephalus of Strygocephale Defrance, 1825 (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1646. (7) Designation of a type-species of Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1648. (8) Validation of Thunnus South, 1845 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1652. (9) Designation of a lectotype for Turritella kanieriensis Harris, 1897 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1659. 402 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AN APPRECIATION OF THE LATE FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E., FOR MANY YEARS SECRETARY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Arthur Francis Hemming was born on February 9th 1893 and died on February 22nd 1964. Educated at Rugby and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, where he read history, he was of the generation decimated by the war of 1914— 1918, but survived with no worse damage than a badly shattered left arm which was not readily apparent even to many of his friends. On being invalided out of the army in 1918 he joined the Civil Service and was assigned to the Treasury. He was at different times private secretary to various ministers, secretary to the Spanish Non-intervention Committee (1936-39), secretary of the Economic Advisory Council (1930-1939), principal assistant secretary in the Ministry of Home Security (1941-1944) and later Under Secretary in the Ministry of Fuel and Power. His distinguished career in this field earned him the awards of C.M.G. and C.B.E. An admirable appreciation by a colleague appeared in The Times of February 26th 1964. Entomology, and especially the butterflies of Europe, first brought the writer of these notes in touch with Hemming when, about 1919, he became a frequent lunch-time visitor to the British Museum (Natural History). An outline of his interests and activities in this field also appeared in The Times (March 4th 1964) and is dealt with more fully elsewhere. That a man so brilliant, so productive in so many fields, so practical and methodical in affairs and yet at times so wayward and unorthodox, should be lost to entomology when within sight of producing the major contribution to the systematic study of the European Rhopalocera on which he had been steadily working for years was a tragedy. It was when the International Congress of Zoology met in 1935 that Francis Hemming began to play the leading role in the realm of zoological nomenclature that was to be his until 1958. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was then, and had been for some years, rather in the doldrums. C. W. Stiles, who had been secretary to the Commission since its inception in 1895 and had carried the burden both tactfully and efficiently for forty years was ageing and felt compelled to resign on grounds of ill health. Hemming was persuaded by Karl Jordan to offer his services. He acted as assistant to the temporary secretary to the Commission (G. L. Peters) during its Lisbon meetings, and his efficiency on that occasion rendered his subsequent election as Secretary in October 1936 a foregone conclusion. It was at this Congress that one was first impressed by Hemming’s incredible capacity for concentration on the job in hand; he seemed never to tire and rarely to sleep. Assuming the Secretaryship of the Commission was one thing: giving effect to it in a way that measured up to the standards of a highly trained and experi- enced civil servant was quite another. It took nearly two years of Hemming’s spare time to sort, index, bind up and file the accumulated papers of the Com- mission when eventually they reached him from Washington. And there was no money. The first accounts published, covering the period October 1936 to Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bul. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21 Plate 3 Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. 1893-1964. re E ¥ pa ) ta BS ’ : art 1 + a } >. on re ™ i ea Pian cromrecrnt eke? Se "—- tas bat hae 4 2) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 403 31st December 1942 showed a total income of £312 and an expenditure of £133, the total assets being given as £255. Strenuous efforts to raise a fund adequate to finance the publication of the Commission’s Opinions, only three of which were issued between 1936 and the outbreak of the 2nd World War, did not prove as successful as was hoped. So, in the middle of the war Hemming plunged boldly into the gamble of launching the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature with the purpose of providing on the one hand information on all questions before the Commission and on the other hand money with which to carry on its work. The gamble came off. By careful management the Bulletin began to show a profit. To safeguard the profits which slowly accumulated he formed in 1947 the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, incorporated as a company under British law, to hold the assets of the Commission and to act as its agent in all business matters. Hemming himself became the managing director of the Trust. The far-sighted wisdom of this action became particu- larly apparent when Hemming was forced to resign the secretaryship of the Commission in 1958: the Trust was able at once to hire office accommodation and to engage and pay suitable staff to take over the work of the Commission and to carry it on till fresh arrangements could be made. That Hemming had provided all these services free, in his own house, was a major factor in building up the resources of the Trust to a level which should prove adequate to ensure the continuance of the Commission’s operations at least at the present level for many years to come; it is also a matter which has largely escaped the recognition it deserves. The Bulletin, under Hemming’s editorship, ran to 16 volumes. The parallel series of Opinions and Declarations ended with the completion of Volume 20, but consisted actually of 25 volumes due to the subdivision of Volume I into 6 independent volumes. One hundred and three Directions, a number of Declarations and 435 separate Opinions were published in this series, every one written by Hemming himself. In the 40 years preceding his secretaryship, only 133 opinions had been issued. Of a man who cultivated the whole field of zoological nomenclature, from its principles to their application, it is difficult to single out any one aspect of his work as outstanding. His basic approach, however, characteristic of his whole temperament, probably holds the key. His attitude was fundamentally constructive. His desire to build something of permanent value is seen for example in his immense efforts, at Paris in 1948, at Copenhagen in 1953, and in his preparations for the London Colloquium in 1958, all aimed at establishing not only finality, but acceptable finality in the Rules of Nomenclature. He was at great pains to reconcile conflicting views—the argument concerning binary versus binominal nomenclature is a case in point—yet on a matter of principle or obedience to the instructions of the Commission he would be quite unyielding. His handling of what became known as the Meigen case illustrated the latter point. The issue essentially was whether or not the names in Meigen’s 1800 paper should be accepted. Hemming conceived it to be his duty, under the completeness of opinions ruling (for which incidentally he himself was mainly responsible) to show what would be the repercussions of either course of action. The resultant documentation, completed by R. V. Melville after Hemming’s 404 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature resignation, occupied 56 pages of the Bulletin when printed, and even then was admittedly incomplete. This striving for completeness, admirable in theory, was in practice often a hindrance, for it led Hemming into by-ways and side issues that could more profitably have been left to the specialists whose concern they were. It is tempting to think that had Hemming been less determined to seek perfection in everything he did, he might well have achieved even greater results. What he did achieve is phenomenal enough for the spare time product of a very busy administrator. If it be granted that a code of rules for zoological nomenclature was first established in a widely acceptable form at the Berne Congress in 1904—and published as the “Régles internationales de la nomenclature zoologique’’ by Blanchard in 1905—it must also be acknowledged that the Code as it now exists —published in 1961—owes far more to Francis Hemming than to any other. Although widely differing in form and presentation from the Code which Hemming himself would have produced, it nevertheless is stamped throughout with his mark. His generous approval of it, freely offered, was the acid test, and proved his labours not to have been in vain. Richard Melville who took over in one of the most difficult moments of Hemming’s career has this to say of him in a personal communication: ‘Retirement from the Secretaryship of the Commission enabled Hemming to devote more of his energies to his favourite Rhopalocera; and it was well that he had these resources at hand, for the treatment given by the London Congress to his efforts to extend and strengthen the Code naturally affected him deeply. He handed on to his successor the organisation and working methods he had so thoroughly established, and also allowed him to draw freely on his own experi- ence. But he scrupulously avoided any attempt to influence the course of events and confined his participation in the Commission’s affairs to that required of an ordinary member. ‘Perhaps his most fundamental contributions to progress in nomenclature were to draw a clear distinction between the concepts of availability and validity, with the consequent definition of clear criteria for distinguishing between the objective and subjective aspects of individual cases, and in defining the concept of the nominal taxon. He was criticised for taking a definite stand on points —for example, secondary homonymy—where the opposite point of view is equally tenable. His opponents did not always give him credit for having identified and clarified problems whose very existence had not been recognised before, but which had to be dealt with if a satisfactory Code was to be estab- lished. It was not that he refused to see the alternative solutions to such prob- lems, only that he instinctively preferred that solution which gave most authority to the Code and the Commission. This was the fault of an idealist, and it caused him to overestimate the heights to which he could lead the Commission and the zoological public in general. But ‘“‘ A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s Heaven for?”’.’ N. D. RILEY Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 405 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FINANCIAL REPORT—1963 The Income and Expenditure Account for 1963 shows a balance on the year’s working of £364 6s. 11d. compared with £3,580 in 1962, which included £2,700 from sales of the International Code, while the current year includes only £860 from this source. Receipts from the sales of the Bulletin are almost the same as in 1962 but, with regret, I have to report a reduction in the grant from UNESCO from £357 in 1962 to £179 in 1963. On the expenditure side, administrative expenses are practically the same as last year, but the cost of printing is £700 higher as a result of printing more Pages in each issue. Despite this there was no increase in the subscription price of the larger volume. 406 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ~ Incorporated under the Companies Balance Sheet— 1962 £ ons £. as 0 Revenue Reserves— 10,000 General Reserve of ae Se = vs .. 10,000 0 0 2,980 “Official List’? Suspense Account (per separate account) 3,079 15 1 3,946 Income and Expenditure Account (per separate account) 4,310 6 6 16,926 17,390 1 7 Special Donation unappropriated— 1,200 As at 31st December, 1962 .. Sal Me = 1,200 0 0 Deduct Expenses during year to date of delegates to the 1,200 a International Congress of Zoology in Washington 94717 9 —— ———_—_—- 252 2 3& Current Liabilities— 809 Sundry Creditors 719 16 0 £18,935 £18,361 19 10 —— REPORT OF We have obtained the information and explanations which we considered necessary, and in our opinion (1) The above balance sheet and annexed income and expenditure account give a true and fair view of ended on that date. ’ ‘ mus! 4 (2) Proper books have been kept and the accounts are in agreement therewith and give, in the prescri! Frnspury Circus House, BLOMFIELD STREET, LonDON, E.C.2. 4 29th June, 1964 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 407 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) 31st December, 1963 1962 3 B= feed. i ag. Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— 838 Book value at Ist July, 1948 and Additions since at cost 877 10 6 456 Less Depreciation and amount written off ae 498 10 6 382 379 0 0 Investments at cost— 2,078 £2,500 24% Savings Bonds 1964/67 2 ne at 2,078 10 6 2,249 £2,500 3% Savings Bonds 1955/65 - oe i 2,248 16 9 (Market Value at date £4,788 Ditto 1962 £4,719) 4,327 AA2TIATI 3 3,000 County Borough of Preston Temporary Loan .. As 3,000 0 0 7,327 ——— ————_——_ 7,327 7 3 Current Assets— | £ Amounts due for Publications at 55S. @ 1,100 valuation a4 itt 8000205 0 38 Sundry Amounts prepaid —— — 38 Income Tax Recoverable se STS? 7 1,176 —_——_——__ 037 15 7 10,050 Balances at Bank and Cash in Hand .. Le 9,617 17 0 —————_ 10,655 12 7 (Note—The Stock of Publications has not been valued) FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN | Members of the Committee N. D. RILEY of Management £18,361 19 10 AUDITORS te of the Trust’s affairs at 31st December, 1963 and of the excess of income over expenditure for the year er, the information required by the Companies Act, 1948. W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. 1962 3,172 723 53 3,948 50 3993 2 2= 43 8 1,884 ta 5,833 3,580 £9,413 10,000 3,946 £13,946 1962 £ 50 2,980 £3,030 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Income and Expenditure Account for EXPENDITURE = Ss Administration Expenses— Salaries and National Insurance .. an ye ate 3,256 0 Office Expenses =e Bis ds ae ta sig 665 8 Audit Fee... ee ie “i sf a a 52 10 3,973 18 Less Proportion allocated to ‘Official List” 50 0 Depreciation of Office Equipment .. : Printing and Distribution of Publications— International Code . T a as 20 12 Bulletin of Zoological ‘Nomenclature < Se se 2,525 16 Balance, being Excess of Income over Epouiianp for the year, carried down ; “3 ts - Transfer to General Reserve .. Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet Proportion of Administration Expenses Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet on 3,923 18 2 42 li 11 2,546 9 4 6,512 19.35 364 6 11 £6,877 6 4 4,310 6 6 £4,310 6 6 ‘“Official List’’ for the year ended £.. Sain 50 0 0 3,079 15 1 £3,129 15-1 oo eae —* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 409 the year ended 31st December, 1963 1962 INCOME £ £ Eieclencd: £ ods? d Sales of Publications— 2,688 International Code .. - ” = £6 ou, 861 18 1 q 617 Opinions and Declarations . ™ as Be 36012 ous 5,201 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “4 S208 4 we 4 Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature .. Tae. GC 8,510 —— —————— 6,166 17 5 14 Donations ab & x "4 - a i 13 18 4 317 Interest Received on Investments (gross) .. 33 Be 332 10 O 215 Interest on Bank Deposit aig ~~ oh re Ete 185;,,9. 2 Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. Pe International Union of 357 Biological Sciences .. Lie ios £9,413 £6,877 6 4 10,366 Balance brought forward from 1962 .. ae aa ae 3,945 19 7 3,580 Balance brought down = 4a igs aA ne 364 6 11 £13,946 £4,310 6 6 Suspense Account _ 31st December, 1963 1962 £ £ mstd 2,858 Balance brought forward from 1962 .. ar ae si 2,979 17 7 S 172 Beales of PDN ONG a ne a tte 149 17 6 = a £3,030 £3,129 15 1 410 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE POSSIBLE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS AND OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION BY Dr. HENNING LEMCHE, Z.N.(S.) 1044 and Z.N.(S.) 1102-1107 (see volume 21, pages 35—57) By Robert Burn (3 Nantes Street, Newtown, Geelong, Victoria, Australia) The seven applications by Dr. Henning Lemche to the Commission containing recommendations for the possible use of the Plenary Powers and proposed additions to the Official List are deserving of the highest praise. Dr. Lemche has undertaken a tremendous task in attempting to unravel the complexities of the nomenclatorial problems of the Eolidoidean Nudibranchia. I for one am very grateful to Dr. Lemche for his actions in this direction, because, whether or not his applications are approved, they will remain a valuable source of reference for many years to come. There are however two comments arising from Dr. Lemche’s applications which I wish to place before the Commission. 1. Z.N.(S.) 1105, pages 50-51. It will be a pity to see Cratena Bergh, 1864, re- placed by Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877, just when the former taxon has been accepted in its type-species concept. Marcus (1957, J. Linn. Soc. London, Zool. 43 (292) : 472) has introduced Cratena kaoruae as a new Brazilian species and later on Marcus and Marcus (1960, Ak. Wiss. Lit. Mainz, 1959 (12) : 922) added Cratena phylloda from the Maldive Islands. The writer has introduced Cratena macphersonae (1962, Mem. Nat. Mus. Melbourne, 25 : 118) from the Victorian coast-line. These three species are each generically placed according to Macnae’s research on the genus (1954, Ann. Natal Mus., 13 : 9, 28). I do believe that the confusion surrounding Cratena has righted itself in the last decade; the substitution of Rizzolia will do little to clarify the pre- sent state of the nomenclature. With regard to the species of Rizzolia found in the literature, it should be noted that one species at least, R. australis Bergh (1884, Rep. Scient. Res. “‘ Challenger’, 26, Zool. 10 : 27), is generically different to the Cratena (synonym Rizzolia) genus concept, particularly in so far as the shape of the liver groups is concerned. R. australis is a junior synonym of Flabellina ornata Angas (1864, J. Conchyliol., ser. 3, 4 : 67), the type- species of the genus Austraeolis Burn (1962, Mem. Nat. Mus. Melbourne, 25 : 120). 2. Z.N.(S.) 1106, pages 52-55. It seems that Trinchesia Ihering, 1879, is the valid replacement for the genus concept of the species hitherto referred to Cratena auctt. (nec Bergh, 1864) and Catriona Winckworth, 1941, though the latter name remains available as it has a different type-species to that of Trinchesia. In a paper published since Dr. Lemche submitted his application to the Commission, the writer has proposed (1963, J. Malac. Soc. Aust., 7 : 13) anew subgenus, Eurycatriona, of the genus now to be called Trinchesia. Both Eurycatriona and Trinchesia have the same type-species, Doris caerulea Montagu, 1804. Therefore, Eurycatriona is a very junior synonym of Trin- chesia and my subgenus must revert to the latter taxon. The subgenus Catriona formulated in the same publication, remains in use. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO GRANT PRECEDENCE TO THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME CUTHONIDAE OVER TERGIPEDIDAE AND TO STABILIZE SOME SPECIFIC.NAMES IN THE GENUS KNOWN AS EUBRANCHUS FORBES, 1838. Z.N.(S.) 1044 (see present volume, pages 35-39) By David Heppell (Dept. of Zoology, The University, Glasgow, Scotland) Malacologists will be grateful for Dr. Lemche’s scholarly presentation of many of the problems complicating the nomenclature of that difficult and taxonomically still unstable group, the Nudibranchia. The pruning away of old nomina dubia and the addition of established taxa to the appropriate Official Lists are valuable contributions to nomenclatural stability. Dr. Lemche’s seven applications in Part 1 of the Bulletin of Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41] Zoological Nomenclature 21 involve seventy-five separate proposals, many of which are interdependent: it should not be assumed, however, that an “ all or nothing ” solution is the only one possible. In the case of Z.N.(S.) 1104 and Z.N.