4 ih i KN} i Hit ny ‘ , Stitt aaa rie? : By beatae Mita THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 33 LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 1977 (All rights reserved) ‘ sac aninnibeesihs 2S = ae Comments on the proposal to validate Ag/aja Renier, 1807 and AGLAJIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Mollusca). By W.O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) and Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15,2100 Copenhagen K, Denmark) ............. Comment on the proposed ruling on the authorship of Conus moluccensis (Mollusca: Gastropoda). By Alan J. Kohn (Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 96195,U: S.A iupaeentatee On ate ae et OR Reply to comments on the proposal to conserve Liparthrum Wollaston, 1864 (Coleoptera: SCOLYTIDAE). By Stephen L. Wood (Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo slitah> USA GAL Aad « oBBE TOA By nee ery. 8 Comments on the proposed suppression of Rhiniodon Smith, 1828 (Pisces). By R.K. Brooke (Durban Museum, Smith Street, Durban 4001, R.S.A.) and A.J. Bass (Oceanographic Research Institute, PaO. bOx7 30, DUAN 4000: FUSS) 2.25. meals wieve bee tl. » Sep iaetenie Comment on the proposal concerning Po/lydrusus Germar, 1817 and Phyllobius Germar, 1824 (Coleoptera). By Elwood C, Zimmerman (CSIRO Division of Entomology, Canberra City, AGA 2601 HAUST alia), — AERO ethic GA ico ped PRE, A Comment supporting application for Opinion and Declaration that species-group names with unlatinized Greek adjectival endings are indeclinable, and proposal to modify language of proposed Declaration. By E. Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.) Reply by R.K. Brooke (Durban Museum, Smith Street, Durban 4001, R.S.A.) ...........-. Additional facts in the case of Pharopteryx benoit Ruppell, 1852 (Pisces). By E. Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, jet2nGenoa;wtaly) Path Oi ARGS... RE RGR. JO, SR, Comment on the proposals concerning Notozus Forster, 1853 (Hymenoptera: CHRYSIDIDAE). By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) Replies by J.T. Huber (University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada) and D.S. Peters (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Senckenberganlage 25, 6 Framitent=nh, GEMBny) es SOseOl Oh. is SOIR. LORE... 23s II] Page IV Opinion 1055. Gryl/lus hieroglyphicus Johannes Mueller (Physiologist), 1826 (Insecta: Orthoptera) suppressed under the plenaky:-POWeISS: jae¥t... 2. tebbeeh : teen Ae ekatiieal .baaie Opinion 1056. Eudyptes atratus Finsch, 1875 ex Hutton MS (Aves) Suppressed\ under theiplenany powers. ;..0.......%....05..6.....5nee Opinion 1057. Donax variabilis Schumacher, 1817 (Mollusca: Bivalvia) Suppressed under the plenary powers: type-species designated for Latona Schumacher, 1817 .....................4-. Opinion 1058. Papilio actaeon Fabricius. 1775 (Lepidoptera): suppressed under the plenary powers ....................0.0000- Opinion 1059. Calamopora Goldfuss, 1829, (Anthozoa, Tabulata): Suppressed under the plenary powers ..................-...eee0- Opinion 1060. Diomedea_ leptorhyncha Coues, 1866 (Aves): suppressed under the plenary powers ...................22-000-e Opinion 1061. Homoceras Hyatt, 1884 (Cephalopoda): designation Ol type-SpediessrneD .aweutwric’s..c2ureonon Jssoaore. edi.00. fas Opinion 1062. Anobium Fabricius, 1775; Grynobius Thomson, 1859; Priobium Motschulsky, 1845 (Coleoptera): designation of type-species under the plenary powers ...................--0000- Opinion 1063. Lechriodus Boulenger, 1882 (Amphibia Salientia): designation’of typesepeciespeiemk) .oacscee cS So... dolla Opinion 1064. Ptenura Templeton, 1844: crystallina, Podura, Muller, 1776 (Collembola): suppressed under the _ plenary POW . jean Aree ceateorees. Jo. at .edl..ci .gtoe!. fee Revived proposals for stabilizing names in the Tipula oleracea species-group (Diptera: TIPULIDAE). By A.M. Hutson, R.I. Vane-Wright and P.S. Cranston (British Museum (Natural History), London SWMSED. ..&..). UE. . {2ST . ooteaem Request for the determination of the generic names of the Baboon and the Mandrill (Mammalia: Primates, CERCOPITHECIDAE). By E. Delson (Department of Anthropology, Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, New York 10486, U.S.A.) and P.H. Napier (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London, SW75BD, England) .......... 11 16 19 22 24 27 31 34 39 Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846 (Crustacea: Ostracoda): request for the designation of a type-species and neotype designation for that species under the plenary powers. By David J. Siveter and P.C. Sylvester-Bradley (Department of Geology, University of Pelocaten, Le Gesler ENnglangy) tcc. ee. ek es ee Reply to Dr. Krombein’s comment on proposed suppression of Euplilis Risso, 1826 (Hymenoptera, SPHECIDAE) in favour of Rhopalum Stephens, 1829. By R.M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, California 95616, U.S.A.) and A.S. Menke (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., clo U-.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) .............. Comment on application for a ruling on the availability of five specific names proposed as new for the genus Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 (Nematoda) in “A Preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examination”. By B.A. Cooper, 1955. By Russell M. Jeffords (8002 Beverly Hill, mBUStON, Texas'7 7063, \USSIA. ) Oe eS LEO ene Comment on the proposed suppression of Rhiniodon Smith, 1828, in favour of Rhincodon Smith, 1829. By Carl L. Hubbs (Professor of Biology Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California’ 92093, U.S.A.; retired member of the Commission), Leonard J.V. Compagno (Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, U.S.A.) and W.I. Follett (Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, Gaitornte 947 TR: US AL yi ES Ee 1 Pe DO SVR Oe Comments on the application concerning Notozus Forster, 1853. By W.J. Pulawski (Wroclaw University, Poland) and R.M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, California 95616, WU. SIA) ee.. c ae Comment on the proposed validation of Halecium Oken, 1815. By H. Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen, Denmark) and reply by Dr. Camelius Orso cages ct. OE in Bak: RM gin eT Request for suppression and validation of names related to the ELAPIDAE (Reptilia: | Serpentes). By Hobart M. Smith and Rozella B. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 11h ey bai allie tpl albeit. iacadass i lnadousbhinerdeneed Mad hn 61 68 69 70 71 72 73 Vi The Family-group name of the Leaf-eating Monkeys (Mammalia, Primates): proposal to give COLOBIDAE Blyth, 1875, precedence over SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843, and PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825. By Eric Delson (Department of Anthropology, Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, NEW Yorm/ 10466. Mea) 8... we cc ee vcacicace Loe Xiphiurus Smith, 1847, proposed suppression in favour of Genypterus Philippi, 1857 (Pisces, OPHIDIIDAE), By C Richard Robins and Robert N. Lea (Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, 1) IE SRI 2 aI iy oo Se a fo: TRON FY ap re International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature - Financial Report INCE SSS TI eC So al daha. neste Should microform methods be accepted as valid methods of publication under the code? By R.V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ........... Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda): proposed deisignation of type-species under the plenary powers. By R.V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on _ Zoological LTT cl UPL | 8 bo OSA VA 2A SE Seam a a a Rg NT International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature - Financial Report ON RUE ee a walt nadia = # ie a vies TU Proposed conservation of the Family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1899 (Insecta, Homoptera) and the designation of a type-species for Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868 under the plenary powers. By Douglass R. Miller (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service, U.S.D.A., Beltsville, Md.) and D.J. Williams (Commonwealth Institute of pie tet GV ST Ts | Oe aa ee re eae). a ae ene Tanystropheus H. von Meyer [1852] (Reptilia): revised request for conservation under the plenary powers. By Rupert Wild (Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde, Arsenalplatz 3, 7140 PUIG SOUP NOOO Neg: «ex sathcnansnnesissn spe cdlnh lads Praliesnapatscis, nus sucess Application for the suppression of the name Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896 (Marsupialia, DASYURIDAE): By M. Archer (Queens/and Museum, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) .... Obituary: ;HithvandiBosehmea (sleds. SiH SOE. Brgtonds scngSencuschnandeeerenvases aaa Comment on the proposal concerning Polydrusus Germar, 1817 and Phyllobius Germar, 1824 (Coleoptera) (E.C. Zimmermann) ...... Comment supporting application for Opinion and Declaration that species-group names with unlatinized Greek adjectival endings are indeclinable, and proposal to modify language of proposed Declaration. (E. Eisenmann) Reply by R.K. Brooke................ Additional facts in the case of Pharopteryx benoit Ruppell, 1852 (PisGees Ce. FORMENESED ees vdenta coegaeemenee sucks sued sndiacek eae Comment on the proposals concerning Notozus Forster, 1853 (Hymenoptera: CHRYSIDIDAE) (L.B. Holthuis) ..... Replies by Dr Ber And BES. PGINS 6. ceca ee wees sc Discuss vecccorite dulecsanteeeeeee © 1976. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Page 39 46 61 Printed in England by Norman Carter at 11 Broad Street, Teddington, Middlesex. ISSN 0007-5167 Volume 33, Part 2 pp. 65-128 30TH SEPTEMBER 1976 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOME NCLAT URE 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 ..................00.e0eeees 65 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 65 List of new applications (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 c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 1976 Price Four Pounds - (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (Australian Biological Resources Study Interim Council, P.O. Box 449, Woden, A.C.T. 2606, Australia) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) Secretary: Mr. R.V. Melville (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (30 January 1968) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02138, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Ornithology; Evolution Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Germany) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. WD.L. RIDE (Australian Biological Resources Study Interim Courcil. °O Box 449 Woden, A.C.T. 2606, Australia) (28 August 1963) (President) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C., 20560, U.S.A. ) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Diptera; Systematics Professor George Gaylord SIMPSON (The Simroe Foundation, 5151 E. Holmes Street, Tucson, Arizona 85711, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Mammalia Dr. Eugene EISENMANN (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, U.S.A.) (30 January 1968) Ornithology Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (30 January 1968) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.1. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea Professor F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics Dr. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972) Protozoa; Systematics Prof. Dr. H.K. ERBEN (/nstitut fiir Palaontologie, Universitat Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 February 1972) Invertebrate Palaeontology Professor T. HABE (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) Mollusca Dr. |1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (20 February 1972) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (/nstituto Miguel Lillo, S.M. de Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. B.B. ROHDENDORF (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow V-71, U.S.S.R.) (21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale 16121, Genova, Italy) (30 September 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution 22362, Lund, Sweden) (30 September 1972) Arthropoda, Ecology Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum 2100, Copenhagen V, Denmark) (30 September 1972) Opisthobranchi a; Phylogeny Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departmento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea, Asteroidea Professor E. BINDER(Muséum qd’ Histoire Naturelle, 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) (30 September 1972). Mollusca Professor Harold E. VOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972).Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972). (Vice-President) Crustacea (continued Inside back wrapper) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 33, part 2 (pp. 65-128) 30th September, 1976 NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the Commission may start 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 Bul//etin [that marked with an asterisk involves the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b]: (1) ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827 (Reptilia; Serpenies), suppression and valid- ation of names related to. Z.N.(S.) 2128. (2) COLOBIDAE Blyth, 1875 (Mammalia; Primates), proposal to give precedence to, over SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843 and PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825. Z.N.(S.) 2094. (3) Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda), proposed designation of type-species for. Z.N.(S.)83. (4) ERIOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1899, proposed conservation of, and Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868, proposed designation of type- species for (Insecta; Homoptera). Z.N.(S.)2140. (5) Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852], (Reptilia) proposed conserv- ation of. Z.N.(S.) 2084 (6) Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896 (Marsupialia; DASYURIDAE), proposed suppression of. Z.N.(S.) 2080. *(7) Genypterus Philippi, 1857 (Pisces), proposed conservation of. Z.N.(S.) 2126. 66 (c) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 33(1) in June 1976. Those marked with an asterisk involve © the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b. *(1) (2) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) *(14 ~— (15) (16) *(17) *(18) *(19) Siphonophora Brandt, 1837 (Diplopoda), proposed conservation. . Z.N.(S.) 2168. (C.A.W. Jeekel) Phrynus Lamarck, 1801 (Amblypygi), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2169. (D. Quintero) Pieris napi microstriata Comstock, 1925 (Lepidoptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2170. (A.M. Shapiro) Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida), proposed designation of type- species. Z.N.(S.)2171. (S. Conway Morris) Hippothoa expansa Dawson, 1859 (Polyzoa), proposed conservation. | Z.N.(S.) 2172. (Anna B. Hastings) Toxorhynchites brevipalpis Theobald, 1901 (Diptera, CULICIDAE) — (Official List of Specific Names No. 1615), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2173. (G.B. White) Chlorophis carinatus Andersson, 1901 (Reptilia, Serpentes) to be given precedence over Philothamnus nigrofasciatus Buchholz & Peters, 1875. Z.N.(S.)2174. (B. Hughes) Papilio lintingensis Osbeck, 1765 (Lepidoptera), proposed suppress- ion. Z.N.(S.)2175. (F. Hemming) : Papilio hylax Fabricius, 1775: (Lepidoptera), proposed suppression. Z.N.(S.) 2176. (F. Hemming & N.D. Riley) Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886 (Stromatoporoidea), type- specimen of type-species. Z.N.(S.)2177. (J. St. Jean) Nomioides Schenck, 1866 (Hymenoptera), proposed designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.)2178. (Y.A. Pesenko and 1|.M. Kerzhner) Acanthocinus Megerle in Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera), proposed designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2179. (R.C. Marinoni) Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 (Coleoptera), proposed designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.)2180. (R.C. Marinoni) Erythroculter Berg, 1909, and Culter ilishaeformis Bleeker, 1871 (Pisces), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2181. (P.M. Banarescu) The status of microform as publication. Z.N.(S.)2182. (Secretary) Sebastocles Jordan & Hubbs, 1925 (Pisces), proposed designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.)2183. (Lo-chai Chen) Sebastodes ruberrimus Cramer, 1895 (Pisces), proposed conserv- ation. Z.N.(S.)2184. (Lo-chai Chen) Neomenia Tullberg, 1875 and Solenopus dalyelli Koren & Danielssen, 1877 (Mollusca, Solenogastres), proposed conserv- ation. Z.N.(S.) 2185. (D. Heppell) PIERIDAE Duponchel, [1835] (Official List of Family-Group Names No. 206), proposed precedence over COLIADINAE Swainson, 1827 (Official List of Family-Group Names No. 227) (Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2186. (C.F. Cowan) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 (20) Family-group names in butterflies. Z.N.(S.) 2187. (C.F. Cowan) (21) Annularia Schumacher, 1817 (Gastropoda), type-species of; and associated family-group name problems. Z.N.(S.)2188. (F.G. Thompson) (22) Calymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita), proposed neotype designation. Z.N.(S.) 2189. (R.P. Tripp, J.T. Temple and K.C. Gass) (23) Acidaspis coronatus Salter, 1853 (Trilobita), Proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2190. (A.T. Thomas) c/o British Museum (Natural History) R.V. MELVILLE Cromwell Road Secretary LONDON SW7 5BD, U.K. International Commission on August 1976 Zoological Nomenclature 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPLY TO DR KROMBEIN’S COMMENT ON OUR PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS EUPLILIS RISSO, 1826. Z.N.(S.) 2056 By R.M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, California 95616, U.S.A.) and A.S. Menke (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) We accept the factual evidence produced by Dr Krombein for additional usage of Euplilis; however, we had assumed that the two supplements of his Synoptic Catalog of the Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico were implied in our petition when we cited the primary 1951 reference to the work. We did not give examples of usage of Rhopa/um of the Muesebeck, 1963, and Bugbee, 1962, variety cited by Dr Krombein because we were concerned mainly with the important taxonomic literature, but certainly Rhopa/um has been used many times in these kinds of papers. For example, a cursory examination of some recent literature reveals that Lomholdt (1973) gave biological data for Rhopalum nigrinum Kiesenwetter, that Gauss (1970) discussed some parasites of Rhopalum clavipes (L.), and that Danks (1971) provided considerable ethological data for the same species. Clearly Rhopalum has been used more often in major works than Euplilis. In fact, the name has just been used by Lomholdt (1975, 1976) in an important book-length treatise in which the species of Rhopa/um are keyed. Furthermore, Tsuneki (1974) has described two new species- group taxa in Rhopalum, and Marshakov (1975) used the name Rhopalum in his key to the genera of the Crabronini of the U.S.S.R. We adopted the name Rhopa/um in our book “Sphecid Wasps of the World, a Generic Revision” which appeared in April, 1976. This work is a comprehensive systematic and biological treatment of the family, with synonymic checklists for all species and a synonymic generic catalog. Hence, it should compete well with — Krombein’s forthcoming catalog as the authoritative source for information on the SPHECIDAE. In fact, Dr Krombein has adopted for the most part our basic generic scheme in his new catalog. Dr Krombein’s statement that Euplilis is already “in the computer” is not a strong argument in favour of retaining it, for one of the advantages of computerization of the Hymenoptera Catalog is the ease with which changes can, and in fact have been made, and new material incorporated. We still maintain that the consensus of usage and opinion among sphecid workers is in favour of Rhopalum. LITERATURE CITED DANKS, H.V., 1971. Biology of some stem-nesting aculeate Hymenoptera. Trans. Roy. Ent. Soc. London. vol. 122: 323-399. GAUSS, R., 1970 Beitrag zur. Kenntnis von Parasitoiden bei aculeaten Hymenopteren. Zeitschr. Angew. Ent. vol. 65: 239-244. LOMHOLDOT, O., 1973. New and rare Hymenoptera aculeata from Denmark. Ent. Meddr. vol. 41: 105-114. : : 1975, 1976. The Sphecidae of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Ent. Scand., vol. 4. MARSHAKOV, V.G., 1975. A review of the genera of the Tribe Crabronini from the U.S.S.R. The genus Lestica Billberg, 1820. Rev. Ent. U.S.S.R. vol 54: 151-163. TSUNEKI, K., 1974. Sphecidae from Korea. Ann. Hist.-Nat. Mus. Natl. Hungarici vol. 66: 359-387. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September, 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 COMMENT ON APPLICATION FOR A RULING ON THE AVAILABILITY OF FIVE SPECIFIC NAMES PROPOSED AS NEW FOR THE GENUS HETERODERA A. SCHMIDT, 1871 (NEMATODA) IN “A PRELIMINARY KEY TO BRITISH SPECIES OF HETERODERA FOR USE IN SOIL EXAMINATION” BY B.A. COOPER, 1955. Z.N.