(S.) 1107, I am in complete agreement with all of the proposals made and recommend their approval to the Commission. In the case of the other five applications, however, while supporting unconditionally many of the proposals made, I should like to bring a number of alternative proposals before the Commission for their consideration. I would not agree that the quotation from Cuvier, 1805, necessarily shows that the name “‘ fergipes’’ was not used there in a vernacular sense. If we were to substitute for instance, *‘ éolides”’ for “* tergipes”’ in the relevant sentence, it will be seen that no article ‘‘les”’ is required. If we were to condone the acceptance of such a usage without comment, we should be opening the door to too many other quasi-vernacular names of a similar nature. Neither can I agree, on turning to Risso’s work, that “there is no Tergipes Risso, 1818’’. On the contrary, Risso’s usage fulfils all the requirements for the valid establishment of a new genus, and includes two new nominal species, T. dicquemari and T. brochi. Unfortunately, Dr. Lemche does not tell us whether he considers Risso’s species to be referrable to his concept of the genus, nor are they mentioned by Mme. Pruvot-Fol in her work on the French opisthobranchs, although Nice is the type-locality for both species. On reading Risso’s descriptions, however, it does not appear that they are congeneric with Limax tergipes Forskal and, probably, both his species should be considered nomina dubia and rejected under the plenary powers. Tergipes Risso would not, in any case, be a satisfactory substitute for Tergipes Cuvier, as it contains no suitable type-species. The name does, however, unquestionably exist, and I believe it should be placed on the Official Index as a junior homonym. I would, therefore, support Dr. Lemche’s proposal to place Tergipes Cuvier, 1805, on the Official List, but consider that this action would require the use of the plenary powers. Every taxonomist knows that the nomenclatural type, in its modern concept, is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of the taxon based on it. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand Dr. Lemche’s concern at the name TERGIPEDIDAE being founded on the “ atypical ” genus Tergipes. I know of no-one who objects to the family name CARDIIDAE, for instance, on the grounds that it is based on the atypical genus Cardium to which only two or three species are properly referrable. Before the foundation of the modern type concept, it was certainly accepted practice to change the type, be it specimen, species, or genus, in accordance with the changing subjective limits of the taxon, and it would appear that Dr. Lemche is now advocating a partial return to such a fluid interpretation. The name TERGIPEDIDAE in its wider sense is found not only in Thiele but also in other works of reference. Winckworth, who had a particular interest in nudibranch systematics and nomenclature, used it in his check-list of British marine Mollusca and this usage has, moreover, been followed by all recent British workers. Of Thiele’s action, Dr. Lemche says: “‘ Thiele, uniting these two family groups [CRATENINAE and TERGIPEDINAE], followed the rule of using the oldest generic name as the basis for the family name, thus accepting TERGIPEDIDAE. ... The viewpoint behind this action has never been accepted by the Commission nor by any Congress.”” This statement is not only irrelevant but presumptuous, for how can Dr. Lemche pretend to know Thiele’s motives. Thiele’s action was precisely that laid down by the present Code for the union of family-group names and is, therefore, acceptable. A family name may be based on any of the included nominal genera [Article 64], the oldest competing valid family- group name having priority [Article 23(d)]._ The viewpoint that a family-group name should be based on the most “ typical ’’ of the included genera is certainly no more than a non-retroactive recommendation [64A]. If the specific name /acinulata be placed on the Official Index, there would seem to be no real reason for demanding that exigua and pallida be placed on the Official List, once this “‘ threat to stability’ has been removed. There would of course be no objection to such action were it not that such a course might prejudice to some extent the taxonomic judgment of future workers, especially in the event of Dr. Lemche’s 412 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature request for the suppression of the specific name tricolor [Z.N.(S.) 1102] being acceded to. This point is discussed in my comment on that application below. In conclusion, I support the following proposals of Dr. Lemche in the present application, and recommend their approval by the International Commission: (1) (b) (i), (ii) and (iii), (2) (b); (3) (a), (b), (©) and (d), though the last two I would consider unnecessary if (1) (b) (i) is accepted; (4); (5) (a) (i), Gi) and (iii); (5) (b), (©), (d) and (e); and (6) (b). For the rest, I beg leave to lay the following alternative proposals before the Commission for their consideration: (1) to use the plenary powers: (a) to validate the probable vernacular usage of the name “ fergipes”’ in a generic sense by Cuvier, 1805; (b) to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) dicquemari Risso, 1818, as published in the binomen Tergipes dicquemari; (ii) brochi Risso, 1818, as published in the binomen Tergipes brochi; (2) to place the family-group name CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934 (type-genus Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855), on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology [but without a grant of precedence over TERGIPEDIDAE]; (3) to place the generic name Tergipes Cuvier, 1805 (gender : masculine) (validated under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above), type-species by monotypy Limax tergipes Forskal, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Tergipes Risso, 1818 (a junior homonym of Tergipes Cuvier, 1805), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the following specific names, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (a) dicquemari Risso, 1818, as published in the binomen Tergipes dicquemari; (b) brochi Risso, 1818, as published in the binomen Tergipes brochi. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR EUBRANCHUS FORBES, 1838, WITH SUPPRESSION OF SEVERAL NOMINA DUBIA: Z.N.S.) 1102 (see present volume, pages 40-44) By David Heppell (Dept. of Zoology, The University, Glasgow, Scotland) I should like to make an objection to the proposal to suppress the specific name tricolor, the sole original species of the genus Eubranchus, and to the proposed con- sequent transfer of that generic name to a new concept based on a type-species hitherto considered by many authors not to be specifically distinct from E. tricolor. However convenient Dr. Lemche’s proposals may be for Scandinavian zoologists, it is doubtful whether many British malacologists would consider that this is a case where the designa- tion of a new type-species, with suppression of the name commonly in use hitherto, contributes anything towards the stability of accepted usage of the generic name. Of the genus Eubranchus, Pruvot-Fol, 1954, says: “‘ Un grand nombre d’espéces ont été attribuées 4 ce genre; mais seul la couleur servait 4 distinguer toutes celles d’Europe, sauf trois. Aujourd’hui on tend a en réunir la plupart en une seule espéce [tricolor] trés variable (quant a la couleur seulement), aucune différence n’ayant pu étre décelée dans leur anatomie, leur dentition, leur machoires; les diverses espéces sont trouvées de Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 413 compagnie et s "accouplent les unes avec les autres ainsi que cela a été observé plus d’une fois. Seule l’espéce exigua est vraiment distincte et mérite de former un genre ou sous-genre; en outre Eliot tient pour espéce distincte E. vittata.” In fact, Pruvot-Fol recognises three “‘ good” species of European Eubranchus: tricolor, vittatus and cingulatus, exigua being placed in the genus Capellinia Trinchese, 1874. The nominal species farrani Alder & Hancock and alberti Quatrefages are considered by her to be synonymous with tricolor, while pallida is regarded as a variety of that species. Apart from alberti, three nominal species are involved in this issue: tricolor (the type-species of Eubranchus by monotypy), pallidus and farrani. If Dr. Lemche’s proposals are approved, tricolor will be suppressed in favour of the junior subjective synonym viridula—a name which has been used only by a few Scandinavian workers; pallida will be placed on the Official List in Z.N.(S.) 1044; and farrani will become the type-species under the plenary powers of a restricted genus, also bearing the name Eubranchus, but which will not include its type-species as at present understood. This seems to me to be making ‘“‘ confusion worse confounded ”’ rather than contributing to stability of nomenclature. By many workers the taxon pallidus has been considered as a variety or sub-species of tricolor and so, as Dr. Lemche himself admits, has farrani. _ If legislation is adopted to make tricolor an invalid synonym of the type-species of Egalvina, and farrani the type of the reconstituted genus Eubranchus, what name shall the worker use who considers farrani to be but a sub-species of tricolor (=viridula) — Eubranchus farrani viridula or Egalvina farrani viridula?—or should he, for the sake of convenience but contrary to his taxonomic judgment, place his sub-species in separate genera? As Dr. Lemche does not mention the species exigua in this context, although he wishes it to be placed on the Official List in his previous application [Z. N.(S.) 1044], we do not know whether he considers it a “‘ true Eubranchus ”’ or not, so we do not know whether the adoption of the genus Capellinia for that species has any bearing on the present problem. Contrary to the conclusions reached by Dr. Lemche, I consider that the resurrection of the name Amphorina would alleviate this problem rather than add to the existing confusion. Its sole original species alberti was published in the same month as farrani and these two names are generally considered to be conspecific. The plenary powers could be invoked to grant seniority to the name farrani, which would then become a senior subjective synonym of alberti, and the name Amphorina would become available for the group of Eubranchus farrani, allowing Eubranchus to be retained for tricolor if the genus is dismembered. Amphorina would of course be a junior subjective synonym of Eubranchus for anyone considering farrani and tricolor to be congeneric. In requesting that the family-group name EUBRANCHIDAE be placed on the Official List, Dr. Lemche gives its type-genus as Eubranchus Forbes, 1838; if his proposals in this application are adopted, we might adapt one of his own expressions and state: “There is no Eubranchus Forbes, 1838, only Eubranchus Lemche, 1964! ” In conclusion, I should like to register my support for the following proposals in this case: (1) (b) (i); (1) (c) (i), Gi) and (iii); (4) (a) and (d); (5) (b) and (c); and (6). In place of the others, I beg leave to lay the following alternative proposals before the Inter- national Commission for their consideration: (1) to use the plenary powers to grant precedence to the specific name farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844, as published in the binomen Eolis farrani, over the specific name alberti Quatrefages, 1844, as published in the binomen Amphor- ina alberti; (2) to place the generic name Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 (gender : masculine), type- species by monotypy Eubranchus tricolor Forbes, 1838, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name tricolor Forbes, 1838, as published in the binomen Eubranchus tricolor (type-species of Eubranchus Forbes, 1838) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 414 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED EMENDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO CAVOLINIA OF CAVOLINA ABILDGAARD, 1791. —Z.N.(S.) 1103 (see present volume, pages 45-47) By David Heppell (Dept. of Zoology, The University, Glasgow, Scotland) As the generic names Cavolina Bruguiére and Cavolina Abildgaard, published in the same year, were both based on the modern patronymic “* Cavolini,” one might consider the spelling ‘‘ Cavolina” to have been an incorrect original spelling in both cases, requiring automatic correction wherever found. According to Article 32(c) such a name does not enter into homonymy, so Dr. Lemche’s proposal to suppress the generic name Cavolina Bruguiére for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy would seem to be justified, to prevent any subsequent validation of the name by another author. “ Cavolinia Menke, 1845 ” was not a separate name but a justified emendation by Menke of Cavolina Bruguiére and, as such, takes the date and authorship of the original spelling [Article 33(a)]. Thus we have, according to the Code, not only Cavolinia Abildgaard, 1791, but also Cavolinia Bruguiére, 1791. This anomaly could be obviated by giving a grant of precedence under the plenary powers in favour of Cavolinia Abildgaard. The name to be applied to the nudibranch genus after suppression of Cavolinia Bruguiére will be discussed in my comment on Z.N.(S.) 1105 below. In conclusion, in accordance with what is written above, I should like to recommend that the International Commission approve the following of Dr. Lemche’s proposals in the present application: (2); (3); (4); (5) (b), (d) and (e). I beg leave to lay the following alternative proposals before the Commission in place of the others: (1) to use the plenary powers to grant precedence to the generic name Cavolinia Abildgaard, 1791 (correction of Cavolina), over the generic name Cavolinia Bruguiére, 1791 (correction of Cavolina); (2) to place the generic name Cavolinia Bruguiére, 1791 (correction of Cavolina), (a junior homonym of Cavolinia Abildgaard, 1791, according to the ruling given under the plenary powers in (1) above), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. If these alternatives are adopted, proposals (1) (a) and (b), and (5) (f) of Dr. Lemche’s application will no longer be required, while his proposals (5) (a), (c) and (6) should be emended to delete references to the use of the plenary powers. By Myra Keen (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) Studying the several proposals submitted by Dr. Henning Lemche (B.Z.N. 21, pts. 1-2, Mar.—Apr. 1964) relatively to names in the Opisthobranchia, I find myself in agreement with all but one. Favourable action would seem to be in the interests of stability of nomenclature. However, on Z.N.(S.) 1103 (pp. 45-47), relative to the pteropod name Cavulina, I feel that more is to be said for retaining the spelling Cavolina of Abildgaard. I cannot agree with the statement that most authors since 1847 have accepted Gray’s alteration. Making a census of check lists and systematic papers, taken at random from the library shelves, I find that of 16 works citing the genus— these all having appeared since 1850—11 use the spelling Cavolina and 5 Cavolinia. To stabilize the name as Cavolina would have the further advantage that this is in harmony with the indicated priority in two principal nomenclators—Sherborn’s Index Animalium, where Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791, is cited in Part C of the section 1801-1850, having been omitted in the earlier volume; and Neave’s Nomenclator generum et subgenerum. I therefore feel that emendation to Cavolinia is not in the interests of stability. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 415 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME CRATENA BERGH, 1864, INORDER TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME RIZZOLIA TRINCHESE, 1877. Z.N.(S.) 1105 (see present volume, pages 50—51) By David Heppell (Dept. of Zoology, The University, Glasgow, Scotland) I should like to make an objection to the proposed suppression of the generic name Cratena Bergh, 1864. The type of Cavolinia Bruguiére, 1791 being Doris peregrina Gmelin, 1791, by subsequent designation of Gray, 1847, the next available name Cratena Bergh, an objective synonym, would become the valid name for this group of nudi- branchs on the suppression of Bruguiére’s name under the ruling requested in Z.N.(S.) 1103. The correct type-species of Cratena was brought to the notice of malacologists over twenty years ago by Winckworth in the publication referred to by Dr. Lemche, and there is no reason why subsequent workers should not have adopted his conclusions. Recently this view has been endorsed by Macnae, 1954. It is hardly just to those workers who endeavour to apply correct nomenclatural procedures to suspend the rules in favour of those who persistently disregard not only the Code but also the published findings of their colleagues. The present confusion in this group has resulted partly from the primitive state of the taxonomy and partly from in- attention to such essentials as the correct type-species of the genera involved. We cannot hope to alter any confusion which has prevailed in the past history of the names, whatever action we may now take; we can only attempt to prevent further confusion in the future. In this present case, confusion would be better resolved by a more rigid application of the Code rather than by suspension of the names in current use. Winck- worth and Macnae have clearly established the correct usage for the name Cratena and it is that usage which should now be ratified; there is no need to revert to any other concept. In the interests of stability it only remains for the Commission to place the names Cratena and CRATENIDAE on the appropriate Official Lists. With CRATENIDAE based on Cratena Bergh, 1864, rather than on Cratena auctt. non Bergh, it will not compete with the taxa TERGIPEDIDAE and CUTHONIDAE from which it is taxonomically distinct [see Z.N.(S.) 1044]. If this alternative proposal is accepted, I would further suggest that the generic name Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877, be placed on the Official Index as a junior objective synonym of Cratena Bergh, 1864. In conclusion, in view of what has been written above, I beg leave to submit the following alternative proposals for the consideration of the International Commission: (1) to place the family-group name CRATENINAE Bergh in Carus, 1889 (type-genus Cratena Bergh, 1864), on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (2) to place the generic name Cratena Bergh, 1864 (gender : feminine), type-species by original designation Doris peregrina Gmelin, 1791, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name peregrina Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris peregrina (type-species of Cratena Bergh, 1864), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877 (a junior objective synonym of Cratena Bergh, 1864), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. 416 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE APPEAL TO SUPPRESS LEPTOCORIXA IN FAVOUR OF LEPTOCORISA Z.N.AS.) 1589 (see volume 20, pages 435-437) By Carl W. Schaefer (Department of Biology, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn 10, New York) I agree completely with China and Ahmad’s Appeal to suppress the generic name Leptocorixa Berthold, 1827, in favor of Leptocorisa Latreille, 1829. In addition, I should like to make a few comments in support of their request that the family-group name LEPTOCORIXINI (and its variants) be suppressed in favor of LEPTOCORISINI: (1) LEPTOCoRISINI Stal, 1872 has priority over LEPTOCORIXINI Bergroth, 1913, having been used first by Stal in 1872 (Ofv. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl. 29(6) : 54): (2) LEPTOCORISINI has achieved general acceptance over LEPTOCOROXINI and, by Article 40(a), is valid whether or not the Appeal to suppress LEPTOCORIXA is granted; (3) The reference in Paragraphs 7(4) and 7(5) of China and Ahmad’s Appeal to ** §tal 1877” should certainly read ‘* Stal 1872,” since the latter is the correct reference and is, indeed, the one cited in the Bibliography. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CARDINALIS BONAPARTE, 1838 (AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1608 (see this volume, pages 133-136) By Walter Bock (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) I would like to comment upon several points raised by Mayr, Marshall and Selander in the proposal before the I.C.Z.N. on the generic name Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838). On page 134, paragraph 9, and page 136, appendix, Mayr, Marshall and Selander point out that the genera Pyrrhuloxia and Cardinalis (= Richmondena) are separated mainly upon the basis of bill shape and that the separation of these genera is based upon very doubtful grounds. I have recently published a paper on the problem of ‘* Bill shape as a generic character in the cardinals ” (The Wilson Bulletin 76(1) : 50-61); this study was done upon the suggestion of Dr. Mayr who was anxious to have this problem analyzed in connection with his proposal to the I.C.Z.N. My conclusions are that differences in bill shape between Pyrrhuloxia and Cardinalis are well within the range of variation in bill shape observed in closely related genera and that these forms are with little doubt congeneric. Because these birds are congeneric and because this is the type-genus of the sub- family, I would strongly support the recommendation of Mayr, Marshall and Selander as given in their paragraph 15, pp. 135-136. By Jean Dorst (Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) Jai lu avec beaucoup d’intérét la proposition faite par Ernst Mayr et J. T. Marshall sur la validation du nom générique de Cardinalis. Je tiens 4 vous dire qu’aprés avoir pris connaissance de cette note j’en partiage dans l’ensemble les termes et je serais trés heureux de voir cette proposition acceptée par la Commission. By B. P. Hall (British Museum (Natural History), London) I would like to support Prof. Mayr’s application to suppress Cardinalis Jarocki, 1821, and place Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838, on the Official List. I regard this as an excep- tional instance, arising from the wide use of the vernacular ‘‘ Cardinal”? and the present instability in the generic names, which justifies using a little common sense to produce stability, rather than too rigid an application of the Rules. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 417 OPINION 715 XENOPHORIDAE PHILIPPI, 1853 (GASTROPODA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY RULING.—(1) It is hereby Ruled that the neotype designation by K. V. W. Palmer, 1963, for Turbo trochiformis Born, 1778, is not acceptable under Article 75 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. (2) The family-group name XENOPHORIDAE Philippi, 1853 (type-genus Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 381. (3) The generic name Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Harris, 1897, Xenophora laevigata Fischer von Waldheim, 1807, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1651. (4) The specific name conchyliophorus Born, 1780, as published in the bino- men Trochus conchyliophorus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2045. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1483) The present case was first submitted to the Office of the Commission by Dr. K. V. W. Palmer in May 1961, as a request for the preservation under the plenary powers of the family-group name XENOPHORIDAE. Dr. Palmer’s application was sent to the printer on 22nd August 1961 and was published on 23 March 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 115-116. 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 (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two malacological serials. In two further papers (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 1-9, 10-11) Dr. Palmer put forward arguments concerning the oldest available name for the type-species of Xenophora. The further history of the case is set out in the following Report, circulated to Commissioners with Voting Paper (64)1. Summary of issues on Voting Paper 64 (1) (1) Dr. Katherine Palmer’s proposal (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 115-116) to place XENOPHORIDAE on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. There is no need to use the plenary powers, as requested in her application, since XENOPHORIDAE was used as a family-group name by Philippi, 1853, and therefore has priority over ONUSTIDAE H. & A. Adams, 1854, whilst PHORIDAE Gray, 1840, is a junior homonym of PHORIDAE Curtis, 1833 in Insecta, Diptera, as shown by Donald R. Moore (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 15). “(2) Dr. Palmer’s proposal to place Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807, (type-species by designation by Harris, 1897, Xenophora laevigata Fischer von Waldheim, 1807) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is unopposed. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. 418 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ** (3) Her proposal to place the specific name Turbo trochiformis Born, 1778 (as interpreted by a neotype designation—see Bull. zool. Nomecl. 20: 1-11, Plate 2) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as the oldest available name for /aevigata is contested by: (a) Robert Robertson (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 231; 20 : 11-14, 404) who argues that Turbo trochiformis Born, 1778, is a Calyptraea and not a Xenophora, and who proposes that trochiformis be rejected as a nomen dubium, and that Trochus conchyliophorus Born, 1780, be placed on the Official List as the oldest name for the type-species of Xenophora. (b) R. Tucker Abbott (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 15) and Dr. Myra Keen (in litt.) who agree with Dr. Robertson. “In the accompanying Voting Paper, Dr. Palmer’s third proposal has been separated from the others, since it is only this one which has been challenged. If Commissioners agree that Dr. Palmer’s neotype designation for Turbo trochi- formis Born is valid under the Code, then they should vote to place that name on the Official List of Specific Names. Commissioners who agree with Dr. Robertson in his statement that this neotype designation is invalid should vote to place the name Trochus conchyliophorus Born on the Official List of Specific Names as the oldest name which unequivocally applies to the type-species of Xenophora. ” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 27 April 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)1, in Part 1 either for or against the proposal to place Xenophora and XENOPHORIDAE on the appropriate Official Lists (as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 116); and in Part 2 for the placing of either Trochus conchyliophorus Born, 1780 or Turbo trochiformis Born, 1778 (as defined by the neotype designated by Palmer in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 11-12) on the Official List of Specific Names. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 27 July 1964 the state of the voting was as follows: Part 1. Affirmative votes—twenty-six (26), received in the following order: China, Hering, Holthius, Lemche, Mayr, Vokes, Simpson, Stoll, Uchida, Boschma, Tortonese, Riley, Miller, do Amaral, Obruchev, Sabrosky, Evans, Bonnet, Kraus, Jaczewski, Alvarado, Forest, Mertens, Binder, Brinck, Ride. Negative votes—one (1): Borchsenius. Part 2. For the addition to the Official List of Trochus conchyliophorus Born—twenty-two (22): China, Hering, Lemche, Mayr, Vokes, Simpson, Stoll, Uchida, Boschma, Tortonese, Miller, do Amaral, Obruchev, Evans, Bonnet, Kraus, Jaczewski, Alvarado, Forest, Mertens, Binder, Brinck. For the addition to the Official List of Turbo trochiformis Born—three (3): Holthuis, Riley, Ride. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Mr. Sabrosky did not cast a vote in Part 2 of the Voting Paper. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 419 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: conchyliophorus, Trochus, Born, 1780, Testacea Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis: 333 Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807, Museum-Demidoff 3 : 213 XENOPHORIDAE Philippi, 1853, Handb. Conchyliol. Malacozool. 1853 : 185 The following is the original reference to the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling; For Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807 : Harris, 1897, Cat. Tertiary Moll. B.M. (N.H.), Pt. 1, The Australasian Tertiary Mollusca: 253 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)1 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 715. W.E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 September 1964 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULING ON THE TYPE-SPECIES OF STENOSCISMA CONRAD, 1839. Z.N.(S.) 1539 (see this volume, pages 130-132) By Richard E. Grant (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Dr. Schmidt’s historical survey of the usage of the names Stenoscisma Conrad and Camerophoria King is entirely correct, to the best of my knowledge (I have just com- pleted a study of the superfamily containing Stenoscisma, for the Treatise on Inverte- brate Paleontology), I see no objection to her proposal, except that as it now stands the name Stenoscisma is an objective senior synonym of Camerophoria, and is recognized as such by all present workers. I do not see the necessity of action by the Commission in this matter, inasmuch as the synonymity is objective and beyond dispute under the present Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. However, ruling to place the name Stenoscisma on the Official List of names would remove whatever doubts may remain in this case, and would be in no way objectionable. The request (para. 15, part 3) to place the family-group names based on Steno- scismatinae Oehlert on the Official List deals with a case that is less clear cut. However, I believe that the action recommended is desirable. The present Rule (Art. 40) calls for retention of family-group names that are based on junior synonyms, unless the change to the name based on the senior synonym was effected prior to 1961, and has won general acceptance. The Russian treatise on brachiopods in the Osnovi Paleonto- logii (1961) retains the family-group name based on Camerophoriinae Waagen 1883. It might be argued that use of the prior name in such an important work at this late date indicates lack of general acceptance of names based on Stenoscismatinae Oehlert. Most recent authors (including some text books and the Zoological Record) have adopted names based on Stenoscismatinae, and in the interest of stability a decision to place that family-group name on the Official List would clarify and stabilize the situa- tion. Therefore I would like to offer my concurrence with Dr. Schmidt’s application to the Commission. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. 420 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 716 PHASMATIDAE GRAY, 1835 (INSECTA, PHASMATODEA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES RULING.—(1) The family-group name PHASMATIDAE (correction of PHAS- MIDAE) Gray, 1835 (type-genus Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 382. (2) The family-group name PHASMIDAE Gray, 1835 (type-genus Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796) (an incorrect original spelling for PHASMATIDAE) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 411. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1596) An application to place the family-group name PHASMATIDAE on the Official List was first received from Dr. K. H. L. Key in September 1956. The applica- tion embodying this recommendation was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 235-240. The majority of Dr. Key’s proposals in this application were approved by the Commission in January 1961, and embodied in the Ruling of Opinion 641. The history of the dispute on the use of PHAS- MIDAE Or PHASMATIDAE is given in that Opinion (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 274— 279). Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers to preserve the name PHASMIDAE was given in a Secretary’s note (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 294, 257) and to the other prescribed serial publications (See Constitution Article 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). A letter of support for the use of PHAS- MATIDAE by Dr. D. K. McE. Kevan was published in Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 20 : 256. The following summary of issues was prepared by Dr. Key and was circulated to Commissioners with Voting Paper (64)2. (1) Phasmatidae is the form that is correct under the Code. The Com- mission has a general obligation to support the Code, and the onus therefore rests on the person invoking the plenary powers to demonstrate beyond doubt that normal operation of the Code will lead to a significant degree of instability or confusion. (2) Although ‘ Phasmatidae’ is a minority usage, it has been employed quite frequently since at least 1881, and is perhaps gaining ground. It is the form used in what is probably the most widely consulted single zoological text, the Zoological Record, and in Brues, Mellander & Carpenter’s ‘ Classification of Insects’ (1954), among other works. The issue is therefore not_ whether ‘Phasmidae’ should be ‘replaced’ by some name newly resurrected from the past, but rather which of two long-current spellings should be accepted. “* (3) The long period over which both names have been in use, taken in conjunction with the rather slight difference in spelling, suggests that few zoolo- gists who are accustomed to the spelling ‘ Phasmidae ’ would fail to recognise this name in the form ‘ Phasmatidae’. The comparable words ‘ stoma, stomata ’ and ‘ stigma, stigmata’ are quite familiar and the parallel should be Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 421 obvious. The position would be different if the alternative names had no obvious connection with each other. (4) For these reasons, I hold that no adequate grounds exist for suspending the operation of the Code in this case. ” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 27 April 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)2 either for or against the validation under the plenary powers of the spelling pHASMIDAE for the family-group name based on Phasma Lichtenstein. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 27 July 1964 the state of the voting was as follows; Affirmative votes—seven (7), received in the following order: Boschma, Tortonese, Riley, Bonnet, Borchsenius, Forest, Mayr. Negative votes—twenty (20): China, Hering, Holthuis, Lemche, Vokes, Simpson, Stoll, Uchida, Miller, do Amaral, Obruchev, Sabrosky, Evans, Kraus, Jaczewski, Alvarado, Mertens, Binder, Brinck, Ride. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: PHASMATIDAE Gray, 1835, Syn. Phasm.: 1-44 PHASMIDAE Gray, 1835, an incorrect original spelling for PHASMATIDAE q.v. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)2 were cast as set out above, that the use of the plenary powers for the adoption of the proposal contained in that Voting Paper was refused, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 716. W.E.CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 September 1964 422 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SIX MISIDENTIFIED TYPE-SPECIES IN THE SUPERFAMILY MURICACEA (GASTROPODA) Z.NAS.) 1623 By A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, California) In revising the superfamily Muricacea for the “ Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ”’, I have encountered six cases in which the type-species of generic taxa have been misidentified by authors. Under Article 70(a) of the Code, I must therefore bring these to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for review and decision. 1. Mancinella Link, 1807 As proposed by Link, the genus Mancinella comprised several nominal species, among which was ‘“‘ Murex mancinella L. G. 3538. M.-C. 3. t. 101, F. 967-968,” automatically the type-species by absolute tautonymy. The Murex mancinella Linnaeus, 1758, may not be the form figured in the reference cited by Link (Martini and Chemnitz, Conchylien-Cabinet 3: pl. 101, figs. 967-968, 1777). Realizing this, Iredale (1915, p. 472), cited the type-species as M. mancinella of authors, not of Linnaeus. Dodge (1957, pp. 134-136), in a review of the Linnean species, has shown that the M. mancinella of Linnaeus must either be regarded as a species dubium or, more plausibly, as the later nominal species Drupa cornus Riding, 1798. These two forms are distinct generically and may even represent different subfamilies. To adopt the latter interpretation of the species would cause much confusion, for the transfer of the name Mancinella to the new setting would cause it to fall as a subjective synonym of Drupa Réding, 1798 and would leave nameless the group in Thaididae now known as Mancinella, one that is widespread in the Pacific. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked to declare Murex mancinella Linnaeus, 1758 a species dubium and to designate as type of the genus Mancinella the species known as Murex mancinella by authors, the first available specific name of which is Purpura gemmulata Lamarck, 1816. This usage has already been adopted by some Japanese authors (for example, Arakawa, 1962, on p. 74 of a paper entitled ‘‘ A study on the radulae of the Japanese Muricidae—the genera Purpura, Thais, and Mancinella,’ Japanese Jour. Malac. 22 (1) : 70-78, 2 pls.). II. Chicoreus Montfort, 1810 The name Chicoreus was proposed by Denys de Montfort (Conchyliologie Systématique 2 : 611) as follows: “* Chicoreus m. Espéce servant de type au genre, C. ramosus. Murex ramosus Linn. et Gmel. sp. 13.” The type has been taken by most authors as M. ramosus Linnaeus, 1758, a large and extremely frondose form from the Indo-Pacific region. However, a Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6, December 1964, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 423 different interpretation was suggested by Clench and Farfante (1945, Johnsonia 1 (17) : 28), who argue that the figure accompanying the proposal—a plate on the page opposite to the text—is of a Caribbean species, and they cite the type as follows: ““ Chicoreus ramosus Denys de Montfort (=Murex brevifrons Lamarck [1822]) (monotypic); non Murex ramosus Linné.” In another paragraph on the same page they cite Montfort’s species as “‘ Murex ramosus Montfort, 1810... non... Linné.” No change of concept is involved here, for both M. ramosus Linnaeus and M. brevifrons Lamarck are accepted by authors as congeneric. The prepon- derance of usage seems to favour the interpretation that Montfort correctly identified the Linnean species although he cited as localities only America and the coast of Africa. To clarify the situation, however, the Commission is hereby asked to rule that the type of Chicoreus is Murex ramosus Linnaeus. Question has been raised as to the possibility that Triplex Perry, 1810 (Arcana: pl. 23) might have priority over Chicoreus Montfort, 1810. Iredale (1915 : 457) has shown that Montfort’s work was reviewed in a journal published May 28, 1810. Perry’s work is known to have appeared in June, 1810. Thus Chicoreus has clear priority. The type-species of Triplex is T. foliatus, better known under the latter name Murex palmarosae Lamarck, 1822. Preservation of the latter and suppression of T. foliatus as a nomen oblitum would be desirable. III. Polyplex Perry, 1810 The generic name Polyplex, like the Triplex discussed in the paragraph above, was proposed by Perry in a work entitled the “‘ Arcana,” published in parts in 1810, a summary of which has been published by Mathews and Iredale (Victorian Naturalist 29 : 9-13, 1912). Few copies of the “ Arcana” survive. There is one in the library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, and to the staff of that institution (especially to Dr. Robert Robertson) I am indebted for the following information: The name Polyplex first appears in the plate explanation to the 23rd plate thus—“ . . . the Monoplex has one fold on its body; the Biplex has two folds; the Hexaplex six folds, and so on with the Polyplex, in which the folds are very numerous, but the number not defined, and indeed of these latter but few have been discovered, and those only in the Southern Ocean and islands lately discovered by the investigation of Captain Cook and other navigators.” This plate appeared in June 1810. No specific names were then associated with the generic name Polyplex. In September 1810, with the 35th plate, Perry mentioned the name again, still without a species but with the statement that a History of Shells would shortly be published—evidently his ‘‘ Conchology,” which appeared in 1811. There, on plate 9, five species of Polyplex were named and figured: P. purpurascens, P. rugosus, P. crenatus, P. gracilis, and P. bulbosa [sic]. These figures, like some others of Perry’s, were so poor as to have been regarded by many authors as unrecognizable. Baily in 1960 (Nautilus 74(1) : 28-31), attempting to interpret Polyplex, has discussed three of the species. He argued that because Perry said his first species, P. purpurascens, was a form from which the Tyrians obtained their famous purple dye, this would fix the name as a synonym of Murex trunculus 424 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Linnaeus, 1758—a conclusion that may be questioned, for