(S.) 2066 (See vol. 31: 225-227; 32: 207-208) By Russell M. Jeffords (8002 Beverly Hill, Houston, Texas 77063, U.S.A.) From information provided in the application and subsequent comment (but without personal examination of Cooper, 1955, or familiarity with nematode systematics or literature), | record my support for rejection of all the original appeal. 2. The possibly conditional nature of the original proposal of the names in 1955 is not pertinent under the present Code. 3. The editorial (not author) opinion as to the lack of nomenclatural status for the names constitutes only one observer's evaluation that provides no clue as to whether that observer was applying Code provisions accurately, etc. As a sometime editor, | feel justified in pointing out that the use of quotes on Cooper’s newly named species may well not reflect the author's opinion but rather represent an editorial insertion that accords with editorial interpretation recorded in the footnote. 4. It was and is not uncommon for an author to include previously unpublished names in a report intended for practical “application” along with meager descriptions and other data and to indicate his intent (only partly realized commonly) to supply the full details later. He seems, thereby, to indicate his recognition of the relative inadequate subjective status of the newly proposed taxa but does not necessarily provide any indication as to his evaluation of their objective nomenclatural status. Availability under the Code for such names published after 1930, however, surely rests not on what the author indicated as his plan but on whether requirements for availability (notably the statement of characters purporting to differentiate the taxon - Article 13a) are satisfied. From the original application and subsequent comment, | interpret that the key and incidental text mention by Cooper do provide at least minimal citation of one or more characters — this being adequate to satisfy the “purported” statement. The critical factor for objective nomenclatural analysis here seems to be the citation of at least one character (definitely not required by Article 13a is a description meeting the highest standards of descriptive work in the group). The subjective evaluation of the adequacy of this citation is entirely a different matter wherein the degree of compliance with conventional practices in the group may be critical. A clear and firm distinction between requirements (1) for objective nomenclatural availability and (2) for subjective zoological recognition and characterization needs to be maintained in nomenclatural discussions. Thus, the five species newly proposed by Cooper are deemed available from a nomenclatural standpoint, but all or several may also be judged now as having little subjective zoological significance. !f an author does not cite any characters, non-compliance with Article 13a (i) is obvious — if he merely cites one character or a few characters (regardless of their subjective value), who now can demonstrate that this is not what “purported” to differentiate the taxon? 5. The concept of non-applicability of the Code to (and consequently lack of availability for) “. . . names proposed for other than taxonomic use, .. .” (Art. 1; Sabrosky, 1972) has been raised in the original appeal but seemingly resolved adequately in the present case by the comment of Wouts and Andersson. The extent to which this particular Code provision is to be applied in specific examples, however, seems a matter of some considerable general importance; i.e., names otherwise qualified for availability may be rejected because of this Over-ruling requirement. Thus, it should be applied only where an author clearly and explicitly states or demonstrates within a publication that the names are not intended for taxonomic use, are not to be accepted as a part of formal zoological nomenclature under the Code, etc. It seems very wrong to exclude from availability (except under plenary powers) otherwise adequately proposed names on the basis of a tenuous assumption that the author proposed them for other than taxonomic use. An author's explicit statement that his use of names is not Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature for taxonomic purposes seems interpreted commonly as eliminating any chance for availability even though the names otherwise may satisfy Code requirements. If this interpretation is inaccurate, prompt clarification by the Commission is essential. 6. The original appeal includes the request to dec/are (without resorting to plenary powers) that the five names (i.e., bifenestra, limonii, methwoldensis, polygoni, and urticae) of Cooper (1955) are not available. Inasmuch as (1) no overwhelming need for such action has been demonstrated to warrant plenary action and (2) the names seem readily interpreted under the Code as nomenclaturally available, rejection of this request is suggested. 7. If the five names of Cooper are accepted as available (as suggested herein), then the reasons for the appeal for plenary action to suppress the name urticae of Pogosyan are destroyed. It seems rather a straight forward (albeit tedious) task to recognize the taxa proposed by Cooper using lectotypes or neotypes (evidently as done by Matthews, 1970), to make comparisons with other comparable taxa, to determine subjective synonyms, etc. This, then, would reveal the zoological relationships of taxa assigned to urticae by Pogosyan in 1962 and to bifenestra by Kiryanov and Krall in 1971. These subjective zoological aspects are a normal part of systematic study where interpretations are expressed in accordance with Code nomenclatural requirements. 8. References cited herein all are given in the original appeal by A.R. Stone or in the subsequent comment. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF RHINIODON SMITH, 1828, IN FAVOUR OF RHINCODON SMITH, 1829. Z.N.(S.)2090 (See vol. 32: 163-167) By Carl L. Hubbs (Professor of Biology Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California 92093, U.S.A.; retired member of the Commission), Leonard J.V. Compagno (Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, U.S.A.), and W.I. Follett (Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A.) We oppose the request of Drs Robins and Lea to suppress the valid name Rhiniodon Smith, 1828, in favour of the incorrect subsequent spelling Rhincodon Smith, 1829. As noted by Penrith (Copeia 1972: 362, 1972), the correct original spelling of this generic name is Rhiniodon (Smith, S. Afr. comml. Advtr vol. 3 (145): 2, 1828). The original description of the genus and species, as reproduced by Penrith, contains the significant words “Teeth small, ... so disposed ... as to exhibit the resemblance of a rasp or file” [emphasis added]. Thus, contrary to the statement of Drs Robins and Les, there is in the original description clear evidence that the generic name Rhiniodon is derived from the Greek words rhine (rasp or file’) + odous (odont) (“tooth”). Since the discovery by Penrith of the correct original spelling, Rhiniodon, that spelling has been used by Compagno (J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) vol. 53, suppl. 1: 28, 51, 1973), Smith (J.L.B. Smith Inst. Ichthyol. spec. Publ. 14: 12, 1975), Schwartz & Burgess (Sharks of North Carolina and adjacent waters, 3, 10, 12, 14, 34, 54, 1975) and Bass, D’Aubrey & Kistnasamy (Invest. Rep. oceanogr. Inst., Durban vol. 39: 50, 1975). The change to the misspelling Rhincodon first appeared in the publication which was formerly considered the original description of this genus, but which was in fact the second such description (Smith, Zool. J. vol. 4: 443, 1829). It omitted the resemblance of the teeth toa rasp or file. Smith’s 1829 change in the original spelling was not demonstrably intentional. Any change, not demonstrably intentional, in the original spelling of a name is an “incorrect subsequent spelling,” which has no status in nomenclature (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 33b). Bull. zool. Nomencli. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 71 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr E.W. Gudger, who was the foremost student of the whale shark, discussed the spelling Rhincodon as follows (Zoo/ogica, N.Y. vol. 1: 385, 1915): “It is true that the printer in England mistook Smith's ‘e’ for a‘c’, and Smith being at the Cape of Good Hope, this error was uncorrected. But since the derivation is rhine, file + odous (odont) tooth, it would be absurd to let the error stand, and hence the present writer has used what seems to him the correct terminology, Rhineodon typus.”. Among others who rejected the spelling Rhincodon as a misprint and who adopted the spelling Rhineodon were Jordan & Evermann (Stanford Univ. Publ., Univ. Ser.: 174, 1917), Jordan (Stanford Univ. Publ., Univ. Ser.: 244, 1919), Beebe & Tee-Van (Zoologica, N.Y. vol. 26:97, 1941), Herre (Res. Rep. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. vol. 20: 14, 1953), Chyung (Korean Fishes: 8, 1954), and Norman (Draft Synopsis of the Orders, Families and Genera of Recent Fishes and Fish-like Vertebrates: 10, 1966). Drs Robins and Lea could have presented stronger support for Rhineodon than for Rhincodon. During the past 50 years, the spelling Rhineodon appears to have had more extensive usage than Rhincodon: in a search (not exhaustive) of the literature of the past 50. years, we found 100 publications that used Rhineodon, but only 86 that used Rhincodon. The spelling Rhineodon, which has been used as recently as 1970, has had a much longer period of continual use; Rhincodon had apparently been used only seven times before the publication of Bigelow & Schroeder (Mem. Sears Fdn Mar. Res. vol. 1: 59, 1948). While both Rhineodon and Rhincodon are incorrect subsequent spellings, Rhincodon is also an erroneous spelling. The letter “c” in the spelling Rhincodon represents an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist’s or printers error. In contrast, Rhineodon is a precise transliteration from the Greek of Smith’s (1828) words “rasp or file’ + “tooth”. Since usage has varied so extensively, during the past 50 years, between Rhinodon, Rhincodon, and Rhineodon — which are merely different spellings of the same name — it would not disturb stability or universality, nor cause confusion, to retain the correct original spelling, Rhiniodon Smith, 1828. We therefore ask the Commission to: (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Rhiniodon Smith, 1828 (gender, masculine), type-species, by inclusion of a new species named typus, Rhiniodon typus Smith, 1828; (2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name typus, as published in the binomen Rhiniodon typus (specific name of the type-species of Rhiniodon Smith, 1828); (3) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group name RHINIODONTIDAE (correction, by the International Commision, of Rhinodontes Miller & Henle, 1839), type-genus, Rhiniodon Smith, 1828; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Rhincodon Smith, 1829, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Rhiniodon Smith, 1828; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following family-group names: (a) Rhinodontes Miller & Henle, 1839, the incorrect original spelling of RHINIODONTIDAE; (b) RHINCODONTIDAE Garman, 1913, an incorrect subsequent spelling of RHINIODONTIDAE Smith, 1828. COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING NOTOZUS FORSTER, 1853. Z.N.(S.) 2109 (see vol. 32: 181-187) (1) By W.J. Pulawski (Wroclaw University, Poland) The proposed suppression of the generic name E/Jampus Spinola, 1806 is based mainly on the fact that many writers have used it incorrectly for Oma/us Panzer. The argument is not Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature sufficient in my opinion, and the strict application of the Code is the best solution of the case. In fact Elampus must supersede Notozus Forster under the Law of Priority (if the type-species of the latter is designated accordingly). This synonymy implies other (mainly restored) combinations of names for the species now placed in Notozus; it does not lead to any confusion between species. Rejecting Elampus, on the other hand, would increase the number of exceptions to the Code. Such exceptions are very undesirable in my opinion, and their number should be kept as low as possible. | feel strongly that nomenclatural problems should be resolved by automatic rules. Otherwise we should have a set of individual cases, and the Code would lose most of its value. (2) By R.M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, California 95616 U.S.A.) | object to the replacement of Elampus Spinola, 1806 with Notozus, 1853, and on the whole it appears that Mr Huber’s arguments are weak. He suggests that the status of the name Elampus is vague since the originally included species were not all congeneric in modern terms. Since this circumstance was common in the nineteenth century, it carries little weight. The fact is that Latreilie’s 1810 designation of Chrysis panzeri Fabricius 1804 as the type-species of Elampus adequately defined the genus in the sense it has been used consistently in North America since 1939. There is no basis for Huber’ claim that “Elampus is essentially an unused or misused name..... * COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF HALECIUM OKEN, 1815. Z.N.(S.)2116 (see vol. 32: 252-254) By H. Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen, Denmark) The purpose of this application can be met simply by first validating (under the plenary powers) the generic name Hal/ecium as from Oken, 1815, and by then designating Sertularia halecina as type of Thoa - which would then become a junior objective synonym of Halecium and need no further treatment. If that course were adopted, then the applicant’s proposal (1) (b) could be deleted. Reply by Dr Cornelius It seems that Dr Lemche’s ingenious formula is perfectly adequate. | therefore designate Sertularia halecina Linnaeus, 1758 (: 809) as type-species of Thoa Lamouroux, 1816 (: 210), but stipulate that this designation shall be consequent upon the Commission’s accepting my proposal that Halecium be made available. The withdrawal of my original proposals for the suppression of Thoa is also consequent upon that action. Incidentally, Dr Lemche’s proposal also removes any possible threat by Thoa to Eudendrium Ehrenberg, 1834. Therefore my proposals (3), to place that name on the Official List, and (4) (b), to place ramosa, Tubularia, Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List can also be withdrawn, together with proposal (5) (b), to place EUDENDRIIDAE on the Official List. My application is thus limited to the validation of Ha/lecium under the plenary powers, with the consequences that flow directly from that concerning the specific name of the type-species and the family name. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION AND VALIDATION OF NAMES RELATED TO THE ELAPIDAE (REPTILIA: SERPENTES). Z.N.(S.) 2128 By Hobart M. Smith and Rozella B. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A. 80309) The nomenclatural predicament that prompts the present appeal for intervention by the Commission is the threat to the stability of the family-name ELAPIDAE for the cobras, coral snakes and their many proteroglyph relatives. The name ELAPIDAE is so well entrenched especially in medical literature, with vital association with varied protocols — for snake-bite treatment, that a change would be literally disastrous. As stated by McDowell (1968: 577), “The terms ‘elapid’ and ‘elapine’ are frequent in the medical literature and on the labels of bottles of antivenin, and it would very likely cost several human lives to change the family-name of the large American coral snakes, tiger snake, cobras, kraits and mambas. Since the medical men who will have to choose the proper antivenin quickly are unlikely to follow the intricacies of the nomenclatural Code, it would be irresponsible to treat the family-name of dangerous snakes with ...... frivolity ....”. Physiological, ecological and taxonomic usages are likewise worldwide, deeply entrenched and invariable; no alternative names have been used since modern techniques of treatment have appeared. Under these circumstances, nomenclatural security for the name is mandatory and is the compelling basis for the present petition. 2. The nomenclatural uncertainties pertaining to the name ELAPIDAE involve the type-species of the type-genus, E/aps Schneider (1801: 289), as well as the affinities of that species. Amaral (1926: 1-6) was apparently the earliest to explain the transfer of the name Elaps for the American coral snakes to a South African genus previously known as Homorelaps (e.g. Boulenger, 1896: 408) or Homoroselaps Jan (1858: 518), of which Boulenger’s name is an invalid emendation. The transfer actually was initiated by Stejneger and Barbour (1917: 106), when they adopted Micrurus _ for the American coral snakes in place of Elaps which had been consistently used for them previously. Amaral (/oc. cit.) pointed out that the basis was recognition of the earliest type-species designation for Elaps as that of Fleming (1822: 295), who cited Elaps lacteus Schneider from among the eleven species-group names assigned by Schneider to E/aps. That Amaral authoritatively represented the thoughts of Stejneger and Barbour (as they resurrected Micrurus without explanation) can be accepted with confidence, since Amaral was at the time of his publication a student of Barbour at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. Thus assigned, E/aps is the proper name for a South African genus | of two species, E. /Jacteus and E. dorsalis, most of the literature on which is summarized in the beautiful monograph by Fitzsimmons (1962: 283-286). — The implications of this taxonomic treatment are made clear in the scholarly study by McDowell (1968), in which he demonstrates that Elaps lacteus Schneider is not a member of the family assemblage, including the terrestrial proteroglyphs, with which it has been placed for 150 years and for which it has been regarded as the type-genus (ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827: 510), but belongs with the subfamily APARALLACTINAE (Bourgeois, 1968) of the family COLUBRIDAE (Oppel, 1811: 217). The nomenclatural results of this rearrangement would be: (1) replacement of Homoroselaps Jan, 1858, by Elaps Schneider, 1801; (2) replacement of the subfamily name APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968, by ELAPINAE Boie, 1827; and (3) replacement of the family name ELAPIDAE by the next earliest name applied to any genus of the family. Obviously these sequelae run grossly counter to one of the three fundamental precepts of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, namely (1964: 3) “to promote stability”, which would be gravely violated by acceptance of the indicated changes. 4. It should be noted that Kochva and Wollberg (1970) have refuted McDowell’s proposition that E/aps is a colubrid and not an elapid, although they made it plain that their objection was based. upon concern for nomenclatural stability as much as upon their evidence, since it was : admittedly inconclusive. They insisted that name changes should come only where evidence from every source incontrovertibly necessitates them. McDowell (personal communication) remains firmly convinced and has an exhaustive and conclusive defense for his original position near completion. Regardless of the outcome of this controversy, it is imperative that the nomenclatural security at least of the family name ELAPIDAE be guaranteed. Even the most incontrovertible evidence that E/aps must be assigned to a different family cannot be permitted to jeopardize at least the established family-group nomenclature. 5. Thus far we have stated the case under the assumption that the type-species of Elaps is indeed /acteus, following Amaral’s explicit statement. In fact, however, Fleming (1822: 295) did not designate the type according to the Code (1964: 69) now in effect, nor did his treatment suffice for type-designation by any earlier version of the Code. Art. 69a (iii) specifies that “In the absence of a prior valid type-designation for a nominal genus, an author is considered to have designated one of the originally included nominal species as type-species, if he states that it is the type (or type-species), for whatever reason, right or wrong, and if it is clear that he himself accepts it as the type-species”. Although Fleming was aware of the type-concept, stating explicitly what species are types for the genera Salamandra (p. 297), Rana (p. 304), Bufo and Pipa (p.305), for no other genera did he indicate that the cited species, if any, was anything but an example. For several genera (e.g. Cistuda, Chameleon, Dracaena, Draco, Lophurus et al.) no species are cited at all and for a few (e.g. Monitor, ore Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 Acanthophis) two are cited, although for most a single species is listed. For Elaps, only E. lacteus is given. At no place in the book is there any indication that the species cited are regarded as types, except for the four genera first mentioned here, for which the indication is individually explicit. The user of Fleming’s work can only conclude that for other nominal genera the cited species is merely an example — except of course for new nominal genera, of which the cited species becomes the type. In brief, Fleming did not in fact fix the type-species of Elaps. 