several different muricids were used for making dye. Baily, however, felt that least disruption of established nomenclature would result from his designation of this species as type of Polyplex. However, Trunculariopsis Cossmann, 1921 (nom. nov. pro Truncularia Monterosato, 1917, non Wiegmann, 1832) is thereby displaced as an objective synonym. The second previously identified species assigned to Polyplex would also cause dislocation of one or more well-known names, for P. gracilis, although not now in active use, is conceded to represent Boreotrophon Fischer, 1884. The latter being regarded as a subgenus of Trophonopsis Bucquoy, Dautzenberg and Dollfus, 1882, by some authors, the use of Polyplex for the group of P. gracilis would endanger one or both of these commonly-used generic names. The third form for which identification has been suggested, Polyplex rugosa, seems to be the Buccinum lamellosum of Gmelin, 1791, a species now allocated to Nucella Réding, 1798. Baily, indulging in a certain amount of casuistry, rejected Nucella from Muricidae and argued that Polytropa Swainson, 1840, was the first acceptable synonym for the Nucella of authors and that it would be jeopardized by designation of P. rugosus as type of Polyplex. Rehder (1962, Nautilus 75 : 111) has come to a different and more plausible interpreta- tion of Nucella, which would make Polyplex posterior to at least one established generic name. There is another of the five species figured by Perry that seems to me to be identifiable, although I do not find that anyone has made this suggestion: The figure of P. bulbosa, as well as the description, can be matched very satisfactorily by specimens of Trophon geversianus (Pallas, 1774), the type of the genus Trophon. This generic name, proposed by Montfort in 1810, antedates Polyplex by some days or weeks, as shown under the discussion of Chicoreus above. Therefore, if this identification is acceptable, P. bulbosa could have been designated type of Polyplex without interfering with any other generic name. The type locality is stated to be “‘ Indian Seas ’—vague, but not more so that others of the time. Actually, the species comes from southern South America. The selection of Polyplex purpurascens as type-species seems to me to be open to challenge. The genus was originally proposed without named species. Under the Code, the first species that were assigned to the taxon with adequate indication would be available for designation. The original description made two strictures—that the shells have many varices and that they come from the Southern Ocean and islands discovered by Captain Cook. P. purpurascens has several varices (though they would hardly be properly called “‘ very numerous ”’) but it came, according to Perry’s own statement in the 1811 work, from the Mediterranean. On the other hand, the P. bulbosa, if interpreted as-Trophon geversianus, does fulfill the requirement of coming from the Southern Ocean and having “‘ very numerous ” axial ribs or varices. As it is obvious that the generic name Polyplex Perry, 1810, can serve no useful purpose and that its recognition would tend toward instability of nomen- clature, I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature: to set aside the designation of type-species by Baily (1960) as inapplicable and to redesignate the type as Polyplex bulbosa, a subjective synonym of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 425 Buccinum geversianum Pallas, 1774, type-species of the genus Trophon Montfort by original designation under the name combination Murex magellanicus Gmelin, 1791. IV. Thalessa H. and A. Adams, 1853 In the Genera of Recent Mollusca (vol. 1 : 127) the brothers Henry and Arthur Adams proposed Thalessa with a list of 16 species, none of which was cited as type. The first type designation seems to be by F. C. Baker, 1895 (Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci. 2 (2) : 183), who selected ‘“* Purpura hippocastaneum, Linné,” the correct rendering of which is Murex hippocastanum Linnaeus, 1758. Dodge (1957 : 137-139) has shown, from a study of the Linnean manuscripts and collection, that the Linnean species has been misidentified by authors : ““However, Linnaeus’ type, a specimen of the shell later called Pyrula galeodes by Lamarck (1822), is found in the Linnean collection in London inscribed with the serial number of M. hippocastanum in Linnaeus’ hand.”’ Modern classification would place Lamarck’s species in the family Melongenidae, genus Volema Réding, 1798. The earliest available synonym for the M. hippocastanum of authors seems to be Purpura aculeata Deshayes, 1844. Dautzenberg in 1929, becoming convinced that the Linnean species had been misidentified and being unaware of a synonym, proposed a new name, Purpura (Thalessa) pseudocastanum. If a strict application of the Rules is deemed advisable by the Commission, which would then make Thalessa a subjective synonym of Volema Réding, the generic name Menathais Iredale, 1937 (Australian Zoologist 8 : 256; type-species, by original designation, Purpura pica Blainville, 1832) is available to take the place of Thalessa Auctt. However, in the interests of stability, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to rule that the type of Thalessa H. and A. Adams, 1853, should be fixed as the M. hippocastanum of authors under the specific name Purpura aculeata Deshayes, 1844. V. Kalydon Hutton, 1884 (71883) Kalydon was briefly described by Hutton (Trans. New Zealand Inst. 16 : 220), with three nominal species, none of which was designated as type: Fusus duodecimus Gray, 1843, and Trophon inferus and T. plebejus Hutton, 1873. In the Zoological Record for 1884 the editor, Edouard von Martens, states (Mol- lusca : 38) ‘‘ Distinct from Trophon by the absence of varices; from Urosalpinx by the ovate operculum with subapical nucleus. Type, Trophon duodecimus (Gray. Fusus) Hutton, Tr. Phil. Inst. Canterbury (N.Z.), 1883, p. 216,and Tr. N.Z. Inst., 16, p. 220, where also Fusus plebejus and inferus (Hutton) are referred to this genus.” I have been unable to locate the reference attributed to Hutton, 1883, but in any case, the designation by Von Martens would fix the type of Kalydon as Fusus duodecimus, a species described by Gray in 1843 in the appendix to Dieffenbach’s “‘ Travels in New Zealand.” According to Suter (Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca, 1913 : 412), the type of Gray’s species is lost, and the species is in- determinate from the description. Hutton’s concept was based rather upon a form of his own that he assumed to be a synonym of Gray’s species—Fusus 426 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature corticatus Hutton, 1873, which in modern usage falls in a related but distinct genus, Axymene Finlay, 1927. Iredale in 1915 rejected the name Kalydon as a homonym of Calydon Thom- son, 1864, correctly under the Rules in force at that time. His replacement name Xymene (Iredale, 1915 : 471; type-species by original designation, Trophon plebejus Hutton, 1873), has consistently been used since then by Australasian workers. The Commission is therefore asked to suppress Kalydon on two grounds: that it was once correctly rejected as a homonym—although under the present Code it would not be—and that the type species is unrecognizable. VI. Tolema Iredale, 1929 The original proposal of this genus was as follows: (Records of the Australian Museum 17 (4) : 186, Sept. 1929) : “ TOLEMA gen. nov. (Plate 41, figs. 3, 8). This genus is introduced for Purpura sertata Hedley (Austr. Mus. Mem. iv, 1902 [1903], p. 382, figs. 95-96), which was afterwards regarded by its author as synonymous with Coralliophila lischkeana Dunker, a Japanese species. The adult shell has not yet been figured, as Hedley’s species was based on an im- mature shell...” Laseron in 1955 in a paper entitled, “‘ The genus Tolema and its allies ’’ (Proc. R. zool. Soc. New South Wales, 1953-54 : 70-74) was able to demonstrate that the adult of P. sertata is not the form figured by Iredale. Growth series being available for both, it is clear that two genera are involved. Laseron’s decision was that because the name Tolema had become well embedded in the literature under the concept of the adult form figured by Iredale—which has a row of overlapping spines at the periphery—this usage should be retained. He pro- posed a new generic name, Liniaxis, for a group comprising Hedley’s original species and some others, naming as type-species L. elongata Laseron, which he described as new. The morphologic group Liniaxis has a smooth periphery as well as several other differentiating characters. Under Article 70 of the Code, Laseron’s solution is untenable, for the Code leaves no such option to the individual systematist. Because Laseron’s action was in harmony with current usage by Australian and Japanese workers, it would, at first sight, seem worthy of formal support. However, there are two generally overlooked names that are prior to Tolema, as figured by Wenz in the Handbuch der Paldozoologie (Bd. 6, Heft 5, 1939 : 1131-1132, figs. 3211, 3218). Morphologically, either of these two could include the type of Tolema Auctt. Those are: Mipus Gregorio 1885 (Bull. Soc. malac. Italiana 11 : 28; type-species, by original designation, Trophon gyratus Hinds, 1844, from Macassar Straits, East Indies) and Babelomurex Coen, 1922 (Atti Soc. Italiana di Sci. nat.... Milan 61 : 68), type-species by original designation, Fusus babelis Réquien, 1848, from the Mediterranean. Babelo- murex has recently been utilized in this sense by Emerson and D’Attilio (Ameri- can Mus. Novitates, no. 2149, July 1963 : 2-4), who concur that Tolema is unavailable unless given special protection by the International Commission. One cannot doubt that for a time, at least, confusion would result from the selection of the true Purpura sertata Hedley as type of Tolema, but this might be Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 427 the best way to preserve the name, for possibly more work will demonstrate that both Liniaxis Laseron and the reinterpreted To/ema are tenable, whereas recognition of the Tolema of authors would require suppression of two prior generic taxa. It is here suggested, therefore, that in the long-term interests of systematics, the Provision in Article 70(a)(iii) should be adopted and the original designation of Purpura sertata Hedley as the type-species of Tolema Iredale, 1929, be rein- forced by Commission action. In summary, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked, in the interests of stability: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the generic name Kalydon Hutton, 1884, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (b) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following specific names: (i) mancinella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex mancinella; (i) foliatus Perry, 1810, as published in the binomen Triplex foliatus; (iii) duodecimus Gray, 1843, as published in the binomen Fusus duodecimus ; (iv) hippocastanum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex hippocastanum; (c) to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Mancinella Link, 1807, and having done so to designate Purpura gemmulata Lamarck, 1816 to be the type-species of that genus; (d) to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Polyplex Perry, 1810, and having done so to designate Polyplex bulbosa Perry, 1810, to be the type-species of that genus; (e) to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Thalessa H. & A. Adams, 1853, and having done so to designate Purpura aculeata Deshayes, 1844, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Mancinella Link, 1807 (Beschr. nat. Samml. Univ. Rostock: 115) (gender: feminine) type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above: Purpura gemmulata Lamarck, 1816; (b) Chicoreus Montfort, 1810 (Conch. syst. Class. méth. Coquilles 2 : 610) (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation Murex ramosus Linnaeus, 1758; (c) Trunculariopsis Cossmann, 1921 (Rév. crit. Paléozool. 25 : 79) (gender : feminine) type-species, by monotypy, Murex trunculus Linnaeus, 1758; (d) Thalessa H. & A. Adams, 1853 (Gen. rec. Moll. 1: 127) (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(e) above, Purpura aculeata Deshayes, 1844; (e) Xymene Iredale, 1915 (Trans. New Zealand Inst. 47 : 471) (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Trophon plebejus Hutton, 1873; 428 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (f) Tolema Iredale, 1929 (Rec. Austr. Mus. 17 : 186) (gender : feminine), type-species by original designation, Purpura sertata Hedley, [1903]; (g) Trophon Montfort, 1810 (Conch. syst. Class. méth. Coquilles 2 : 482) (gender : masculine) type-species, by original designation, Murex magellanicus Gmelin, 1791; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) gemmulata Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen Purpura gem- mulata (type-species of Mancinella Link, 1807); (b) ramosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex ramosus (type-species of Chicoreus Montfort, 1810); (c) trunculus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex trunculus (type-species of Trunculariopsis Cossman, 1921); (d) aculeata Deshayes, 1844, as published in the binomen Purpura aculeata (type-species of Thalessa H. & A. Adams, 1853); (e) plebejus Hutton, 1873, as published in the binomen Trophon plebejus (type-species of Xymene Iredale, 1915); (f) sertata Hedley, [1903], as published in the binomen Purpura sertata (type- species of Tolema Iredale, 1929); (g) geversianum Pallas, 1774, as published in the binomen Buccinum gever- sianum ; (h) palmarosae Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Murex palmarosae (4) to place the generic name Kalydon Hutton, 1884 (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, all suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above: (a) mancinella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex man- cinella; (b) foliatus Perry, 1810, as published in the binomen Triplex foliatus; (c) duodecimus Gray, 1843, as published in the binomen Fusus duodecimus; (d) hippocastanum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex hippocastanum. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 429 COTINIS BURMEISTER, 1842 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1641 By Michael A. Goodrich (The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa., U.S.A.) In the course of completing a revision of the genus Cotinis Burm., the following facts have come to light. In 1819, William Sharp MacLeay described the genus Gymnetis, based on a single species, Scarabaeus nitidus L., 1764. Inthe period immediately following, between 1819 and 1842, a considerable number of new species were added to Gymnetis by Gory & Percheron (1833) and others. In 1842, in his Handbuch der Entomologie, Hermann Burmeister partitioned Gymnetis, describing a num- ber of new genera, including among these the genus Cotinis which he described as those Gymnetini in which both males and females possess a more or less well developed clypeal horn, thus including within his new genus the species Gymnetis nitidus L. At this time, Burmeister himself pointed out in a footnote that he had included the type of MacLeay’s Gymnetis in his new genus, justifying his action as follows: “Ich wurde fur diese Gruppe den Gattungsnamen Gymnetis beibehalten haben, da MacLeay de Cetonia nitida Fab. als Typus von Gymnetis auffiirt, wenn er nicht in der Gattungsbeschreibung sagte: Sternum tuberculiform, was von den gehoérnten Arten nicht gilt, iiberdem die ungehérnten die zahlreicheren sind.” Burmeister apparently felt that his new arrangement was superior since MacLeay’s description did not agree well with Scarabaeus nitidus L. For the next 107 years, Burmeister’s arrangement of these genera was accep- ted without comment. The generic name Gymnetis MacLeay was applied to the species lacking clypeal horns and the name Cofinis Burmeister was applied to those possessing clypeal horns in both sexes, as defined by Burmeister. By 1930 a total of 73 taxa had been described and placed in Cotinis according to Black- welder (1939, 1957) and Leng (1920, 1927, 1933). The workers making these descriptions, including Bates (1889) and Casey (1915), who published quite extensive works, were either unaware of or ignored the absolute synonymy of Cotinis and Gymnetis. Casey (1915) even goes so far as to designate Gymnetis mutabilis G. & P., 1833 (referred to Cotinis by Burmeister with his generic description) as type-species of Cotinis, at the same time designating Scarabaeus lanius L. as type-species of Gymnetis. In his description of the genus Cofinis, Burmeister had treated C. mutabilis first, labelling it No. 1. By 1963, literally hundreds of papers referring to species in the genus Cofinis were scattered throughout the literature including, for example, 59 papers indexed in the Index of Economic Entomology for the years 1949-1959. In 1937, Schiirhoff partitioned Gymnetis still further, describing five new genera; Paragymnetis, Maculinetis, Cineretis, Jansonia, and Astrocara. In 1949, discovering the absolute synonymy of Cotinis and Gymnetis, Antonio Martinez published a short paper announcing this fact (among other Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. 430 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature things) and proposing that the name Gymnetis now be applied to all species previously called Cotinis, based on a strict interpretation of Article 68c (type by monotypy), with Scarabaeus nitidus L. as type-species. The subgenus Gymne- tina Casey 1915, described for a single species originally included in Gymnetis (of Burmeister) and subsequently treated as a synonym of Gymnetis, was elevated by Martinez as a distinct genus to include some species previously considered to be Gymnetis. Gymnetina is left as a monotypic subgenus, as defined by Casey, and the new subgeneric name Gymnetoides was proposed for the species previously placed in Paragymnetis by Schiirhoff (1937) (described by Martinez as a nomen nudum for lack of a type-species), the type-species being designated as Scarabaeus lanius L., 1766. In addition the new name Gymnetosoma was proposed for the species left in Gymnetis by Schiirhoff, with Cetonia flaveola Fabr., 1811 desig- nated as type-species; and Hologymnetis as a new name for Cineretis Schiirhoff, 1937 (nomen nudum for lack of type-species). That Martinez’ rearrangement of generic names was either unknown to other entomologists or ignored is attested to by the previously cited information regarding the number of publica- tions in economic entomology on Cotinis spp. between 1949 and 1959, while during the same period no publications were listed in the same index under the generic name Gymnetis. General taxonomic references, for use in identification of Coleoptera, such as Arnett (1960) describe Cotinis and Gymnetis according to Burmeister, Bates, Casey, etc., and have ignored Martinez’ 1949 paper. As has been observed, the genus Cotinis is a common and well known one, although unrevised until now, and several species are of great economic impor- tance. For these reasons, and in view of the extensive literature that exists pertaining to Cotinis and Gymnetis, as well as the apparent lack of acceptance of Martinez’ obscure work, it is the opinion of the author that the generic names Cotinis Burmeister, 1842, and Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819, should be conserved as defined by Burmeister (1842) through Article 79 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, since a change at this time would certainly add con- fusion and make the use of the popular indexes and checklists much more difficult for non-specialists. The following recommendations are therefore made, that the International Commission should: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819, and, having done so, desig- nate Scarabaeus lanius Linnaeus, 1766, to be the type-species of that genus; : (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819 (gender: masculine), type-species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Scarabaeus lanius Linnaeus, 1766; (b) Cotinis Burmeister, 1842 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Casey, 1915, Gymnetis mutabilis Gory & Percheron 1833; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 431 (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) Janius Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus lanius (type-species of Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819); (b) mutabilis Gory & Percheron, 1833, as published in the binomen Gymnetis mutabilis (type-species of Cotinis Burmeister, 1842). LITERATURE CITED ARNETT, Ross H. 1960. The Beetles of the United States. Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1112 pp. Bates, HENRY WALTER. 1889. Pectincornia and Lamellicornia. Biologia Centrali- Americana, Ins., Coleop. 1886-1890, 2 (2) : 432 pp. BLACKWELDER, RICHARD E. 1939. Fourth Supplement 1933 to 1939 (inclusive) to the Leng Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico, Mt. Vernon, New York, 112 pp. — 1944-1957. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies and South America. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 185 (1-6) pp. 1-1492 BURMEISTER, HERMANN C. 1842. Handbuch der Entomologie, 3, pp. 1-826 Casey, THOMAS LINCOLN. 1915. A review of the American species of Rutelinae, Dynastinae and Cetoniinae. Mem. Coleop. 6 : 1-394 Gory, HIPPOLYTE Louis, and PERCHERON, A. R. 1833. Monographie des cetoines et genres voisins, formant, dans les familles naturelles de Latreille, la division des scarabees melitophiles. Paris, 410 pp. Hawes, INA L. and CUSHMAN, HELENE G. Eds. 1949-1959. Index of American Economic Entomology, Vols. (X—XVIII LENG, CHARLES W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico. Mt. Vernon, New York, 470 pp. and MUTCHLER, ANDREW J. 1927. First supplement 1919 to 1924 (inclusive) to the Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico. Mt. Vernon, New York, 78 pp. — 1933. Second and third supplements 1925 to 1932 (inclusive) to the Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico. Mt. Vernon, New York, 112 pp. MacLeay, WILLIAM SHARP. 1819. Horae entomologicae: or essays on the annulose animals 1 (1) : 1-524 MARTINEZ, ANTONIO. 1949. Cambios necesarios en la nomenacion de algunos generos de Gymnetini (Coleop., Scarab., Cetoniinae). Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina 147 : 13-14 ScHUruHorr, P. N. 1937. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Cetoniden (Col.) VIII. Revision der Gattung Gymnetis MacLeay. Deutsche Ent. Zeitschr. 1937, pp. 56-80 432 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MYTILUS (NOW ANODONTA) ANATINUS LINNAEUS, 1758 (MOLLUSCA BIVALVIA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE INTENTIONS OF ITS ENTRY ON THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1643 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The intention of the present application is to preserve the specific name Anodonta anatina (Linnaeus, 1758) for use in its accustomed sense—and in accordance with the intentions of the Commission when, in 1955, that name was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as name no. 426 (Opinion 336). The name Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 706) was based on an unknown number of specimens and some references. Hanley (1855—Jpsae Linn. Conch. Lond. : 144) showed that the specimen in the Coll. Linnaeana in London (generally regarded as the type) belonged to the species now mostly called complanata Rossmaessler, 1835 (Icon. Land.- & Siissw. Moll. 1: 112) and usually referred to the genus Pseudanodonta. Another specimen is in the Museum Ludovicae Ulricae Reg. now in Uppsala in Sweden, and was investigated by N. Odhner in 1927. He found this specimen, too, to belong to complanata and left a written record on it at the museum but never published his finding. As a small “ rivulet variety ” of one of the two larger species of Anodonta s. str. exists, which may be close in appearance to specimens of complanata, con- fusions between these two species have been innumerable. In order to keep them apart in the following discussion without involving their specific names, I shall refer to them as ‘‘ Pseudanodonta sp.”’ and “‘ Anodonta sp.”’, resp. Hanley’s statement that the London specimen was a “ Pseudanodonta sp.” has been completely ignored by specialists, and the name has been consistently applied to the “* Anodonta sp.”—except that a certain minority of authors have used the name piscinalis Nilsson, 1822 (Hist. Moll. Suecicae :116). If matters had remained like that until the true position was cleared up before the Commission, I would not hesitate to ask for the complete suppression of the name anatina Linnaeus as a misapplied name, leaving the next available names to become valid for the two confused species: piscinalis and complanata. Unfortunately, the Swedish malacologists knowing about these matters were not aware of what happened when Mr. E. A. Ellis presented his application for the protection of quite a number of specific names of land- and freshwater molluscs in Europe. Mr. Ellis included Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, evidently intending to cover thereby the “* Anodonta sp.” instead of the correct one. Mr. Ellis’ intention is demonstrated also by his accepting, as an editor of the Journ. Conch., the use by A. G. Davis (24 : 110—1954) of the name minima Millet for the Pseudanodonta sp., and anatina for the Anodonta sp. Again, in the same volume, (J. Conch. 24 : 401—1960) he is mentioned by F. R. Woodward as having confirmed Woodward’s determination of a specimen as Anodonta Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 433 minima (meaning the Pseudanodonta sp. which has for a long time been so named in England). The result was that the Commission accepted the name anatina as proposed by Mr. Ellis. In 1956 Brander had already (Ark. Zool. (2) 9 : 175-182) given a thorough analysis of the whole case, with the correct interpretation as set out above, and also showing that Anodonta minima Millet, 1833 (Mem. Soc. Agric. Sci. Arts d’ Angers 1831 [1833] : 241) is not conspecific with complanata Rossmaessler, as was until then assumed by almost all British authors. Miéillet’s species is the very ** rivulet variety ’’ of Anodonta sp. so that his specific name must now be applied to the taxon previously known as anatina, and anatina must be applied to the taxon formerly known as minima if the extant types are accepted. The fate of Millet’s name demonstrates once more the difficulties in keeping the two species separate, but no extra nomenclatorial trouble arises as minima Millet is junior not only to anatina Linnaeus but also to piscinalis Nilsson. Hence, efforts can be concentrated on finding the most suitable remedy for the situation of having a name on the Official List on erroneous premises and thus with false content. (A) If the name anatina was not already on the Official List, it should no doubt be suppressed in order to clear the way for the oldest unambiguous names, i.e. piscinalis Nilsson for the Anodonta sp. and complanata Rossmaesler for the Pseudanodonta sp. This solution is still open for the Commission to choose—and seems to be the one preferred by Swedish malacologists. To me, however, the suppression and extraction of a name already on the Official List is a very serious thing to do and cannot fail to diminish strongly the authority of these Lists. (B) The Commission can adopt a formal solution, maintaining that the name anatina is on the Official List, and that the type decides the actual species. This solution is, however, bound to cause profound and endless confusion between the two closely similar species involved, thus running counter to the Preamble of the Rules as now established. Also, it would appear most unfor- tunate if an application be allowed to lead to a situation which is exactly the opposite of that wanted by the applicant, and without any opportunity for him to interfere. (C) The Commission can fix the present situation of the two names by setting aside the type material still extant and then adopt a neotype belonging to the Anodonta sp. as mentioned above. This is the solution which, in the present very intricate situation, I myself prefer, but I have not been able to get any help from Swedish malacologists in choosing a neotype among material in a Swedish museum and from Sweden. I have been forced, therefore, to choose a well preserved specimen from one of the easternmost localities in Denmark and well known by the Swedes—the moat around Copenhagen of which a part now forms a small lake in the Botanical garden. The specimen is briefly described in an annexe to the present application. May I propose, therefore, that the Commission decides between the following possibilities : 434 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PART I for/against the use of its plenary powers (for leads to solutions A or C) (against accepts solution B, leaving the Linnaean types to determine the interpretation of the name Mytilus anatinus). PART II for solution A. (1) to use the plenary powers to remove from the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name no. 426 anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 and, having done so, to suppress that name for the Purpose of Priority. (2) to place the specific name piscinalis Nilsson, 1822, as published in the binomen Anodonta piscinalis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as name no. 426—replacing the former name anatina of that number. for solution C. to use the plenary powers to set aside all type material for the species Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 and—having done so—to accept as neotype for that species the specimen so designed in the annexe to the present application by H. Lemche. Annexe The specimen here proposed as a neotype for the species Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (after rejection under the plenary powers of the Linnaean type material of that species as unsuitable) is a double shell in the collections of the Universitetets zoologiske Museum in Copenhagen. The label runs as follows: ‘* Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 NEOTYPE selected from a sample from the lake in Botanisk Have, Kobenhavn, Danmark. —/12—1916. Legit C. M. Steen- berg. Det. H. Lemche 1964.” Each valve has the measurements: length 123 mm, height 66 mm, width (of each shell) 20mm. The apex of the left valve is intact and the right one has that region only very slightly damaged. The wavy structure on the initial parts of the shell is well preserved (fig. c) and distinctly goes across the lines of growth even though some of the periostracum has been lost in that place. Other particulars are to be seen in the accompanying figures (a—c). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21 Plate 4 Proposed neotype for Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758. A. Left valve from outside. B. Left valve from inside. C. Umbonal part of left valve, more enlarged. A and B, 3 natural size. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 435 CONCERNING THE USE OF ANODONTA ANATINA (LINNAEUS) By Bengt Hubendick and Henrik W. Waldén (Naturhistoriska Museet, Goteborg, Sweden) Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 706), described the pelecypod species Mytilus anatinus. Most authors have regarded this name as a prior synonym of the nomen- clatorially unambiguous name Anodonta piscinalis Nilsson (1823). However, Hanley 1855, in his revision of the Linnean mollusk collection in London demonstrated that the only specimen there present belonged to the species usually known as Pseudoanodonta complanata (Rossmassler 1835). Hanley also figured this specimen (Jpsae Linn. Conch. 1855, Tab. 2, fig. 1), with which Linnaeus’ original description is fully consistent. Later, Odhner revised the Linnean shells in Museum Ludovicae Ulricae in Uppsala, which also formed a partial basis of the Systema Naturae, and found that the actual specimen there was conspecific with the London specimen. Again the conspecificity between Linnaeus’ Mytilus anatinus and Pseudoanodonta complanata was announced by Brander (Ark. Zool. (2) 9 : 6; 1956). In the meantime the name Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1 : 706, rem been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Opinion 336, No. 426). Evidently the discrepancy between the typologically unequivocal Linnean name anatinus and its prelevant use in taxonomic practice is unsatisfactory. This has been actualized by Dr. H. Lemche of Copenhagen. At this stage we can imagine two possible alternatives to solve this controversial situation. (a) the name anatinus on the Official List can be definitely connected to the Linnean type specimens, one of which (the London specimen) should be chosen as lectotype. (b) The name anatinus Linnaeus has to be removed from the Official List and the names piscinalis (Nilsson) and complanata (Rossmiassler) placed on the Official List. If so, lectotypes or neotypes for these species must be selected, to preclude further ambiguity. We must, however, draw attention to the fact that the taxonomic back- ground for judging the relation of the name complanata to the older name minima (Millet, 1833) does seem far from clear. A third alternative, (c) to drop the existing Linnean types of anatinus and to select a neotype, conspecific with piscinalis (Nilsson), seems to us entirely inappropriate from a formal stand-point. But, if this alternative should be preferred it seems advisable to select the neotype from the type-locality of Mytilus anatinus. Though the alternative (a) is formally simpler, we do not decidedly favour it before alternative (b), as we are well aware that it involves complications with regard to the prevalent practise, and do not admit the Linnean names any sacrosanctity in themselves. On the other hand, alternative (b) is not free from inherent inconsistency. We therefore leave it to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make the decision as to which alternative is to be preferred, when the formal rules and the practical consequences have been considered. It is obviously important that before a name is placed on the Official List the material on which it is based is thoroughly examined by experts with experience of the collection concerned. Evidently this was not undertaken to the necessary extent when Opinions 335 and 336 were prepared, with the consequence that these Opinions in a number of cases did not fulfill their intended purposes, but have served to conserve the nomen- clatorial difficulties in a more rigid state than before. As far as the authors Linnaeus, Retzius, Nilsson, Lovén, Malm and Westerlund are concerned paratypic material, apart from the Linnean collection in London, is kept in Swedish museums. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. 436 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MARTINIA INFLATA (SCHNUR, 1854) (BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES. Z.NAS.) 1645 By U. Jux and F. Strauch (Department of Geology, University of Cologne, W. Germany) The object of this application is to request that the specific name of the spiriferacean brachiopod Martinia inflata (Schnur) be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. This will ensure the rejection of the name minor as used by d’Archiac and de Verneuil. In 1842 the latter described from Paffrath (Bergisch Gladbach, Rhenish Massif) a very common, rock building, smooth brachiopod under the name ** Spirifer glaber Sow. Min. Conch., Pl. CCLXIX. f.1-2. Variety minor, nob. ” This fossil had been mentioned before by F. Beuth (1776, p. 142, No. 134) but he gave neither a figure nor a clear description of these “‘ Terebratulae laeves minimae ”’. D’Archiac & de Verneuil diagnosed this brachiopod with the following note: “* This shell, very abundant in certain beds at Paffrath, seems to be the miniature of the Sp. glaber, which is found in the mountain limestone of Belgium, Ireland, Yorkshire and Derbyshire; wherefore, notwithstanding the great difference of its stature, we can only give it as a variety. When the shell is not decomposed, which happens rarely, extremely fine radiating striae may be seen, crossed by the lines of growth. The shell when partly decomposed, is of a more or less silvery dull white ”’. Though no figure is given with this description, there is no possible doubt that the authors of the new variety described a brachiopod later named by J. Schnur in 1854 as Spirifer inflatus. The type specimen which should be in the Department of Paleontology in Bonn, is lost. It is not clear in what sense the word “ variety ”’, as used by d’Archiac & de Verneuil, is to be interpreted. The name minor is therefore to be given the rank of a subspecies (Art. 45d(i)). None of the revisers of Schnur’s species, especially E. Holzapfel (1895; Spirifer inflatus Schnur), H. Lotz (1900; Spirifer (Martinia) inflatus Schnur), H. Scupin (1900; Spirifer (Martinia) inflatus Schnur), W. Paeckelmann (1913, 1922; Spirifer (Martinia) inflatus Schnur) or Cl. Leidhold (1928; Spirifer inflatus Schnur) observed d’Archiac & de Verneuil’s priority. There would seem little useful purpose in substituting the senior synonym and such a move might actually be harmful. This is because the junior name has been clearly cited in many faunal lists from Middle Devonian localities and is used in stratigraphy. It may be worth mentioning that no quotation was found where d’Archiac & de Verneuil’s name for the variety was used as a species indication in connection with the name Martinia. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested : Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 437 (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name minor d’Archiac & de Verneuil, 1842, as used originally by those authors to indicate a supposed Givetian variety of Spirifer glaber Sowerby, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) to place the specific name inflatus Schnur, 1854, as published in the binomen Spirifer inflatus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES D’aRcHIAC, E. and DE VERNEUIL, M. E. 1842. On the Fossils of the Older Deposits in the Rhenish Provinces. Trans. geol. Soc. Lond. 6 : 303-408 BEuTH, Fr. 1776. Juliae et Montium subterranea. Diisseldorf, 181 pp. HOLzapFEL, E. 1895. Das Obere Mitteldevon im Rheinischen Gebirge, Abh. K- preuss. geol. Landesanst. (N.F.) 16, 459 pp. LEIDHOLD, Cl. 1928. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Fauna des rheinischen Stringo- cephalen-kalkes, insbesondere seiner Brachiopodenfauna. Abh. K-preuss. geol. Landesanst. (N.F.), 109, 99 pp. Lotz, H. 1900. Die Fauna des Massenkalkes der Lindener Mark bei Giessen. Schr. Ges. Beford. gesamt. Naturwiss. 13 : 197-236 PAECKELMANN, W. 1913. Das Oberdevon des Bergischen Landes. Abh. K-preuss. geol. Landesanst. (N.F.) 70, 356 pp. —— 1922. Der mitteldevonische Massenkalk des Bergischen Landes. Abh. K- Preuss. geol. Landesanst. (N.F 98, 112 pp. ScHNuR, J. 1854. Zusammenstellung und Beschreibung samtlicher im Ubergangs- gebirge der Eifel vorkommenden Brachiopoden nebst Abbildungen derselben. Palaeontographica 3, 79 pp. Scurin, H. 1900. Die Spiriferen Deutschlands. Palaeontol. Abh. (N.F.) 4, 140 pp. 438 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature STRINGOCEPHALUS DEFRANCE, 1825 (BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED PRESERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1646 By Raymond C. Moore (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) 1. The purpose of the present application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to validate the generic name Stringo- cephalus Defrance, 1825, with the spelling almost universally and exclusively used in paleontological literature throughout the world since 1842 for one of the most distinctive Middle Devonian brachiopods found at many localities in Europe, Asia, and North America and considered to be an extremely important horizon marker for regional and intercontinental correlations. Also, this nominal genus is name-giver to the family STRINGOCEPHALIDAE King, 1850, (as STRIGOCEPHALIDAE, Monogr. Perm. Foss. (Pal. Soc.): 141) long recognized without competing synonyms in classification of the order Terebratulida. Stringocephalus is actually a junior objective synonym, because an emendation, of other etymologically similar generic names, however, which include Strygoce- phale Defrance, 1825 (in de Blainville, Manuel de malacologie et de conchylio- logie: 511), and Strigocephalus Defrance, 1927 (in de Blainville’s Manuel just cited, atlas, pl. 53, figs. 1-1c); it is a junior subjective synonym of Strygocephalus Goldfuss, 1842 (in d’Archiac and de Verneuil, Trans. Geol. Soc. London, (2) 6 : 369, pl. 56, figs. 55a). The spelling Stringocephalus was first published by Sandberger in 1842 (Leonhard und Bronn’s Jahrb. fiir Mineralogie: 386). 