6. This conclusion is completely consistent with the conclusions of Opinons 68 and 69, which held that Fleming did not designate types for two genera of fishes (Pleuronectes, Sparus) treated much like Elaps. The discussion in these opinions makes it clear that E/aps would not have been regarded at that time as having had its type designated by Fleming. It is noteworthy that Stejneger, one of the Commissioners, disagreed with the conclusion of both opinions, and seemingly did not hesitate to adopt a conclusion in connection with E/aps that was clearly inconsistent with the Spirit of the Code as then constituted. 7. Indeed, Brown (1908: 124) pointed out that Fleming did not comply with the rules for subsequent type-fixation, and he cited Gray (1825: 206) as the earliest to do so. Again, however, Gray gives no indication whatever that _ the cited species for any given genus constitutes its type; indeed, several species are cited for several nominal genera. Gray did cite but a single species for E/aps, namely “E. lenniscatus, Schneid.” (= Elaps lemniscatus Schneider = Coluber lemniscatus Linnaeus), but it can be construed as no _ more than an example of the genus, not as a type-designation. 8. Fitzinger (1843:28) is the earliest worker explicitly to cite the type of _ Elaps; he designated “E/aps corallinus Neuw”. Unfortunately that name was _ not cited by Schneider, was not then (1801) in existence, and embraced no Schneiderian name as a synonym either when proposed by Merrem (1820: 144) or when used by Wied-Neuwied (1824 (6):pl. 4 text). His type-designation is therefore invalid. 9. Curiously enough, the earliest valid type-designation for Elaps _ appears to be that of Brown (1908: 124); to be sure, he cited Gray as the designator, in error, but Art. 69 states that reason for citation of a type is immaterial, whether right or wrong. The 58 years of stability of Micrurus for most of the American coral snakes would terminate, however, if that _type-designation and its automatic sequelae were accepted, for Elaps lemniscatus, designated as type of E/aps by Brown, is the valid name for a species in Micrurus Wagler (1824: 48), antedated 23 years by Elaps Schneider, 1801. Much the same arguments for stability of the family-name ELAPIDAE apply equally to the generic name Micrurus. Steps should be taken to prevent a change of nomenclature. 10. The comedy of errors is not yet fully unfolded, however. If the nominal genus El/aps were to be transferred from the ELAPIDAE of current understanding to the COLUBRIDAE, the pext oldest name for the ELAPIDAE auctorum would, as generally accepted, be HYDROPHIIDAE Boie (1827: 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 510) which actually was published concurrently with the name ELAPIDAE, although the latter has by common consent been given nomenclatural priority over the former, so that if the two groups are regarded as confamilial the sea snakes constitute a subfamily of the ELAPIDAE, rather than the elapines constituting a subfamily of the HYDROPHIIDAE. Familial shift of the name Elaps, however, would leave the family-group name based on the sea snake Hydrophis as the earliest applied to any proteroglyph snake, at least as understood at the present time. The terrestrial proteroglyphs would, therefore, whatever their family-group name, constitute a subfamily of the HYDROPHIIDAE, at least for those authors who view the terrestrial and marine proteroglyphs as confamilial. 11. Unfortunately Boie (1827: 510) did not comply with the Code in erection of the family name ‘“‘Hydrophidae”, as he spelled it, for he did not recognize the genus Hydrophis as valid, although he certainly knew of it since he cited as valid another of Latreille’s names (Platurus) proposed in the same work. It is clear that he (correctly) regarded Hydrophis Latreille, 1801, as a synonym of Hydrus Schneider, 1799. Art. 11e explicitly states that to be considered available, “A family-group name must, when first published, be based on the name then valid for a contained genus, and must be a noun in the nominative, plural.”” On these grounds, Boie’s name HY DROPHIDAE does not exist nomenclaturally. 12. At this point it is necessary to clarify the status of Hydrophis, which is not what it has long been thought to be. Malcolm Smith (1926: 41) designated “Hydrophis fasciatus Schneider, 1799” as the type-species of Hydrophis in the following passage: “The name Hydrophis was proposed by Latreille in 1802 [sic] for the sea-snakes with small ventral shields, and as applied to that group it has been in general use ever since. The genus is restricted to two species, namely H. /aticauda (p. 195) and H. platurus (p. 197). Although under the first name he confused three snakes, the Hydrus fasciatus of Schneider (= Hydrophis fasciatus), the ‘tatta pam’ of Russell ( =Hydrophis mamillaris) and the Anguis laticauda of Linnaeus, only the first two need be considered, for the last cannot be recognized from the description and the specimen is lost. On the grounds that the genus was framed as a substitute for Hydrus Schneider, and without designated type, Dr Stejneger has refused to accept it and has employed Disteira instead (Herpet. Japan, 1907, p. 419). | cannot agree with his conclusion or with the interpretation he has given of Latreille’s word substitute. Latreille did more than merely substitute, for regarding Schneider’s grouping of the genus as an unnatural one, he divided it up and distributed the species among two genera, Hydrophis and Enhyadris, the characters of which he clearly set forth. Such a definite reconstruction of the genus Hydrus can hardly be termed substitution, and Hydrophis as represented by the first two species named by Latreille should stand for the name of the genus, with Hydrus fasciatus as type.” However, he overlooked the fact that Latreille, in Sonnini & Latreille, 1801: 193, had expressly,proposed the name to replace Hydrus Schneider, 1799, which he took to Be a homonym of Hydra Linnaeus, 1758 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 (both names being rendered as “hydre” in French). Now the type of Hydrus, as enunciated in Opinion 18, is Coluber hydrus Pallas, 1771, by absolute tautonymy (under Article 30d of the old Régles and Article 68d of the current Code). If the Code is strictly applied, therefore, the long-familiar generic name Hydrophis must disappear, and a different type-genus found for the HYDROPHIIDAE. This would be a regrettable disturbance of stability. 13. Malcolm Smith treated Hydrophis laticauda Latreille, 1801, as though it were a new name. In fact it is impossible to tell from internal evidence whether this is so, or whether Latreille was simply using Anguis laticauda Linnaeus, 1758. Since he cited H. fasciatus Schneider as a synonym, the latter is probably correct. Linnaeus’s name has been consistently treated as a nomen dubium since Schneider’s time (1799), and no disturbance would result from its formal suppression for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. The effect of this would be to invalidate “/aticauda Latreille, 1801”, if ever that name were regarded as valid in its own right, and to validate fasciatus Schneider in the sense in which it has been used ever since Malcolm Smith (1926) studied the type-specimen in the Berlin Museum. Plenary powers must, however, be used if Hydrophis is to be stabilised with fasciatus as type-species, following Malcolm Smith’s generally accepted, though invalid, designation. 14. Several versions of family-group names (e.g. Hydri Oppel, 1811; Hydres Cuvier, 1817; HYDRIDAE Gray, 1825 etc., fide Kuhn, 1967: 78) are logical derivatives from the generic name Hydrus Schneider, 1799, which included sea snakes as well as fresh-water snakes, but none are applicable to the proteroglyph family-groups, since the type of Hydrus Schneider, 1799, as shown in paragraph 12, is Co/uber hydrus Pallas, 1771 (= Coronella tessel/iata Laurenti, 1768, now Natrix tessellata tessellata), a member of the family COLUBRIDAE. Neither Hydri Oppel, 1811, nor HYDRIDAE Gray, 1825, is available, however, since neither contained a genus Hydrus considered valid by the author at the time of proposal of the family-group name. It is perhaps fortunate that Oppel’s Hydri is unavailable, else it would compete with the family name COLUBRIDAE, stemming from Oppel’s 1811 (pp. 47, 69) “Colubrini”, which does conform with the requirements of the Code and is eligible for change of the suffix to agree with the modern rules for endings. 15. The earliest proposed, acceptable family-group name based on any sea-snake is Hydrophes Fitzinger (1843: 28). Kuhn (1967: 78) notes that Fitzinger credited Hemprich with the name, but Hemprich (1829: 291) actually created only the name “Hydros”, which does not comply with the requirement (Art. 11e) that the collective name be a noun in the nominative plural. (Hemprich created two other group names at the same time: Amphisbaenas and Achrochordias; although the latter actually is the ) earliest group-name for Acrochordus, all of Hemprich’s collectives are in the accusative plural and therefore cannot be accepted as bases for modern family-group names). The family name HYDROPHIIDAE can, however, stem 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature from Fitzinger’s Hydrophes, which is a noun in the nominative plural and includes Hydrophis, recognized by Fitzinger. 16. It has been accepted in the past that the family-group names ELAPIDAE and HYDROPHIIDAE, both of Boie, 1827, were the earliest of that rank applied to proteroglyph snakes. In fact, however, at least one other antedates both: the “Bungaroidea” Fitzinger (1826: 11, 32), explicitly proposed as a family name and based upon a generic name valid then as now, and therefore emendable in accordance with Art. 11e (ii) as the BUNGARIDAE, derived from the generic name Bungarus Daudin, 1803, applied to the kraits (members of the family ELAPIDAE auctorum). Obviously it would be undesirable to replace the family-name ELAPIDAE with any other name, whether through priority or generic reallocation. 17. The nomenclatural necessities of the present predicament are clear: to ask for exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission to validate the family name ELAPIDAE and the generic name Micrurus and place them on the appropriate Official Lists, by whatever nomenclatural manoeuvres seem appropriate, setting aside all conflicting nomenclatural events of the past. A review of the species originally assigned by Schneider to Elaps is a desirable first step in consideration of the proper manoeuvres. 18. Oddly, only two of Schneider’s eleven species of E/aps belong to the ELAPIDAE auctorum, now that /acteus has been removed from consideration: furcatus Schneider (now Maticora intestinalis Laurenti, 1768, of the Malay Peninsula) and Coluber lemniscatus Linnaeus, 1758 (now — Micrurus lemniscatus of South America). To prevent the family-group name ELAPIDAE from following /acteus, and to restore it to an _ earlier near-universal fixation, the Commission should designate the type of E/aps as Coluber lemniscatus Linnaeus, setting aside all other type-designations. This is the species that from the beginning was the logical candidate for type-designation, since it was the first that Schneider listed for E/aps, and one of only four of the eleven included by Schneider in E/aps that stemmed from Linnaeus; duberria was a Merrem, 1790, name, whereas all the other names were new as of Schneider. To prevent replacement of Micrurus Wagler, 1824, by Elaps Schneider, 1801, the Commission could rule that Elaps not be used in lieu of Micrurus by those who regard their type-species as congeneric. The genus now known as E/aps would take the next available name, to wit Homoroselaps (not the invalid emendation Homorelaps), by which it was regularly known until 1917 when Stejneger and Barbour almost surreptitiously reallocated E/aps. In recognition of past vagaries the genus should be given the protection of a conserved name, Homoroselaps. 19. These measures would preserve the family name ELAPIDAE and the generic name Micrurus in their present senses; would lay to rest forever (so long as Elaps lemniscatus is considered congeneric with Micrurus spixii) the peripatetically tainted and therefore useless generic name El/aps; would permit revival of E/aps without jeopardy to any other generic name or to the family name should its type-species ever be regarded as generically distinct from Micrurus spixii; and would protect the revived name Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 Homoroselaps, for the South African species /acteus and its relatives, from further change, leaving them free for proper allocation in accordance with their characters, unfettered by constraints of custom. If, as McDowell maintains, Homoroselaps is properly referred to the subfamily APARALLACTINAE, the subfamily name will not be affected by the history of association of one of its generic members with a still older family-group name. 20. In like fashion it would be well to protect the several other family-group names that have been involved in the ramifications of influence of the name ELAPIDAE and its various competitors, and to protect their nominal type-genera and type-species. In addition to Elaps and ELAPIDAE, previously discussed, the following names are involved: Micrurus and its type-species, M. spixii; -Homoroselaps and_ its type-species, H. Jacteus; HYDROPHIIDAE, its type-genus Hydrophis, and its type-species H. fasciatus; Aparallactus and its type-species, A. capensis; and COLUBRIDAE, its type-genus Co/uber, and its type-species C. constrictor. 21. Micrurus Wagler, 1824, has consistently been applied to the American coral snakes (some 50 species as now understood, 110 species and subspecies), ever since the Stejneger and Barbour first edition of North American reptiles (1917); it has accumulated an enormous medical, ecological, biogeographic and taxonomic literature, and thereby strongly merits conservation. The plenary powers must be invoked to prevent its replacement by Elaps Schneider, 1801, if the recommendation here presented is adopted of designation of Co/uber lemniscatus Linnaeus, 1758, as its type, since the latter species is congeneric, by universal agreement, with Micrurus spixii Wagler, 1824, monotype of Micrurus. Conservation of Micrurus spixii Wagler, 1824, still regarded as valid, is desirable if conservation of Micrurus is approved. 22. Homoroselaps Jan, 1858, is the oldest available name for the South African genus of two species to which the name El/aps has been assigned since 1917 (Stejneger and Barbour), when Elaps /Jacteus Schneider was construed to be the type of Schneider’s polyspecific genus Elaps, which had no type-designation originally. However, such assignment of the type for Elaps, as explained previously, would shift the family name based upon Elaps (ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827) to the family now known as the COLUBRIDAE Oppel, 1811, requiring some new name for the family formerly known as the ELAPIDAE. Shift of the name Elaps to the genus Micrurus by designation as type of one of the other species included by Schneider in his Elaps, namely Coluber lemniscatus Linnaeus, as here proposed, requires use of the next available name for the African genus. In effect this returns to the pre-1917 nomenclature, for until then the American coral snakes were known as Elaps (taking /emniscatus as type), and the South African genus containing /Jacteus was known as Homoroselaps Jan, 1858, or, more frequently, as Homorelaps Boulenger, 1896 (an unjustified subsequent emendation). To fix the name of the unfortunate South African 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature genus from further vacillation, it is appropriate to request its conservation as Homoroselaps, along with its type-species (by monotypy), Elaps hygeae Merrem, 1820, as originally cited by Jan. Merrem’s name is, however, a reallocation of Co/uber hygeiae Shaw, 1802, which is a junior synonym of Coluber lacteus Linnaeus, 1758. The valid name for the type-species would therefore be Homoroselaps /acteus (Linnaeus, 1758). 23. The family-group name HYDROPHIIDAE for the sea snakes is at the present time more frequently applied at the subfamily level (HYDROPHIINAE) than at the family level, including it as a subdivision of the family ELAPIDAE. Since the usually-accepted source for the name (Boie, 1827) proves to be inacceptable, and the earliest acceptable proposal is Fitzinger’s explicit family “Hydrophes” of 1843, it would be expedient to have Commission approval of this source, and to protect the family-group name for the sea snakes by placement on the Official List. The family-group name HYDROPHIIDAE or HYDROPHIINAE has been used universally for the sea snakes for over a century, and has a large medical, ecological, oceanographic and taxonomic literature, and thereby fully justifies conservation. 24. Protection of the family-group names ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827, and HYDROPHIINAE Fitzinger, 1843, requires suppression of the family-group name BUNGAROIDEA Fitzinger, 1826, proposed explicitly as a family, based upon the generic name Bungarus, which Fitzinger listed as one of the valid genera of the family, and formed properly as a noun in the nominative plural. This name would replace both the names ELAPIDAE and HYDROPHIINAE if not suppressed, for it antedates both and its type-genus is consubfamilial with E/aps (as here construed). As pointed out before, the literature using the name ELAPIDAE is so formidably extensive and the name is so entrenched in medical literature that a change for any reasons should be denied. Accordingly it is appropriate to request suppression of Fitzinger’s name. 25. The subfamily to which the former Elaps (as of E. lacteus), now Homoroselaps, is assigned is the APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968, based upon Aparallactus Smith, 1849, having as monotype A. capensis Smith, 1849. The subfamily name would be replaced by the name ELAPINAE in the family COLUBRIDAE Oppel, 1811, if not prevented by exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission, as previously indicated (para. 19). To assure stability of this presently accepted name, it is appropriate to request conservation of the threatened name APARALLACTINAE, its type-genus, and the type-species of the latter. 26. The family-group name COLUBRIDAE Oppel, 1811, is one of the most widely-known of all reptilian names, and has been accepted universally for over a century. It is the largest family of snakes, including well over half the Known snake species. Its literature is enormous, and for these reasons the name should not be changed under any circumstances. However, it is threatened by the family-group name “Hydri” of Oppel, 1811, proposed concurrently with his “Colubrini”’. “Hydri’ presumably was Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 derived from Hydrus Schneider, 1799, although neither Oppel nor Gray, who next adopted a family name of the same source, creating a ‘“Hydridae’”’ (1825), recognized Hydrus as valid. These family-group names are therefore not available (occupied) as of either work, according to Art. 11(e) of the Code. The application of Oppel’s or Gray’s name, if either were to be regarded as available, through Hydrus, is not however self-evident, since Schneider included numerous species in his Hydrus, none designated as type. Several infiuential authors have regarded the name as applicable to the sea snakes, and therefore have used the name Hydrus in place of Hydrophis, and the name HYDRIDAE or HYDRINAE for the family-level group to which sea snakes belong (see Smith, 1926: 1 for a summary). However, Opinion 18 of the ICZN closes the matter by designation of a colubrid snake, Co/uber hydrus Pallas, 1771, as type of Hydrus; Pallas’ name is a junior synonym of Coronel/la tessel/lata Laurenti, 1769 ( = Natrix t. tessellata of present nomenclature). Thus any family-group name derived from Hydrus falls with the family now known as the COLUBRIDAE Oppel, 1811, not with the HYDROPHIINAE. Although presumably neither the Oppel, 1811, nor Gray, 1825, family-group names is available, it is appropriate to conserve the name COLUBRIDAE in its present sense, since it is so deeply entrenched. Concomitantly its type-genus, Co/uber Linnaeus, 1758, and its type-species C. constrictor Linnaeus, 1758, merit conservation. The earliest designation of the type of Co/uber appears to have been that of Fitzinger (1843: 26). Suppression of Oppel’s Hydri and Gray’s Hydridae is not essential at the present time since the Code eliminates them from consideration. 