2. No reasonable doubt can exist that Defrance intended to latinize the common vernacular name Eulenkopf (owl’s head) used for this fossil in early German natural histories. Indeed, one of the best known Stringocephalus localities is near the very ancient Eulenberg Inn just east of Bergisch Gladbach in the Eifel. Accordingly, Davidson in 1865 (British Fossil Brachiopoda, (Pal. Soc.) 3 (6) : 12) maintained that Stringocephalus is a correctly formed latinized name derived from the Greek words strix (genitive, stringos), for screech-owl, and cephala, for head. Cloud (1942, Geol. Soc. America, Spec. Paper 38 : 106) concurred with Davidson in thinking that Strygocephale and Strigocephalus are erroneous transliterations made by Defrance and hence are emendable to the acceptable form introduced by Sandberger. It is true that the Code (1961, Art. 33, a, i) allows correction of an incorrect original spelling of a generic name, but this does not apply to Strygocephale, since erroneous transliteration is excluded (Art. 32, a, ii) from consideration as applied to a presumed incorrect original spelling. Thus Strygocephale must be recognized as the correct (and only) original spelling under stipulations of the Code and its type-species (Terebratula burtini Defrance, 1824) is fixed by monotypy. 3. Inasmuch as Strygocephale, Strigocephalus and Strygocephalus are all “ forgotten names ” (nomina oblita), unused in more than a century, Art. 23, b; provides that the Commission may be asked to place them on the Official List of Rejected Names in Zoology. Then, Stringocephalus Sandberger, 1842, would automatically gain place as the oldest valid name for this genus. Action of this Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 439 sort is considered to be undesirable both on the ground of doubt concerning the usefulness of nomina oblita procedure, especially in paleozoological nomen- clature, and because authorship of Stringocephalus is really attributable to Defrance. An appeal for the Commission to exercise its plenary powers for the purpose of confirming nomenclature which now rests only on usage is thought to be preferable. This action is sought in order that the matter may be settled and so reported in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology volume on Brachio- poda now nearing completion. It is beyond doubt that if the clearly stated provisions of zoological rules with Tespect to the Law of Priority should lead Treatise authors to recognize Strygocephale Defrance, 1825, as the valid name of this genus, Stringocephalus being rejected as an objective junior synonym, a large majority of concerned paleontologists throughout the world would ignore the Treatise and continue to use the name Stringocephalus. 4. Accordingly, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to validate the emendation to Stringocephalus of the generic name Strygocephale Defrance, 1825; (2) to place the generic name Stringocephalus Defrance, 1825 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy Strygocephale (sic) burtini Defrance, 1825, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name burtini Defrance, 1825, as published in the binomen Strygocephale burtini (type-species of Stringocephalus Defrance, 1825) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Strygocephale Defrance, 1825, Ruled under the plenary powers to be an incorrect original spelling for Stringocephalus; (b) Strigocephalus Defrance, 1827, an incorrect spelling for Stringoce- Phalus Defrance, 1825; (c) Strygocephalus Goldfuss, 1842, an incorrect spelling for Stringoce- Phalus Defrance, 1825; (5) to place the family-group name STRINGOCEPHALIDAE (correction of STRIGOCEPHALIDAE) King, 1850 (type-genus Stringocephalus Defrance, 1825) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 440 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CRYPTORH YNCHUS ILLIGER, 1807, (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED INTERPRETATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.NA(S.) 1648 By D. G. Kissinger (Atlantic Union College, South Lancaster, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commis- sion 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 generic name Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807, as outlined herein. The problem involves sup- pression of one type-species designation and the validation of a second, later designation. 2. The generic name Cryptorhynchus Illiger was published in 1807 (Mag. Insektenk. 6 : 330) and originally contained three stirps; included in the first stirps was Rhynchaenus lapathi (L.), which is currently assigned to the genus Cryptorhynchus of the subfamily Cryptorhynchinae; the second stirps contained Rhynchaenus pericarpius F., which is currently assigned to the genus Rhinoncus Schoenherr (1837) of the subfamily Ceutorhynchinae; the third stirps is of no immediate concern. The stirps mentioned above each contained more than one species. 3. Subsequently in 1810 Latreille (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 450) designated the type-species as Rhynchaenus pericarpius F. 4. Subsequently in 1826 Schoenherr in Curculionidum dispositio methodica (: 21) designated the type-species of Cryptorhynchus as Curculio lapathi L., apparently ignoring Latreille’s earlier selection of pericarpius F. It is in the sense of Schoenherr that the genus is currently recognized and as such forms the basis for the subfamily name Cryptorhynchinae, a group containing 600 genera, 5,500 species, and is the largest subfamily of Curculionidae. 5. In 1917 Pierce in A manual of dangerous insects ... proposed the name Sternochetus in such a way that it could be used to replace Cryptorhynchus of authors. Buchanan in 1939 (Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington 41 : 82) fixed the type of Sternochetus as Curculio mangiferae F. At present it is not certain that Sternochetus mangiferae (F.) is congeneric with Cryptorhynchus lapathi (L.). 6. In 1919 Pierce (Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington 21 : 25) proposed the name Cryptorhynchidius with type-species Curculio lapathi L. (not Cryptorhynchidius Champion, 1914). 7. Unless action is taken by the International Commission it appears that: (a) the generic name Cryptorhynchus Illiger will have to be shifted from the Cryptorhynchinae to the Ceutorhynchinae; (b) it will be necessary to rename the taxon currently designated “Cryptorhynchus”’, a genus containing more than 300 species; and (c) it will be necessary to rename the supergeneric taxa sub- family Cryptorhynchinae, tribe Cryptorhynchini, and subtribe Cryptorhynchina. Any one of the above mentioned actions would cause great confusion in the taxonomy of curculionid beetles. Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 441 8. For the reasons set out above it is requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the designation by Latreille, 1810, of pericarpius Fab- ricius as the type-species of Cryptorhynchus Illiger ; (b) to validate the designation by Schoenherr, 1826, of /apathi Linnaeus as the type-species of Cryptorhynchus Illiger; (2) place the generic name Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807 (gender: masculine) type-species, under the plenary powers, by designation by Schoenherr, 1826, Curculio lapathi Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name /apathi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bino- men Curculio lapathi (type-species of Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) place the family-group name CRYPTORHYNCHINAE (correction of CRYP- TORHYNCHIDES) Schoenherr, 1825 (Jsis (Oken) 1825: col. 585) (type- genus Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. ato Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THUNNUS SOUTH, 1845 (PISCES): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1652 By Bruce B. Collette (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Ichthyological Laboratory, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Robert H. Gibbs, Jr. (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) The generic name Thunnus was proposed by South (1845, Encycl. Metrop. 25 : 620) as an emendation of [substitute for] Thynnus Cuvier (1817, Régne Animal 2 : 313), type-species by tautonymy, Scomber thynnus Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 297-298), which is preoccupied by Thynnus Fabricius (1775, Syst. Ent. : 360) in Hymenoptera. Since this proposal by South was pointed out by Gill (1894, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 16 : 693-694), most workers have used Thunnus South at least for the type-species. Within recent years numerous authors, including Fraser-Brunner (1950, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 12 : 142-146), Rivas (1951, Bull. mar. Sci. Gulf and Carib. 1 : 217-223), de Sylva (1955, Bull. mar. Sci. Gulf and Carib. 5 : 31-40), Collette and Gibbs (1963, FAO Fish Rept. 6, 1 : 27-28) and Gibbs and Collette (MS, Comparative anatomy and systematics of the tunas, genus Thunnus), have used Thunnus South for six commercially important species of tunas: T. alalunga (Bonnaterre, 1788), T. albacares (Bonnaterre, 1788), T. atlanticus (Lesson, 1830), T. obesus (Lowe, 1839), T. thynnus (Linnaeus, 1758), and T. tonggol (Bleeker, 1852). The World Scientific Meeting on the Biology of Tunas and Related Species, sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and held in La Jolla, California from June 2-14, 1962, suggested (FAO Fish Rept. 6,1: 8) that the generic nomenclature utilized by Collette and Gibbs (op. cit.) be tentatively accepted pending future revisionary studies. 2. In 1955, Whitley (Proc. Roy. zool. Soc. N. S. Wales, 1953-54 : 51-52) published the rediscovery of Thinnus S.D.W. (1837, Analyst 18 : 208), an emendation of Thynnus Cuvier, 1817, which antedates Thunnus South, 1845 by eight years, and proposed that Thinnus S.D.W., be employed in place of Thunnus South. $.D.W., perhaps S. D. Wood, of Derbyshire according to Whitley, wrote systematic lists of the animals of Britain for the Analyst emending many scientific names by changing ph into f, y into i, etc. As far as we can determine, Thinnus S.D.W. has been used only by Abe (1955, Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. 21 : 20-23). Later (1963) Abe employed Thunnus for T. thynnus in his encyclopedia of Japanese marine fishes (Genshoku Gyorui Kewsaku Zukan). 3. The tunas of the genus Thunnus are important commercial species. Because most studies of the tunas are made by fishery biologists, not by systematists, any change in nomenclature would adversely affect many biologists. 4. Therefore, we request the International Commission to: (1) exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Thinnus S.D.W., 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 443 (2) to place the generic name Thunnus South, 1845 (gender : masculine), type-species through Thynnus Cuvier, 1817, by tautonymy, Scomber thynnus Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name thynnus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scomber thynnus, (type-species of Thunnus South, 1845) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (a) Thynnus Cuvier, 1817 (a junior homonym of Thynnus Fabricius, 1775); (b) Thinnus S.D.W., 1837 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above); (5) to place the family-group name THUNNINAE E. C. Starks, 1910 (J. Morph. 21(1) : 79-80) (type-genus Thunnus South, 1845) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (6) to place the family-group name THINNINAE G. P. Whitley, 1955 (type- genus Thinnus S.D.W., 1837) (invalid because the name of its type- genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 444 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XIPHIAS PLATYPTERUS SHAW & NODDER, 1792 (PISCES): APPLI- CATION TO VALIDATE THIS NOMEN OBLITUM FOR THE INDIAN OCEAN SAILFISH (GENUS JSTIOPHORUS). Z.N.(S.) 1657 By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Natural History), London) 1. In the most recent review of the Indian Ocean scombroid fishes (Jones & Silas, 1964, Scombroid Symposium, pt. I, Mar. biol. Assn. India, Mandapam Camp : 1-105), a single species of sailfish is recognized from this region. The name Scomber gladius Broussonet, 1786, has generally been cited as the earliest name for this species, but a few authors have realized that it was not Broussonet but Bloch (1793, Nat. Ausl. Fische, 7 : 81, pl. 345) who first used this name (e.g. Sherborn, 1902, Index Animalium : 423; Fowler, 1928, Mem. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., 10 : 136). But Bloch’s description and figure are poor and could apply to one of several species of sailfish. However, Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792 (Naturalist’s Miscellany, No. 28 : no pagination, pl. 88) is an accurate description of an Indian Ocean sailfish and is based on an extant specimen. The name would replace that of Bloch, but it is a nomen oblitum under Article 23 (b) (i and ii). The purpose of this application is to request validation of Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder by its addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 2. Broussonet (1786, Mém. Acad. Sci. (1786) : 450-455, fig. 10.) described a sailfish, 7 feet 6 inches in length, collected by Sir Joseph Banks from “ les mers des grandes Indes”’ and deposited in the British Museum. Broussonet used no Latin binomen, but referred to the fish by the French vernacular name Voilier. He distinguished the fish from other members of the genus Scomber, suggested that it was generically distinct but proposed no alternative generic name. Bloch (loc. cit.), Lacépéde (1801, Hist. Nat. Poiss., 3 : 375) and Cuvier & Valenciennes (1832, Hist. Nat. Poiss., 8 : 293) refer to Broussonet’s descrip- tion, but attribute to him no Latin binomen. However, Giinther (1860, Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus., 2 : 513), after listing certain pre-Linnaean references to sailfishes, cites in his synonymy for Histiophorus gladius the name “‘ Scomber gladius, Brouss. Mém. Acad. Sc. 1786, p. 454, pl. 10; Bi. taf. 345 (bad).”” Subsequent authors evidently assumed Broussonet’s authorship of the name Scomber gladius as a result of a strict reading of Giinther’s synonymy; whereas Giinther may have intended merely to reinforce Bloch’s poor figure with Broussonet’s good description, without meaning to imply that the name was not Bloch’s. 3. The name Scomber gladius was first used by Bloch (Joc. cit.). This des- cription was not based on actual specimens and it refers to fishes from both the Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific (i.e. to at least two species of sailfish according to modern authors). Bloch cites, and criticizes, Broussonet’s description and figure, mentions a drawing by Banks of a Sumatran specimen of 9 feet, but nowhere indicates that either his own drawing or description refer to an Indian Ocean species. Bloch’s figure shows a fish with a single keel on the caudal peduncle (as in the swordfish, Xiphias gladius L.; two in Istiophorus). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21, Part 6. December 1964. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 445 4. Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792, was based on a specimen collected by Banks and deposited in the British Museum—undoubtedly the same fish on which Broussonet based his description. The figure and the speci- men agree in having the following combination of characters diagnostic of the genus Istiophorus: (a) two keels on the caudal peduncle (b) two separate and long pelvic rays (c) a sail-like dorsal fin which is higher than body depth throughout its length (except for 4-5 short posterior rays) (d) a long spear, rounded not flattened in cross-section. The specimen (Reg. No. B.M.N.H. 1964. 7.2.1) has small, embedded scales, but these were evidently overlooked by Shaw (“ skin smooth, without apparent scales’). This fish was fully described (but not figured) by Norman (1929, J. mar. biol. Assn. 16 (1) : 67-71). A photograph is here reproduced as PI. 5. Most authors have overlooked the first description of X. platypterus, and have attributed the name to Shaw, 1803 (General Zoology 4 (1) : 101, fig. 15), often placing it in the synonymy of the swordfish, X. gladius L. For these reasons, the priority of this name over Scomber gladius Bloch has not been realized. The species name platypterus has not appeared as a senior synonym since Shaw, 1803. 5. Lacépéde (loc. cit.) proposed the genus /stiophorus, and included in it a single species, J. gladifer (it is not clear why Lacépéde chose to ignore Bloch’s name g/adius and to latinize the vernacular name porte glaive). Jordan (1917, Genera of Fishes, Pt. 1 : 62) designated ‘‘ Scomber gladius Broussonet ” type- species of the genus /stiophorus. This was a correct designation, in spite of the error in attribution of authorship of the name (Article 67 (g)). The rules imply that this designation could therefore stand provided that Bloch, not Broussonet, is accorded authorship of the name. This, however, would greatly alter the meaning of Jordan’s designation. Thus, Scomber gladius Bloch refers to an Atlantic or to an Indo-Pacific species, the type of which is an indifferent figure in which are combined features of both the sailfish and the swordfish. Since Jordan’s designation related to a single species based on a named and extant specimen, the sense of his designation is best preserved by allowing it to continue to rest on the Banksian specimen examined by Broussonet. This is possible if Xiphias platypterus Shaw and Nodder is designated type-species of /stiophorus. 6. In order to avoid further instability in the nomenclature, especially in view of the unsatisfactory nature of Bloch’s description of Scomber gladius, it is proposed that the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature should: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for Istiophorus Lacépéde, 1801, and having done so to designate Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792 as type of that genus; (2) place the generic name Istiophorus Lacépéde, 1801 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 446 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) to place the specific name platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792, as published in the binomen Xiphias platypterus (type-species of JIstiophorus Lacépéde, 1801) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the specific name gladius as attributed erroneously to Broussonet, 1786, in the supposed binomen Scomber gladius on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Plate 5 Istiophorus platypterus (Shaw & Nodder). Holotype, a Banksian specimen of 7 feet 6 inches, on which were based the drawings of both Broussonet and Nodder. BMNH Reg. No. 1964. 7. 2. 1. Plate 5 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 21 a Me fo" AS 0 Ss o)] ‘ G3SvHONNG © S96GINVS 9 « % ‘ISIH “LYN sf 716 (PHASMATIDAE Gray, 1835) ... ee aoe as aEE --- 420 Addendum to Opinion 643 wat van as te =a 233 92 454 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO KEY NAMES abyssicola, Cuthonella, Bergh, 1884 Acanthonyx Latreille, 1827 ... Achaeopsis Stimpson, 1857 ... Achaeus Leach, 1817... Achatia Hiibner, [1813] de aculeata, Purpura, Deshayes, 1844 ... aegypti, Culex, Linnaeus, 1762 Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797 Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 AEOLIDUDAE d’Orbigny, 1834 aesalon, Falco, [Tunstall], 1771 affinis, Corixa, Leach, 1817 affinis, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 agilis, Eulachnus, Del Guercio, 1909 Agrotis Ochsenheimer, 1816 alberti, Amphorina, Quatrefages, 1844 albiventer, Tesia, Hodgson, 1837 albus, Psittacus, Miiller, 1776 alveofrons, Dasiops, McAlpine, 1961; Moffitt & venies “1961 Phy AMAUROBIINAE Thorell, 1870 Amaurobius Koch, 1836; 1837 Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933 ... Ambolodus Branson & Mehl, 1934? AMMODISCINAE Reuss, 1862 ... Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 Amphipyra Ochsenheimer, 1816 Amphorina Quatrefages, 1844 Anamathia Smith, 1885 Anapagurus Henderson, 1886 anatina, Lingula, Lamarck, 1801 anatina, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758 Apatele Hiiber, 1822 arctica, Nucula, Gray, 1824 Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 arenacea, Spirillina, Williamson, 1858 Arengus Cornide, 1788 Bn arenicola, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1847 areolata, Cicada, Uhler, 1862 armata, Maja, Latreille, [1802-1803] Ascalapha Hiibner, [1809] asper, Cancer, Pennant, 1777 150, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Astraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837 ATELECYCLIDAE Ortmann, 1893 Atelecyclus (Leach, 18 14] atomaria, Sigara, Iliger, 1807 atropos, Drassus, Walckenaer, 1830 aurantia, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842 auriculata, Doris, Miiller, 1776 australiensis, Dromia, Haswell, 1882 AXIIDAE Huxley, 1879 Axius Leach, 1815 ’ Axopora Milne Edwards & Brine [1850] AXOPORIDAE Boschma, 1951 . Baetis [Leach, 1815] beaumonti, Coryphella, Eliot, 1906 Belemnella Nowak, 1913 Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 berlandieri, Taxidea, Baird, 1858 biguttatus, Portunus, Risso, 1816 blackburni, Rhyncogonus, Sharp, 1885 Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829 Blepharidia Hiibner, 1822 BLISSINAE Stal, 1862 ... Blissus Burmeister, 1835 Boriomyia Banks, 1905 Brachynotus De Haan, [1833] brachyurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837 bradyi, Squilla, Milne Edwards, 1869 branchialis, Doris, Rathke, 1806 burtini, Strygocephale, Defrance, 1825 Cacatua Brisson, 1760 caerulea, Doris, Montagu, 1804 Calappa Weber, 1795 CALAPPIDAE De Haan, [1833] Calcinus Dana, 1851 Callinectes Stimpson, 1860 Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855 CALMIDAE Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923 Calocaris Bell, 1846 ... : campestris, Gryllus, iaaigens ‘1758 canguru, Mus, Miiller, 1776 455 Page 306 341 336 14 151 54 48 16 341 336 225 225 146 125 269 269 370 341 308 31 65 198 198 . 91, 193, 331 337 318 142 125 439 372 53 337 341 337 337 118 119 337 +o ypl4 249, 329 456 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CARDINALINAE Sushkin, 1925 Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838 . cardinalis, Loxia, Linnaeus, 1758 caricae, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1762 caronii, Cymopolia, Roux, 1830 caspius, Culex, Pallas, 1771 cassivelaunus, Cancer, Pennant, 1777 Catapaguroides A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 Cavolina Bruguie€re, et. al. Cavolinia Abildgaard, et al. CAVOLINIDAE d’Orbigny, 1842 CAVOLINIIDAE Gray, 1850 ceratentoma, Eolidia, Otto, 1821 CERATIOCARIDIDAE Salter, 1860 Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 ceratophthalmus, Cancer, Pallas, 1772 Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846 Charonia Gistel, 1848 Charybdis De Haan, [1833] ... Chermes Linnaeus, 1758 Chicoreus Montfort, 1810 : chilensis, Tettigades, Amyot & Serville, 1343 Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843 chiragra, Squilla, Fabricius, 1781 Chrysaor Montfort, 1808 Cicada Linnaeus, 1758 CICADIDAE Westwood, 1840 ciliata, Squilla, Fabricius, 1787 CIMOLESTIDAE Marsh, 1889 ... cinerea, Montacilla, [Tunstall], 1771 Cinifio Blackwall, 1840 CINIFLONIDAE Blackwall, 1840 clavatus, Oreaster Miiller & Troschel, 1842. claviger, Rhabdosphaera, Murray & Blackman, 1898 Clibanarius Dana, 1852 clibanarius, Cancer, Herbst, 1791 clouei, Ergasticus, Studer, 1883 Clypeaster Lamarck, 1801 coccineus, Coluber, Blumenbach, 1788 COCCOLITHIDAE Poche, 1913 Coccolithus Schwarz, 1894 Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 Page 133 133, 416 133 31 340 246 20 337 45, 414 45, 414 46 46 42 22 22 339 196 237 337 Ss 91 422 160 305 139 65 154 154 137 363 367 150 152 206 398 337 339 339 299 395 398 397 151, 354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 457 Page conchyliophorus, Trochus, Born 1780 i =a ake ai as pity RAT condyliatus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1787 et oe >: ee sa tw nose conicum, Acrydium, Olivier, 1791... 4% oat ie . nee yor wt382 Cornide, 1788 work ... 3 ner ay “he sed ade aah ... 360 coronata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 ane “us va sks Bh aa , 97 Coronida Brookes, 1886 gas Bee see ook 34 oy. ea sae 4 Coronis Desmarest, 1823... its x. pee! ut aT ae 5. mwilAD Coryphella Gray, 1850 o7 Sec ae sa ef. soy dee eeacl2i CORYPHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889 ae oe ae se sae boa ee el Corystes Latreille, [1802-1804] ase age Bae ae pe ee id 20 CORYSTIDAE Samouelle, 1819 ay oe a igs Bee att fie 20 Cotinis Burmeister, 1842 _... we ef: ae ve iiss ae athe 29 cranchii, Achaeus, Leach, 1817 ee a 5 wad sae Cee is 35o craniolaris, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 oF = Sis tf in schwisoD, crassipes, Pachygrapsus, Randall, 1840 Ase A mi sof eeassD Cratena Bergh, 1864 = a iss ae Bi ae ... 50, 410, 415 CRATENINAE Bergh, 1889 __... oe as oe re Ee a Oy 50 CRYPTORHYNCHINAE Schoenherr, 1825 ‘on esp Bae aA eA tesa 440 Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807 ace BAe nee San Ea! ee) ..- 440 Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856 a was fel aa 5% sit a 19 Cumanotus Odhner, 1907... Sai siete bee 43 e3 ait all 25 Curimata Walbaum, 1792... ae sis Pee ous Ser Ba sre 260 curvirostra, Munidopsis, Whiteaves, 1874 ... mE Yo Es a sevas39 Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855... sts ads ar re. 43 — 36 Cuthonella Bergh, 1884 is mae ave hi sh i sh 5. eel2S CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934 ... aa “e ook se: ee ae Ba 36 cuvieri, Dorippe, Risso, 1816 fi. sie aie sis Ril At ze S89 Cyatholithus Huxley, 1868 ... we eae or Lia aoe a se10e.398 Cyclope Risso, 1826 . He oes 5 S oS cr L2nes038 Cymonomus A. Milne Bdiwasds, 1880 Ly ae 5c ede ar . coer 37 Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 ae es ies eon ue Be sg an 24 Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 oats ee mas Se =! nae isda 93 Dahl, 1823 work ads Lae ay . st he — 3: con D43 Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904 _... aia ua ane es ae an ae 94 Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 ... oma ahs a noe ane it 7 wes2lo Dendroaspsis Schlegel, 1848... fae a ae bes Jat a oe ae 10 dentata, Hippa, Fabricius, 1793 _.... a - oes +e Tr a3: 20 depressus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775 . os one 22 ee soot 339 Diaphoreolis Iredale & rionsctine, 1923 cr A xe i. ats 53 DICTYOPHORINI Kirby, 1902 Sen =. sels ae wal ik keer: Dictyophorus Thunberg, 1815 Bie se sie at sh xe 2A OS2 458 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Diphthera Hiibner, [1809] doliatus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1766 dorbignyi, Heterodon, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 Dorhynchus Thomson, 1873 Dorippe Weber, 1795 DORIPPIDAE De Haan, [1841] dormia, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1763 dorsipes, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 DOTIDAE Gray, 1853 ... Doto Oken, 1807, 1815 Dromia Weber, 1795 ... Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900 DROMIIDAE De Haan, [1831] Dryadophis Stuart, 1939 duodecimus, Fusus, Gray, 1843 Echinanthus Leske, 1778 Echinolampas Gray, 1825 Egalvina Odhner, 1929 Elasmion Hiibner, 1822 elegans, Latreillia, Roux, 1830 elephas, Gryllus Locusta, Linnaeus, 1758 Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 Enhydrus Laporte et al. ao ensiger, Gonodactylus, Owen, 1832 entomon, Oniscus, Linnaeus, 1758 Eolidina Quatrefages, 1834 EOLIDININAE Pruvot-Fol, 1951 Epirrita Hiibner, 1822 Erastria Hiibner, [1813] Ergasticus Studer, 1883 : erinaceaus, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 ... Eriphia Latreille, 1817 Eryoneicus Bate, 1882 Ethalion Risso, 1826 Ethusa Roux, 1830 EUBRANCHIDAE Odhner, 1934 Eubranchus, Forbes, 1838 Euclidia Ochsenheimer, 1816 Eulachnus Del Guercio, 1909 Euryala Weber, 1795 EURYALIDAE Rathbun, 1910 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Eurynome [Leach, 1814] e exigua, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1848 Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 FACELININAE Bergh, 1889 , farrani, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1844 fasciata, Rana, Burchell, 1824; Smith, 1849 fasciculata, Doris, Miller, 1776 FAVORININAE Bergh, 1889 Favorinus Gray, 1850 fenestralis, Aranea, Strom, 1768 feriatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 Flabellina Voigt, 1834, et al. FLABELLINIDAE Bergh, 1889 . flavopictus, Asthraeus, eae & Gory, 1837 fluviatilis, Cancer, Herbst, 1785 foliatus, Triplex, Perry, 1810 formosa, Rhynchonella, Hall, 1857 ... fragilis, Melibaea, Forbes, 1838 frascone, Cancer, Herbst, 1785 Frumentarium Fichtel & Moll, 1798 fugax, Leucosia, Fabricius, 1798 fuscata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1761 ... Galvina Alder & Hancock, 1855 Gari Schumacher, 1817 gemmulata, Purpura, Lamarck, 1816 geversianum, Buccinum, Pallas, 1774 glabra, Heteropanope, Stimpson, 1858 glaucoides, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1854 Glaucopis Gmelin, 1788 globus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775 Gloia Hiibner, 1822 ... x gloveralleni, Procyon, Nelson & ee 1930. . Godiva, Macnae, 1954 Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827 gracilipes, Rochinia, A. Milne Edwards, 1875 granulata, Cryptopodia, Gibbes, 1850 granulatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 grayi, Rana, Smith, 1849 Griselda Heinrich, 1923 a grohmanni, Pleuronectes, Bonaparte, 1837... 459 Page 337 460 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature guerini, Rhinosimus, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 ... guianensis, Heterodon, Troschel, 1848 Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819 haematodes, Cicada, Scopoli, 1763 Haetera Fabricius, 1807 Hamadryas Hiibner, [1806] ... hannah, Naja, Cantor, 1836 Harpilius Dana, 1852 Heliaca Hiibner, 1822 Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 Helochares Mulsant, 1844 Hemisquilla Hansen, 1895 Herbstia H. Milne Edwards, 1834 ... Herpyzon Hiibner, 1822 Heterocrypta Stimpson, 1871 Heteropanope Stimpson, 1858 hippocastanum, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 hirtulus, Blissus, Burmeister, 1835 hirtus, Paguristes, Dana, 1851 histrix, Eolidia, Otto, 1821 Be Holaraea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1349 horridus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 Hiibner, 1808 work humilis, Echinanthus, Leske, 1778 hyperborea, Yoldia, Torell, 1859 Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819] Hypocrita Hiibner, [1807] hystrix, Eolidia, Otto, 1823 ... idalia, Megalopta, Smith, 1853 Idia Lamouroux, 1816 Ilia Leach, 1817 ILIINAE Stimpson, 1870 immundus, Laemophloeus, Reitter, 1874 infimus, Orbis, Strickland, 1846 inflatus, Spirifer, Schnur, 1854 Involutina Terquem, 1862 Istiophorus Lacépéde, 1801 ... istrianus, Cancer, Scopoli, 1763 jamesonii, Elaps, Traill, 1843 japonica, Atherina, Houttuyn, 1782 58, Page 101 101 429 155 72 68 210 337, 68 69 242 142 337 67 337 337 425 198 340 42 225 94 333 297 128 69 69 42 148 70 338 341 375 202 436 202 445 108 210 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 461 Page japonica, Cuthona (Hervia), Baba, 1937... oe. tes a as aa 57 Jaspidia Hiibner, 1822 ie - on a tt Ue ae ei: 70 Jaxea Nardo, 1847... —r we “ae ae Ae a: Aa ai avnt338 jeffersonii, Meles, Harlan, 1825 He fe a ee He. ee wes Kalydon Hutton, 1884 oe ; ihe a Ne a vis sotheam4Z5 kanieriensis, Turritella, Harris, 1397, ee ae £m ais oo te 447 Krohnia Langerhans, 1880 ... aos so ii aa veh as ots 90 lacinulata, Doris, Miller, 1776 “te a = et si at 36, 411 laevis, Pagurus, Bell, 1845... ar: se a ws + aes .. 340 Lambrus Leach, 1815 aes aes cred ate Zus ae Age ae 94 lanata, Arctopsis, Lamarck, 1801 ... coe Tes ae om ee ... 208 lanatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767 ___.... mos ae an eee oe ie 16 lanceolatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 1813 nal ae ni Me: ot OD lanius, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1766 ... tt re ane a a sae 429 lapathi, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758... Ha sie ne Sa ax: So AAD Latreillia Roux, 1830 si Hee a ase sic ay ee em S Rie LATREILLIIDAE Stimpson, 1858 a _e Me ee hes ie ay eanlats || LEPIDOMYSIDAE Clarke, 1961 aa ee mF Pee wae ae ws 28 Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961... HiSh LBA Aes se ae na Ly 28 Lepidopa Stimson, 1858 a ce ee =i oes ne mae oa 28 Lepidops Stimpson etal... ae “ies <0 “$e ae ae a 28 Leptocorisa Latreille, 1829 ... se a aC ae see ae see 16 leucopterus, Lygaeus, Say, 1832 a ais ae wae aie et eeyir tines ICh:- Leucosia Weber, 1795 an ae ae se on ee ain cay goo LEUCOSIIDAE Samouelle, 1819 te au She sat age ne me naporys ii | liassicus, Nummulites, Jones, 1853 ... as et Mas ate was Seca LOZ Lingula Bruguiére, [1797] ... see aes ar sae An wah Oe LINGULIDAE Menke, 1828 ... au xs ae we a =e Seca? 22S Link (J. H.), 1783-1787 work aps ae ae Se ofa tae , 109 lividus, Dytiscus, Forster, 1771 ee oe: ak ee ae ars ee ae longicornis, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767 ape Aue woe, LOB longicornis, Nematopagurus, A. Milne Edwards & pauvies 1392 aie ~~ 340 longimanus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 sey ee a a fe $5: 94 lutescens, Harpilius, Dana, 1852... 5a ae nea Bak ae te a0 lutescens, Triturus, Rafinesque, 1832 an ae aa — re a 10 Lystrophis Cope, 1885 ae ae aps se rs oe tg ee LOL macandrae, Calocaris, Bell, 1846... ne as aa es ce ewtnsg40 Machaeraria Cooper, 1955 we 3H Te Us wy Aas 131 Macropus Shaw, 1790 Fe oe x Bi te x2 Pee “249, 329 major, Cancer vocans, Herbst, 1782 +e Bie eee Bs soe 3c2 340 462 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Mancinella Link, 1807 5 mancinella, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 mascarone, Cancer, Herbst, 1785 maynardi, Procyon, Bangs, 1898 Medaeus Dana, 1851 ... Megalopta Smith, 1853 Mesidotea Richardson, 1905 Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra, 1932 xe mesolobus, Chonetes, Norwood & Pratten, 1854 ... microlepis, Sphalerosophis, Jan, 1865 ie microps, Catapaguroides, A. Milne Edwards & Beuview! 1892 Microura Gould, 1837 minimus, Limax, Forskal, 1775 minor, Arengus, Cornide, 1788 minor, Procyon, Miller, 1911 minor, Spirifer glaber, d’Archiac & de Vetheat 1342 Moehring, 1758 work : Montagua Spence Bate; Fleming montana, Meles, Richardson, 1829 ... montmollini, Echinolampas, Agassiz, 1836 morbillosus, Gryllus Locusta, Linnaeus, 1758 Morch, 1852-1853 work mucronatus, Belemnites, Link, 1807 Miiller (P.L.S.), 1766 work ... Munida Leach, 1820 ... Munidopsis Whiteaves, 1874 Muricanthus Swainson, 1840 mutabilis, Gymnetis, Gory & Percheron, 1333 Myra Leach, 1817 Najas Hiibner, [1807] Nana Schumacher, 1817 nana, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842 nasua, Vipera, Wagler, 1830 neglecta, Aeolis, Lovén, 1846 neglecta, Taxidea americana, Mearns, 1391 Nematopagurus A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 192 Nereis Linnaeus, 1758 neriteum, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758 nigrum, Scytale neuwiedii var., Dumeéril, Bibron & Dunécil 1954 nocturna, Jaxea, Nardo, 1847 nodipes, Pisa, Leach, 1815 Page 422 422 340 318 338 148 92 315 315 305 340 33 37 360 318 436 368 48 370 300 383 355 268 109 338 338 238 429 338 71 303 36 101 38 371 338 71 303 101 340 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 463 Page nodosa, Asterias, Linnaeus, 1758... fe oer ee. a zr 58188206 nodosa, Nerita, Linnaeus, 1758 ae. wed ae oh ry be ee 236 Notopus De Haan, [1841] ... As: a = 2 +, Vs a 16 nucleus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 __... seclue366 persicum, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758 5A = ree ate $3. onus 235 peregrina, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 er ee we 238 3.3 ie ere 50 personatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 cae ies & va 2 23 16 Petrolisthes Stimpson, 1858 ae wee ete oe x ue .. 108 Petrophora Hiibner, [1811] es a, - R: 5A, fy ny. 72 464 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page PHASMATIDAE Gray, 1835... oF a F se me aie «siete R420 Philotrypesis Forster, 1878 ... Bd ee aes oe bers We ae 31 Philyra Leach, 1817 me Jae as e ae ai ah scdomeg 388 Phimophis Cope, 1860 sr a Sie a =i Por Ae -. 101 PHYMATEINI Bolivar, 1884 ae ate abe ae =e re sds Phymateus Thunberg, 1815 . sie ape gee ae aor var See pictus, Poekilocerus, Audinet-Serville, 1831. a ae a oc rey S82 pilchardus, Clupea, Walbaum, 1792 a hy “ne ae ate Beets atid! Pilumnopeus A. Milne Edwards, 1867 a4 te ne sf si eey38 Pisa [Leach, 1814]... 4. be ses au 4 Pi ae -. 208 PISINAE Dana, 1852 ... ae et %: ae ps. ae a soap $208 Pisidia Leach, 1820 ... ane we a a: eh i anf --- 108 Plagusia Latreille, 1804 pe ae Be ssi aot we 8 a0) 9338 PLAGUSIINAE Dana, 1851 __... ze xe oo an Are sia sane Platycheles, Cancer, Pennant, 1777 .. AD ane of ae gt a) 108 Platypedia Uhler, 1888 Lee an as ad ake Be wae -. 159 PLATYPEDIIDAE Kato, 1932 ... mae noe as iE ae sag +0 26 Platypleura Amyot & Serville, 1843 am ae ap See tp ter gD PLATYPLEURIDAE Schmidt, 1918... : ae tod At si. anyelSS Platypterus, Xiphias, Shaw & Nodder, 1792. ae so a sis -. 444 plebeia, Cicada, Scopoli, 1763 os ee, ae me Bs. al ja SA. plebejus, Trophon, Hutton, 1873... - a: ae id den -. 426 Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844... are a aie ‘Bi st &. fe So 33 POEKILOCERINI Bolivar, 1884 Ate ee = Rae sah aha sereed Poekilocerus Audinet-Serville, 1831 Ne nah nig ee ae J-y382 Pollontes Montfort, 1808 ... ae miss a Be eis 336 She 26 Porcellana Lamarck, 1801 ... oa aes ee ae sa aid -. 108 PORCELLANIDAE Haworth, 1825 aes a ee a ste nee -- 108 Portlandia Morch, 1857 oo are aa #s Lh oe oe 127, 326 POTAMIDAE Ortmann, 1896 ... =a ae apf Sea Hes 2) ae 342 potamios, Cancer, Olivier, 1803-1804 se oe £2 ats it -. 341 Potamon Savigny, 1816 ee ae ea = sii a. fis: .. 338 Precuthona Odhner, 1929. fe ee Eu a aie “8 xstonl2s Prothydrus Guignot, 1954... set bs oe ue aeh gas osanpae Protoreaster Déderlein, 1916 i ae ae ate Le iF vuenenZ0G psenes, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1758 Ke 2 re sas aoa mer 31 Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 “oe oe pie re wat sis sage SD Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852... st se 2 ba ads une vege 37 PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893 Ss ae BS: L'65 slog avjven See Psomeles Guérin-Méneville, 1838 ... re *- a B54 $a ... 308 Psylla Geoffroy, 1762 a bee oe aid sat ia ... 8, 191 Pterochilus Alder & Hancock, 1844 oe am ae ts do ibn 23 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PTEROPHORIDAE Zeller, 1841 Pterophorus Schaffer, 1766 Ptilodon Hiibner, 1822 pulcher, Pterochilus, Alder & Fideock: 1844 Purpura Bruguiére, 1789 Purpura Martyn, 1884 Pygurus Agassiz, 1839 Pyrgomorpha Audinet-Serville, [1838] PYRGOMORPHIDAE Brunner von Wattenwy]l, 1874 ... pyriformis, Geodia, Michelin, [1847] quadratus, Cymonomus, A. Milne Edwards, 1880 quadratus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1798 quadricolor, Hervia, Barnard, 1927 ... Quinqueloculina d@’Orbigny, 1826 QUINQUELOCULININAE Cushman, 1917 radicana, Griselda, Heinrich, 1923 ... radicana, Paedisca, Walsingham, 1879 radix, Murex, Gmelin, 1791 ramosus, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 Reepenia, Friese, 1909 Rhabdolithes Schmidt, 1870 Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894 Rhinostoma Fitzinger, 1826 ... rhinostoma, Heterodon, Schlegel, 1837 Rhyncogonus Sharp, 1885 Richardina A. Milne Edwards, 1881 rissoana, Amathia, Roux, 1828 Rizzolia Trinchese 1877 ize Rochinia A. Milne Edwards, 1875 ... rosaceus, Clypeaster, Lamarck, 1801 rosaceus, Echinus, Linnaeus ... roseatus, Anthus, Blyth, 1847 rotundatus, Cancer, Olivi, 1792 rubescens, Alauda, [Tunstall], 1771 ... rugosus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1775 Saduria Adams, 1852 sapidus, Callinectes, Rathbun, 1896... . 