27. We therefore ask the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all designations of type-species hitherto made for the nominal genus Elaps Schneider, 1801, and to designate Coluber lemniscatus Linnaeus, 1758 as type- species; (b) to set aside all designations of type-species hitherto made for the nominal genus Hydrophis Latreille, 1801, and to designate Hydrus fasciatus Schneider, 1799, as the type- species; (c) to rule that the generic name Elaps Schneider, 1801, as defined under the plenary powers in (a) above, is not to be used to displace the generic name Micrurus Wagler, 1824, by any zoologist who considers both names to denote one genus; (d) to suppress the family-group name BUNGAROIDEA Fitzinger, 1826 (type-genus Bungarus Daudin, 1803) 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: 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) Elaps Schneider, 1801 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Coluber lemniscatus Linnaeus, 1758, with a direction that it — is not to be used to displace Micrurus Wagler, 1824, by any zoologist who believes the two names to denote one genus; (b) Micrurus Wagler, 1824 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Micrurus spixii Wagler, 1824, with a direction that it is to be given precedence over Elaps Schneider, 1801, by any zoologist who believes the two names to denote one genus; (c) Homoroselaps Jan, 1858 (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Coluber hygeiae Shaw, 1802; (d) Hydrophis Latreille, 1801 (gender: masculine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Hydrus fasciatus Schneider, 1799; (e) Aparallactus A. Smith, 1849 (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, A. capensis A. Smith, 1849; (f) Coluber Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type-species by subsequent designation by Fitzinger (1843: 26) Co/uber constrictor Linnaeus, 1758. (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) Jemniscatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber lemniscatus (specific name of type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above of Elaps Schneider, 1801); (b) spixii Wagier, 1824, as published in the binomen Micrurus spixii (specific name of type-species, by monotypy, of Micrurus Wagler, 1824); (c) lacteus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber lacteus; (d) fasciatus Schneider, 1799, as published in the binomen Hydrus fasciatus (specific name of type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, of Hydrophis Latreille, 1801) ; (e) capensis A. Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Aparallactus capensis (specific name of type-species of Aparallactus, A. Smith, 1849); (f) constrictor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber constrictor (specific name of type-species of Coluber Linnaeus, 1758). (4) to place the following family names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827, type-genus E/aps Schneider, 1801; (b) HYDROPHIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (as “Hydrophes”), type- genus Hydrophis Latreille, 1802; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 (c) COLUBRIDAE Oppel, 1811 (as Colubrini), type-genus Coluber Linnaeus, 1758; (d) APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968, type-genus Aparall- actus A. Smith, 1849. (5) to place the family-group name BUNGAROIDEA Fitzinger, 1826, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (d) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dr Samuel B. McDowell has been an indispensable source of counsel and of literature; Dr Janis Roze, as the world authority on coral snakes, has also been helpful in providing encouragement. The advice of R.V. Melville and Andrew Stimson on nomenclatural procedure has been vital to development of the proposals in their present form. Dr John Hough, Dr Michael Preston, Mr. Wayne Whitmarsh and Mr Karl Hermann Gauggel have generously and patiently explained the Latin and Greek usages encouniered in the literature, enabling us to conform with Code requirements. Dr Samuel Coleman wrote the programs used to construct and search the data bank from which the literature sources were extracted. To all we are very grateful. LITERATURE CITED AMARAL, A. do, 1926. Notas de ophiologia. Revta. Mus. Paulista, vol. 14: 1-40. BOIE, F., 1827. Bemerkungen iber Merrem’s Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Isis (Oken) vol. 20 (3): 508-566. BOULENGER, G.A., 1896. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), vol.lIl. London, Taylor & Francis. xiv, 727pp., 37 figs., 25 pls. BOURGEOIS, M., 1968. Contribution a la morphologie comparée du crane des ophidiens de l'Afrique Centrale. Pub/. Univ. Offic. Congo Lumumbashi, vol. 18: 1-293, figs. 1-116. BROWN, A.E., 1908. Generic Types of nearctic Reptilia and Amphibia. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 60: 112-127. FITZINGER, L.J.F.J., 1826. Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren naturlichen Verwandtschaften nebst einer Verwandtschafts-Tafel und einem Verzeichnisse der Reptilien-Sammlung des k.k. zoologischen Museums zu Wien. Wien, Hubner. viii, 66pp. 1843. Systema _ reptilium. Fasciculus' primus. Amblyglossae. Vindobonae, Braumiller und Seidel. 106, x pp. FITZSIMONS, V.F.M., 1962. Snakes of southern Africa. London, Macdonald. 423pp., 74 pls. (partly col.), 106 figs., 78 maps, frontis. (col.). FLEMING, J., 1822. The philosophy of zoology; or a general view of the structure, functions, and classification of animals, vol. 2. Edinburgh, Constable. 618 pp. GRAY, J.E., 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and Amphibia, with a description of some new species. Ann. Philos., (n.s.) vol. 10: 193-217. HEMPRICH, F.G., 1829. Cécilia ophidiorum genus, recensuit et illustravit. Verh. Ges. Naturf. Fr., Berlin, vol. 1: 284-296. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 1964. International code of zoological nomenclature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology. London, Int. Trust Zool. Nomencl. xviii, 176 pp. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature JAN, G., 1858. Plan d’une iconographie descriptive des ophidiens, et description sommaire de nouvelles espéces de serpents. Revue Mag. Zool. vol. 9: 438-449, 514-527. KOCHVA, E. and WOLLBERG, M., 1970. The salivary glands of Aparallactinae (Colubridae) and the venom glands of Elaps (Elapidae) in relation to the taxonomic status of this genus. Zool. J. linn. Soc. London, vol. 49: 217-224, pls. 1-4. LATREILLE, Pierre André, 1801. /n Sonnini and Latreille (q.v.). LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema naturae. 10th ed. vol. 1. Stockholm, L. Salvius. iv, 826 pp. McDOWELL, S.B., 1968. Affinities of the snakes usually called Elaps /acteus and E. dorsalis. Zool. J. linn. Soc. London, vol. 47: 561-578, figs. 1-4. MERREM, 8B., 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Tentamen systematis amphibiorum. Marburg. xv, 191 pp., 1 pl. OPPEL, M., 1811. Die Ordnung, Familien und Gattungen der Reptilien als Prodrom einer Naturgeschichte derselben. Munich, Lindauer. xii, 87 pp. SCHNEIDER, J.G., 1799-1801. Historiae amphibiorum naturalis et literariae. Jena. Fasc. primus, 1799, xvi, 266 pp., 2 pls.; fasc. secundus, 1801, vi, 374 pp., 2 pls. SMITH, A., 1838-1849. ///ustrations of the zoology of South Africa. Reptilia. London. 28 pp., 78 pls. SMITH, M.A., 1926. Monograph of the sea snakes (Hydrophiidae). London, Taylor & Francis. xvii, 130 pp., 35 figs., 2 pls. SONNINI de MANONCOURT, C.S. and LATREILLE, P.A., 1801. Histoire naturelle des reptiles, avec figures dessinées d’aprés nature. Paris, Déterville. 4 vols. (All reptiles are by Latreille alone). SPIX, J.B. von, 1824. Serpentium brasiliensium .... vol. 2. Munich. 74 pp., 26 pls. STEJNEGER, L. and BARBOUR, T., 1917. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press. iv, 5-125 pp. WAGLER, J.G., 1824. In Spix (q. v.). WIED-NEUWIED, MAXIMILIAN ALEXANDER PHILIPP, PRINZ VON, 1822-1831. Abbildungen zur Naturgeschichte von Brazilien. Weimar. (1822, livr. 1; 1823, livr. 2-4; 1824, livr. 5-8; 1825, livr. 9; 1827, livr. 10, 11; 1828, livr. 12; 1829, livr. 13; 1830, livr. 14; 1831, livr. 15). eee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME OF THE LEAF-EATING MONKEYS (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES): A PROPOSAL TO GIVE COLOBIDAE BLYTH, 1875, PRECEDENCE OVER SEMNOPITHECIDAE OWEN, 1843, AND PRESBYTINA GRAY, 1825. Z.N.(S.) 2094 By Eric Delson (Department of Anthropology, Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, New York 10468, U.S.A.) The Old World monkeys, family CERCOPITHECIDAE, are usually divided into two groups; the cheek-pouched monkeys, including guenons (Cercopithecus), baboons (Papio), macaques (Macaca) and related forms in the subfamily CERCOPITHECINAE Gray, 1821; and the _leaf-eaters, including the African Co/obus Illiger, 1811 (Official List No. 552, Opinion 122, Directions 10, 22, 24) and the Asian Presbytis Eshscholtz, 1821 (including Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822) and other genera in the subfamily COLOBINAE. Some authors consider these two groups of family rank within a superfamily CERCOPITHECOIDEA. The name COLOBINAE (or COLOBIDAE) has generally been used for the leaf-eating monkeys; it is cited with various authors, but formally derives from Blyth, 1875, who first used it in the family-group (as COLOBIDAE: 9). A problem arises because this usage is antedated by two older family-group names for the leaf-eating monkeys. 2. In 1821, Gray included all Old World monkeys known to him in the family CERCOPITHECIDAE, divided into two unnamed “races”. In 1825, Gray divided a very broadly construed family HOMINIDAE into several tribes, including CERCOPITHECINA, CYNOCEPHALINA (based on a junior synonym of Papio) and PRESBYTINA, with Presbytis in the latter. As Kuhn (1967: 38) noted, PRESBYTINA has not been used since its definition (except sporadically by Gray himself, e.g. 1870: 4 but not Gray, 1843). 3. A second name provides more difficulty because it has continued to be used, although rarely. Owen (1843: 55) divided the Old World monkeys into two families, MACACIDAE and SEMNOPITHECIDAE. basing the latter on Semnopithecus. From his context, it is clear that he meant these to be equivalent to modern interpretations of CERCOPITHECINAE and COLOBINAE, respectively. SEMNOPITHECIDAE (or SEMNOPITHECINAE) Owen appears to have been used quite infrequently, and then as an alternative to COLOBINAE or in nearly vernacular form. Genet-Varcin (1963) calls the group SEMNOPITHECINAE or COLOBINAE in a heading citing no authorship. Piveteau (1957) uses SEMNOPITHECINAE, but cites the author as Elliot, 1913. This authorship is erroneous, because Elliot was in fact the first to use a Colobus-based name (COLOBINAE) at the subfamily level and did not use SEMNOPITHECINAE at all. Jeannin (1936), Bigourdan and Prunier (1937) and Rode (1937) all use the semi-formal “Famille des Semnopithécidés” without citing an author. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. The vernacular ‘“Semnopithéque” was first used by Cuvier in 1821. He was followed by Desmarest who in 1822 formally proposed Semnopithecus for a group of five species, none of which was designated as type. Then, in 1825, Cuvier, in a work on dentition, referred to the Semnopithéque as a new genus. He indicated that the same five species which Desmarest used were included and further said that the “maure” (S. maurus) formed the type for this system of dentition (no mention of generic type-species). Pocock (1935) mentioned in a footnote that “The latinized form of F. Cuvier’s ‘Semnopithéque’ which although it contained ente//us and melalophus was obviously from its meaning principally applicable to entellus the sacred monkey of the Hindoos.”