50, 410, 465 Page 113 113 72 123 235 196 299 382 379 225 340 357 56 26 26 144 144 238 422 148 398 398 101 101 308 338 340 415 339 297 297 386 341 366 340 92 341 466 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Sardina Antipa, 1904 es schlotheimii, Terebratula, von Bach: [1834] schmitti, Penaeus, Burkenroad, 1936 Schroter, 1782 work . we scolopendra, Coronis, Latreille, 1828 sculptus, Polycheles, Smith, 1880 scutellata, Hippa, Fabricius, 1793 seminulum, Serpula, Linnaeus, 1758 septemradiatus, Pecten, Miiller, 1776 septemvittatus, Cnemidophorus, Cope, 1892 serratifrons, Ozius, Kinahan, 1858 ... sertata, Purpura, Hedley, [1903] servatus, Lepidophthalmus, Fage, 1924 setiferus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767 sexdentatus, Goneplax, Risso, 1827 silicea, Involutina, Terquem, 1862 ... Simophis Peters, 1860 3 sinuatus, Cardinalis, Bonaparte, 1938 sirtalis, Thamnophis, Linnaeus, 1758 Smerdis Leach, 1817 . soemmerringii, Eolida, easiee 1928 solenoides, Ceratiocaris, M’Coy, 1849 Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865 Sphecomorpha Newman, 1838 spinicincta, Richardina, A. Milne Biganis 1881 spinulosus, Achaeopsis, Stimpson, 1857 spumans, Gryllus, Thunberg, 1815 ... SQUILLIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] Stegomyia Theobald, 1901 Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 STENOSCISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887 Stereomastis Bate, 1888 stirhynchus, Axius, Leach, 1815 stridula, Cicada, Linnaeus, 1758 STRINGOCEPHALIDAE King, 1850 Stringocephalus Defrance, 1825 suhmi, Pentacheles, Bate, 1788 sulcatus, Gyrinus, Wiedemann, 1821 Tanagra Linnaeus, telarius, Acarus, Linnaeus, 1758 TERGIPEDIDAE Bergh, 1889 189, 327 Page 361 130 229 206 141 111 28 26 355 364 340 426 28 227 340 202 101 134 139 118 22 305 3 340 341 383 141 246 130, 419 131 111 341 159 438 438 111 242 83, 186 85, 107 36, 410 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Tergipes Cuvier, 1805 tergipes, Limax, Forskal, 1775 Terpne Hiibner, 1822 Tetrachila Hiibner, 1822 ee Tettigades Amyot & Serville, 1843 TETTIGADIDAE Distant, 1906 ... Tettigarcta White, 1845 TETTICARCTIDAE Distant, 1906 THAIDIDAE Suter, 1913 Thais Réding, 1798 oe Thalessa H. & A. Adams, 1853 Thia Leach, 1815 THIIDAE Dana, 1862 ee thomsoni, Dorhynchus, Thomson, 1873 Thunnus South, 1845 aut thynnus, Scomber, Linnaeus, 1758 ter: Tibicen Berthold, 1827 tibicen, Cancer, Herbst, 1791 TIBICENINAE Van Duzee, 1916 Tibicina Kolenati, 1857 TIBICINIDAE Distant, 1905 : tiliarium, Trombidium, Hermann, 1804 Tolema Iredale, 1929 ... ae tomentosa, Tettigarcta, White, 1845 ts triangularis, Ambalodus, Branson & Mehl, 1933 ... triangulum, Coluber, Lacepede, 1788 tribulus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767 Tribunophora Hiibner, 1822 Ba TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853 tricolor, Eubranchus, Forbes, 1838 ... tridentata, Anomia, Forskal, 1775 trimaculatus, Philopotamus, Stephens, 1834 Trinchesia Ihering, 1879 Tritonia Fleming, 1828 tritonis, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 Trophon Montfort, 1810 Trunculariopsis Cossmann, 1921 trunculus, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 turcicus, Laemophloeus, Grouvelle, 1876 Uca [Leach, 1814] 467 Page 35, 85, 40, 410 35 74 74 159 155 159 156 236 236 425 28 28 341 442 442 154 341 154 155 154 107 426 160 310 392 208 75 342 412 45 24 410 237 237 424 424 423 375 339 468 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page urticae, Tetranychus, Koch, 1836... a aes aan ate at ...85, 107 variabilis, Nomia, Friese, 1909 ee eae abe 5a wee ie LF. aeell49 venusta, Lepidopa, Stimpson, 1859 ... mas ae soe a ae atk 28 verrucosus, Cancer, Forskal, 1775 ... se ae ae Pt big ees 9 | verrucosa, Eolidia, Sars, 1829 ee ot ae aa Fae ra ceoneye ol violacea, Porcellana, Guérin, 1829 ... oe ce ae AeA aie .. 108 viridula, Galvina, Bergh, 1874 sae oe Haz uae fe ae i 40 Xaiva Macleay, 1838 oe ace a. sae ae Bee “ie sieye 4389) Xanthia Ochsenheimer, 1816 aS Hee Age a aes oe = 75 Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807 ... ae: ae Sus be ~cay ph A XENOPHORIDAE Philippi, 1853 oe one sath aie pee seis ee nyt 7/ Xymene Iredale, 1915 ae Sec Nh aa is, a Aa ..- 426 Yoldia Moller, 1842 ... ad ae 43 a a op ee 127, 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 469 NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 21 Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Acanthonyx Latreille, 1827 Achaeopsis Stimpson, 1857 Achaeus Leach, 1817 Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 Anamathia Smith, 1885 Anapagurus Henderson, 1886 Atelecyclus [Leach, 1814] Axius Leach, 1815 Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829 Blissus Burmeister, 1835 Brachynotus De Haan, [1833] Calappa Weber, 1795 Calcinus Dana, 1851 Callinectes Stimpson, 1860 Calocaris Bell, 1846 Catapaguroides A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846 Charybdis De Haan, [1833] Clibanarius Dana, 1852 Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] Cymonomus A. Milne Edwards, 1880 Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904 Dendroaspis Schlegel, 1848 Dorhynchus Thomson, 1873 Dorippe Weber, 1795 Doto Oken, 1815 Dromia Weber, 1795 Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900 Enhydrus Laporte, 1834 Ergasticus Studer, 1883 Eriphia Latreille, 1817 Ethusa Roux, 1830 Eurynome [Leach, 1814] Harpilius Dana, 1852 Helochares Mulsant, 1844 Herbstia H. Milne Edwards, 1834 Heterocrypta Stimpson, 1871 Heteropanope Stimpson, 1858 Ilia Leach, 1817 Involutina Terquem, 1862 Jaxea Nardo, 1847 Latreillia Roux, 1830 Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961 Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 Leucosia Weber, 1795 Lystrophis Cope, 1885 Medaeus Dana, 1851 Munida Leach, 1820 Munidopsis Whiteaves, 1874 Myra Leach, 1817 Nematopagurus A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 Notopus De Haan, [1841] Ocypode Weber, 1795 Ophiophagus Giinther, 1864 Pachygrapsus Randall, 1840 Paguristes Dana, 1851 Palicus Philippi, 1838 Paromola Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 Parthenope Weber, 1795 Petrolisthes Stimpson, 1858 Philotrypesis Forster, 1878 Philyra Leach, 1817 Phimophis Cope, 1860 Pilumnopeus A. Milne Edwards, 1867 Pisa [Leach, 1814] Pisidia Leach, 1820 Plagusia Latreille, 1804 Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844 470 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Porcellana Lamarck, 1801 Potamon Savigny, 1816 Protoreaster Doderlein, 1916 Pseudamussium MoOrch, 1853 Pterophorus Schaffer, 1766 Quinqueloculina @Orbigny, 1826 Richardina A. Milne Edwards, 1881 Rochinia A. Milne Edwards, 1875 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology aegypti, Culex, Linnaeus, 1762 affinis, Corixa, Leach, 1817 albiventer, Tesia, Hodgson, 1837 alveofrons, Dasiops, McAlpine, 1961 arenacea, Spirillina, Williamson, 1858 armata, Maja, Latreille, [1802-1803] asper, Cancer, Pennant, 1777 australiensis, Dromia, Haswell, 1882 biguttatus, Portunus, Risso, 1816 caricae, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1762 caronii, Cymopolia, Roux, 1830 caspius, Culex, Pallas, 1771 cassivelaunus, Cancer, Pennant, 1777 ceratophthalmus, Cancer, Pallas, 1772 clavatus, Oreaster, Miller & Troschel, 1842 clibanarius, Cancer, Herbst, 1791 clouei, Ergasticus, Studer, 1883 conchyliophorus, Trochus, Born, 1780 condyliatus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1787 coronata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 cranchii, Achaeus, Leach, 1817 craniolaris, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 crassipes, Pachygrapsus, Randall, 1840 curvirostra, Munidopsis, Whiteaves, 1874 cuvieri, Dorippe, Risso, 1816 depressus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775 dorbignyi, Heterodon, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 dormia, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1763 dorsipes, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 Saduria Adams, 1852 Simophis Peters, 1860 Stegomyia Theobald, 1901 Stereomastis Bate, 1888 Thia Leach, 1815 Uca [Leach, 1814] Xaiva Macleay, 1838 Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807 elegans, Latreillia, Roux, 1830 fasciata, Rana, Smith, 1849 feriatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 fluviatilis, Cancer, Herbst, 1785 fragilis, Melibaea, Forbes, 1838 frascone, Cancer, Herbst, 1785 fugax, Leucosia, Fabricius, 1798 glabra, Heteropanope, Stimpson, 1858 globus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775 gracilipes, Rochinia, A. Milne Edwards, 1875 granulata, Cryptopodia, Gibbes, 1850 granulatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 grayi, Rana, Smith, 1849 guerini, Rhinosimus, Duméril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854 guianensis, Heterodon, Troschel, 1848 hannah, Naja, Cantor, 1836 hirtulus, Blissus, Burmeister, 1835 hirtus, Paguristes, Dana, 1851 horridus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 infimus, Orbis, Strickland, 1846 jamesonii, Elaps, Traill, 1843 laevis, Pagurus, Bell, 1845 lanatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767 leucopterus, Lygaeus, Say, 1832 liassicus, Nummulites, Jones, 1853 lividus, Dytiscus, Forster, 1771 longicornis, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767 longicornis, Nematopagurus, A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 471 longimanus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 lutescens, Harpilius, Dana, 1852 macandrae, Calocaris, Bell, 1846 major, Cancer vocans, Herbst, 1782 mascarone, Cancer, Herbst, 1785 microps, Catapaguroides, A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 nigrum, Scytale neuwiedii var., Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 nocturna, Jaxea, Nardo, 1847 nodipes, Pisa, Leach, 1815 nodosa, Asterias, Linnaeus, 1758 nucleus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 nuttalli, Cerostoma, Conrad, 1837 ornatus, Medaeus, Dana, 1852 pentadactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 personatus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 platycheles, Cancer, Pennant, 1777 potamios, Cancer, Olivier, 1803-1804 psenes, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1758 quadratus, Cymonomus, A. Milne Edwards, 1880 rhinostoma, Heterodon, Schlegel, 1837 rissoana, Amathia, Roux, 1828 rotundatus, Cancer, Olivi, 1792 rugosus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1775 sapidus, Callinectes, Rathbun, 1896 sculptus, Polycheles, Smith, 1880 scutellata, Hippa, Fabricius, 1793 seminulum, Serpula, Linnaeus, 1758 septemradiatus, Pecten, Miiller, 1776 serratifrons, Ozius, Kinahan, 1858 servatus, Lepidophthalmus, Fage, 1924 sexdentatus, Goneplex, Risso, 1827 silicea, Involutina, Terquem, 1862 solenoides, Ceratiocaris, M’Coy, 1849 spinicincta, Richardina, A. Milne Edwards, 1881 spinulosus, Achaeopsis, Stimpson, 1857 stirhynchus, Axius, Leach, 1815 suhmi, Pentacheles, Bate, 1878 sulcatus, Gyrinus, Wiedemann, 1821 thomsoni, Dorhynchus, Thomson, 1873 tibicen, Cancer, Herbst, 1791 trimaculatus, Philopotamus, Curtis, 1834 venusta, Lepidopa, Stimpson, 1859 verrucosus, Cancer, Forskal, 1775 violacea, Porcellana, Guérin, 1829 Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology AMMODISCINAE Reuss, 1862 ATELECYCLIDAE Ortmann, 1893 AXIIDAE Huxley, 1897 BLISSINAE Stal, 1862 CALAPPIDAE De Haan, [1833] CERATIOCARIDIDAE Salter, 1860 CORYSTIDAE Samouelle, 1819 DORIPPIDAE De Haan, [1841] DOTIDAE Gray, 1853 DROMIIDAE De Haan, [1833] ILIINAE Stimpson, 1870 LATREILLIIDAE Stimpson, 1858 LEPIDOMYSIDAE Clarke, 1861 LEUCOSIIDAE Samouelle, 1819 OCYPODIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 PALICIDAE Rathbun, 1898 PARTHENOPIDAE Macleay, 1838 PHASMATIDAE Gray, 1835 PISINAE Dana, 1852 PLAGUSIINAE Dana, 1851 PORCELLANIDAE Haworth, 1825 POTAMIDAE Ortmann, 1896 PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893 PTEROPHORIDAE Zeller, 1841 QUINQUELOCULININAE Cushman, 1817 THIIDAE Dana, 1862 TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853 XENOPHORIDAE Philippi, 1853 472 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Acanthonyx Hampson, 1902 Amathia Roux, 1828 Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 Axius Mulsant, 1850 Brachynotus Kirby, 1837 Calappa Fabricius, 1798 Cerastoma Troschel, 1838 Cerostoma Conrad, 1837 Charybdis Cocco, 1832 Clibanarius Gozis, 1882 Cymopolia Roux, 1830 Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 Dorippe Fabricius, 1798 Dorynchus Thomson, 1873 Dota Gray, 1840 Dotilla Bergh, 1879 Doto Oken, 1817 Dotona Iredale, 1918 Dotona Rafinesque, 1815 Dromia Fabricius, 1798 Enhydrus Dahl, 1823 Enhydrus MacLeay, 1825 Enhydrus Rafinesque, 1815 Epinectes Régimbart, 1877 Epinectus Dejean, 1833 Eriphia Meigen, 1826 Eriphia Herrich-Schaeffer, 1850-1856 Eriphia Chambers, 1875 Eriphis Latreille, 1817 Eryoneicus Bate, 1882 Eryonicus Faxon, 1893 Euryala Weber, 1795 Eurynoma Latreille, 1829 Eurynome Rafinesque, 1815 Eurynome Chambers, 1875 Eurynone De Haan, [1839] Frumentarium Fichtel & Moll, 1798 Goniosoma A. Milne Edwards, 1860 Helophilus Mulsant, 1844 Helophygas Motschoulsky, 1853 Herbstia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1851 Ilia Hartmann, 1881 Lambrus Leach, 1815 Latreillia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 Lepidophthalmus Fage, 1924 Lepidops Miers, 1878 Lepidops Stimpson, 1860 Lepidops Zimmer, 1927 Leucosia Fabricius, 1798 Leucosia Rambur, 1866 Leucosia Dybowski, 1875 Leucosides Rathbun, 1897 Melibaea Forbes, 1838 Meliboea Forbes, 1838 Mesidotea Richardson, 1905 Microura Goudl, 1837 Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763 Noto-gastropus Vosmaer, 1765 Numida Hope, 1851 Ocypoda Lamarck, 1801 Ocypode Fabricius, 1798 Palicus Stal, 1866 Parthenope Fabricius, 1793 Pentaceros Schroter, 1782 Philyra De Haan, [1833] Philyra Laporte, 1836 Plagusia Jarocki, 1822 Pollontes Montfort, 1808 Porcellana Bruguiére, 1792 Porcellana Linck, 1783 Porcellana Meuschen, 1787 Porcellana Statius Miiller, 1766 Prothydrus Guignot, 1954 Purpura Martyn, 1784 Rhinaspis Fitzinger, 1843 Rhinosimus Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéril, 1854 Rhinosiphon Fitzinger, 1843 Rhinostoma Fitzinger, 1826 Uca Latreille, 1819 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 473 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology alveofrons, Dasiops, Moffitt & Yaruss, histrianus, Cancer, Nardo, 1869 1561 ; histrio, Cancer, Herbst, 1796 atomaria, Sigara, alee, 1807 istrianus, Cancer, Scopoli, 1763 caputmortuum, Dromia, H. Milne lanata, Arctopsis, Lamarck, 1801 Edwards, 1837 dentata, Hippa, Fabricius, 1793 linnaeana, Pisidia, Leach, 1820 diacantha, Portunus, Latreille, 1825 nasua, Vipera, Wagler, 1830 dromia, Cancer, Fabricius, 1781 proboscidea, Rhinostoma, Fitzinger, 1826 fasciata, Rana, Burchell, 1824 proboscidea, Rhinostoma (Rhinaspis), i Fitzinger, 184 fasciata, Rana, all uses prior to that by itzinger. 3 Smith, 1849 sexdentatus, Cancer, Herbst, 1783 globosus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1787 stirynchus, Axius, Leach, 1815 globulosa, Leucosia, Bosc, 1801-1802 tribulus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767 heterochelos, Ocypoda, Lamarck, 1801 tridens, Cancer, Herbst, 1790 hexapus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767 tridens, Cancer, Fabricius, 1798 histriae, Cancer, Herbst, 1783 una, Uca, [Leach, 1814] Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology AMMODISCINEA Reuss, 1862 EURYALIDAE Rathbun, 1910 BLISSIDA Stal, 1862 LATREILLIDAE Stimpson, 1858 CALAPPIDEA De Haan, [1833] LEPIDOPHTHALMIDAE Fage, 1924 CERATIOCARIDAE Salter, 1860 LEPIDOPIDAE Stammer, 1936 CYMOPOLIIDAE Faxon, 1895 DORIPPIDEA De Haan, [1841] DORIPPIENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837 DOTOIDAE Jeffrey, 1896 DOTONIDAE Gray, 1853 DROMIACEA De Haan, [1833] PLAGUSINAE Dana, 1851 DROMIENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837 PROTHYDRINAE Guignot, 1954 LEUCOSIADAE Samouelle, 1819 OCYPODIA Rafinesque, 1815 PARTHENOPINA Macleay, 1838 PHASMIDAE Gray, 1835 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature Dahl (G.) 1823. Coleoptera und Lepidoptera. Ein Systematisches Verzeichniss Linck, J. H. 1783-1787. Index Musaei Linkiani Morch, O. A. L., 1852-1853, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso D? Aguirra & Gadea Comes de Yoldi Schroter, J. S. 1782. Musei Gottwaldiani testaceorum, stellarum marinarum et coralliorum quae supersunt tabulae. Statius Miiller, P. L. 1766. Deliciae Naturae selectae 474 page page page page page page page page page 109. page 112. page 158. page 159. page 211. page 213. page 213. page 213. page 218. page 219. page 340. page 348. page 350. 26. pag 29: 33. 33. 81. 94. 98. page 108. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CORRIGENDA Ruling (5) line 1: substitute “ 1917 ” for “ 1817” Line 14: substitute “ 1917 ” for “1817” Line 3 from bottom: substitute “312 ” for “ 213 ” Ruling (2) line 1: substitute “‘ Hodgson ”’ for “‘ Hogdson ”’ Ruling (2) line 2: substitute “ 1837 ” for ‘‘ 1844 ” Line 11 from bottom: substitute “ Holthuis ” for “ Holhuis ” Ruling (3)(b) line 1: substitute ‘‘ 1798 ” for “ 1793 ” Ruling (6)(b) line 1: substitute ‘‘ 1869 ” for “ 1896 ” Ruling (2)(a) line 2: substitute ‘‘ 1829 ” for “ 1820” Line 9 from bottom: substitute “ 177 ” for “179 ” Line 10: substitute “‘ 346 ” for “ 246” Line 15: substitute “* 1954 ” for “‘ 1956” Line 7: substitute ‘* mis-spelling of ’’ for ‘‘ mis-spelling to ”’ Line 5: substitute ‘‘ Elaps’”’ for ‘‘ Elas”’ Line 17: substitute “ @e%¢” for “ Oeno” Line 20: substitute ‘‘ od” for “ov” Line 22: substitute “ etéov” for “ éotéov ” Line 12 from bottom: substitute “‘ our ”’ for “‘ your” Last line: substitute ‘‘ Cercops”’ for ‘‘ Cerdps”” Ruling (3)(hh), line 1: substitute “‘ Goneplax”’ for ““ Goneplex” Line 21: substitute “‘(7)13: 209” for “‘(7)1: 209” Lines 5 and 6 from bottom: substitute ‘‘ Dana, 1852, Amer. J. Sci. Arts (2)13 : 122” for “‘ Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 234” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 475 PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED PARTS IN Part No. nO nA & WY NY — Contents of Part (pages) 1-80 81-160 161-240 241-320 321-400 401-476 T.P.-XII Date of Publication 25th March 1964 23rd April 1964 7th August 1964 16th October 1964 26th November 1964 31st December 1964 476 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS The present volume should be bound up as follows: T.P.—XII, 1-476 Note: The wrappers (covers) of the six parts should be bound in at the end of the volume. 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, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant: Margaret Doyle, 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) An appreciation of the late Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., for many years Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature... International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ‘Financial Report 1963 Opinions Opinion 715 (XENOPHORIDAE Philippi, 1853) Opinion 716 (PHASMATIDAE Gray, 1835) New Cases Six misidentified type-species in the superfamily MURICACEA (A. Myra Keen) Cotinis Burmeister, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed conservation under the plenary powers (Michael A. Goodrich) “ Mytilus (now Anodonta) anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): Proposed designation of a neotype in conformity with the intentions of its entry on the Official List (Henning Lemche) Me Martinia inflata (Schnur, 1854) (Brachiopoda): Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names (U. Jux & F. Strauch) .. Stringocephalus Defrance, 1825 (Brachiopoda): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers (Raymond C. Moore) Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed interpreta- tion under the plenary powers (D. G. Kissinger) : Thunnus South, 1845 (Pisces): Proposed validation under the. plenary powers (Bruce B. Collette & Robert H. Gibbs, Jr.) . Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792; Application to validate this nomen oblitum for the Indian Ocean Sailfish (Genus Jstiophorus) (P. J. P. Whitehead) sis Turritella kanieriensis G. F. Harris, "1897 (Mollusca): Proposed designa- tion of a type-specimen under the plenary powers Var K. Dell, C. A. Fleming, J. Marwick & A. W. B. Powell) ES 402 405 417 420 447 CONTENTS ~ (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Comments on the possible use of the plenary powers and other recom- mendations to the Commission by Dr. oe Lemche (Robert Burns) Comment on the proposed use 2 of the plenary powers to grant precedence to the family-group name CUTHONIDAE Over TERGIPEDIDAE and to stabilise some specific names in the genus known as Eubranchus Forbes 1838 (David Heppell) 5 Comment on the proposed designation under the plenary powers of a a type-species for Eubranchus Forbes, 1838, with suppression of several nomina dubia (David Heppell) . os Comments on the proposed emendation under the plenary powers to Cavolinia of Cavolina ie aioe 1791 (David Heppell; A. Myra Keen) Comment on the proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name Cratena Bergh, 1864, in order to validate the generic name Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877 (David Heppell) On the appeal to suppress Leptocorixa in favour of Leptocorisa (Carl W. Schaefer) aa Comments on the proposed ‘validation of Cardinalis Bonaparte 1838 (Walter Bock; Jean Dorst; B. P. Hall) Comment on the proposed Ruling on the type-species of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 (Richard E. Grant) ay Concerning the use of Anodonta anatina (Linnaeus) (Bengt Hubendick & Henrik W. Waldén) 5 Ve a5 se Ss Indexes Index to Authors List of Decisions in this Volume: Index to Key Names . : Names placed on Official Lists and ‘Indexes in Decisions published i in Volume 21 bee le AS: so Corrigenda © 1964. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 410 410 412 414 415 416 416 419 435 451 453 454 469 474 re may F * F g% ; To 4ci he teh , Nt —— ~< , ; = r ~ : ¢ _ ~ : — * a : ‘ q * * - a , ° -. . - ‘ < « % ~ .- pete teee peieee TSIEN SSE estar iret st terete eres peer rs tert erste ees ras Prerrer esses SSTSTSTF 32 eoees Lee tetet eo teeret ee per ee seeess