. This statement may not be sufficient to qualify as a type-species designation, but in his book on the Fauna of British India (Pocock, 1939: 88), he included only entel//us in Semnopithecus and specifically called it the type-species. Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951) accepted this designation. On the other hand, under ‘Semnopithecus Cuvier, 1825’ Palmer (1904) wrote “Species (in 1821): ’Entelle (Simia entellus Dufresne) from India; and ‘le Cimepaye’ (Simia melalophus Raffles, type) from Sumatra.” It has long been accepted that Cuvier is not the author of this genus, nor would a type-“fixation” in 1821 pertain to a later-named taxon. Given the general acceptance of entellus as the type-species of the nominal genus Semnopithecus, it is best to request the Commission to confirm this designation, as of Pocock, 1939, overruling Palmer’s ambiguous indication. 5. The vast majority of modern classifications, both primatological and more broadly-based, employ a Co/obus-based family-group name for the leaf-eaters, all citing Blyth (or Elliot before the present Code came into effect) for authorship. Among these classifications can be listed those of Chasen, 1940; Simpson, 1945; Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951; Vallois, 1955; Dekeyser, 1955 (Colobidés, no author); Romer, 1966; and Thenius, 1969 (all general classifications). Primatologists employing COLOBIDAE or COLOBINAE include Fiedler, 1956; Hill, 1966; Jolly, 1966; Kuhn, 1967; Napier and Napier, 1967; Dandelot, 1968; Maier, 1970; Thorington and Groves, 1970; and Delson, 1975. It is thus clear that validation of COLOBIDAE as a ‘nomen conservandum’ rather than preservation of SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen will encourage universality and preserve general usage. Such validation may therefore be justifiably requested under Article 79b and Article 23d (ii). A similar suggestion was made by Thorington and Groves (1970: 639). 6. In order to preserve the greatest freedom of choice for zoologists without recourse to new names, it is wisest to preserve family-group names based on both Semnopithecus and Presbytis for use at infra-subfamilial ranks if required. Presbytis especially is a well-known and important genus, while Semnopithecus-based names have been shown to be still employed by some authors. | suggest that any zoologist who considers that these genera belong to one family-group taxon employ a Co/obus-based name (COLOBIDAE, COLOBINAE, COLOBINI) in preference to one based on Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 Semnopithecus, and at lower ranks, a Semnopithecus-based name in preference to one based on Presbytis, thus preserving not only the availability of those names but also common usage. It is further necessary or valuable to formally place on the relevant Official List the latter two generic names and those of their type-species. 7. | therefore request the Commission to: 1. use its plenary powers (a) rule that COLOBIDAE Blyth, 1875 be given precedence over SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843, which is in turn to be given precedence over PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825, by any zoologist who considers that any two of these names denote a single family-group taxon of relevant rank; (b) set aside all previous designations of type-species for the genus Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822, made prior to the designation by Pocock (1939) of Simia ente//us Dufresne, 1797, as the type-species of that genus; 2. place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822 (gender: masculine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Simia ente//us Dufresne, 1797; (b) Presbytis Eschscholtz, 1821 (gender: feminine), type-species by monotypy Presbytis mitrata Eschscholtz, 1821; 3. place the following specific names on the Officia! List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ente/ius Dufresne, 1797, as published in the binomen Simia entellus (specific name of type-species of Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822); (b) mitrata Eschscholtz, 1821, as published in the binomen Presbytis mitrata (specific name of type-species of Presbytis Eschscholtz, 1821); 4. place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology: (a) COLOBIDAE Blyth, 1875 (type-genus Co/obus Illiger, 1811) with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843, which in turn is to be given precedence over PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825 by any zoologist who considers that any two of these names denote a single family-group taxon of relevant rank; (b) SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843 (type-genus Semnopith- ecus Desmarest, 1822) with the endorsement that it is not to be used at a given rank by any zoologist who considers that Colobus \lliger, 1811 and Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822, belong to the same family-group taxon of that rank and that Semnopithecus-based family-group names are to be given precedence over Presbytis-based family-group names by any 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature zoologist who considers that Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822 and Presbytis Eschscholtz, 1821 belong to the same family-group taxon; (c) PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825 (type-genus Presbytis Eschscholtz, 1821) with the endorsement that it is not to be used at a given rank by any zoologist who considers that Presbytis Eschscholtz, 1821, belongs to the same family-group taxon of that rank as either Co/obus \Iliger, 1811 or ot ble Desmarest, 1822, or both. REFERENCES BIGOURDAN, J. and PRUNIER, R., 1937. Les mammiféres sauvages de |'Ouest Africain et leur milieu. De Rudder, Montrouge BLYTH, E., 1875. Catalogue of Mammals and Birds of Burma. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 1875, pt. 2, extra number CHASEN, F.N., 1940. A Handlist of Malaysian Mammals. Bull. Raffles Mus. vol. 15: 1-209 CUVIER, F., 1821. Histoire naturelle des mammiféres, iii, livr. 30 1825. Des dents des mammiféres. Levrault, Strasbourg DANDELOT, P., 1968. Primates: Anthropoidea. No 24 J. Meester [Ed.] Preliminary Identific- ation Manual for African Mammals, Smithsonian Inst., Washington DEKEYSER, P.L., 1955. Les Mammiféres de l'Afrique noire francaise. |.F.A.N., Dakar DELSON, E., 1975. Evolutionary History of the Cercopithecidae. In Szalay, F.S. [Ed.] Approaches to Primate Paleobiology: 167-217. Karger, Basel DESMAREST, A.G., 1822. Mammalogie, ou description des espéces de Mammiféres, Supplement. Agasse, Paris DUFRESNE, C., 1797. Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. [Paris] No. 7: 49 ELLERMAN, J.R. and MORRISON-SCOTT, T.C.S., 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758 to 1946. British Museum, London ELLIOT, D.G., 1913. A review of the Primates. 3 vols., American Museum of Natural History, New York ESCHSCHOLTZ, J.F. VON, 1821. In O. Von KOTZEBUE, Entdeckungsreise in die Sud-See und nach den Berings-Strasse zur Erforschung einer nordostlichen Durchfahrt untern- ommen in der Jahren 1815-1818, Gebruder Hoffmann, Weimar FIEDLER, W., 1956. Ubersicht Uber das System der Primates. In Hofer, H., Schultz, A.H. and Stark, D. [Eds.] Primatologia vol. 1: 1-266. Karger, Basel GENET—VARCIN, E., 1963. Les Primates Actuels et Fossiles. Boubée, Paris GILL, T., 1872. Arrangement of the Families of Mammals ... Smithson. misc. Collins No. 230 GRAY, J.E., 1821. On the Natural Arrangement of Vertebrose Animals. Lond. Med. Repository and Record, vol. 15: 296-310. 1825. An Outline of an Attempt at the Disposition of the Mammalia into Tribes and Families ... Ann. Phil. (n.s.) vol. 10: 337-344. 1843. List of the Specimens of Mammalia in the Collection of the British Museum. British Museum, London. 1870. Catalogue of monkeys, lemurs and fruit-eating bats in the collection of the British Museum. British Museum, London HILL, W.C.O., 1966. Primates, Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy. 6. Catarrhini, Cercopithecoidea, Cercopithecinae. Wiley, New York { ILLIGER, C., 1811. Prodromus systematis mammalium et avium additis terminis zoographicus utriusque Classis. Salfeld, Berlin JEANNIN, A., 1936. Les mammiféres sauvages du Cameroun. Lechevalier, Paris ‘ JOLLY, .Gisl':, 1966. Introduction to the Cercopithecoidea, with notes on their use as Laboratory & Animals. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. vol. 17: 427-457. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 KUHN, H.-J., 1967. Zur Systematik der Cercopithecidae. In Stark, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H.-J. [Eds.], Progress in Primatology: 25-46. Fischer, Stuttgart MAIER, W., 1970. Neue Ergenbnisse der Systematik und der Stammesgeschichte der Cercopithecoidea. Z. Saugetierk. vol. 35: 193-214. NAPIER, J.R. and NAPIER, P.H., 1967. A Handbook of Living Primates. Academic Press, New York OWEN, R., 1843. Report on the British Fossil Mammalia. Part 1. Unguiculata and Cetacea. Rept. 12th Mtg. Brit. Assoc. Advan. Sci. for 1842: 54-74. PALMER, T.S., 1904. Index Generum Mammalium: a list of the genera and families of mammals PIVETEAU, J., 1957. Traité de Paléontologie, tome 7, Primates, Paléontologie Humaine. Masson, Paris POCOCK, R.!., 1935. The monkeys of the genera Pithecus (or Presbytis) and Pygathrix found to the east of the Bay of Bengal. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1934 (2): 895-961. 1939. The Fauna of British India ... Mammalia, |. Taylor and Francis, London RODE, P., 1937. Les Primates de /'Afrique. Larose, Paris ROMER, A.S., 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 3rd ed. SIMPSON, G.G. 1945. The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 85: 1-450. THORINGTON, R.W. and GROVES, C.P., 1970. An Annotated Classification of the Cercopithecoidea. In Napier, J.R. and Napier, P.H., [Eds.] O/d World Monkeys: 629-647. Academic Press, New York THENIUS, E., 1969. Phylogenie der Mammalia-Stammesgeschichte der Saugetiere (einschliesslich der Hominoidea). de Gruyter, Berlin VALLOIS, H.-V., 1955. Ordre des Primates. In Grassé, P.-P. [Ed.] Traité de Zoologie, Mammiféres. vol. 17, pt. 2: 1854-2206, Masson, Paris. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XIPHIURUS SMITH, 1847, PROPOSED SUPPRESSION IN FAVOUR OF GENYPTERUS PHILIPPI, 1857 (PISCES, OPHIDIIDAE) 1+ 2: Z.N.(S.) 2126. By C. Richard Robins and Robert N. Lea (Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) The genus Genypterus is distributed in temperate and cold temperate shelf waters of the Southern Hemisphere. The species of this genus are the largest by far of the family OPHIDIIDAE (sensu stricto, excluding the BROTULIDAE) and all are of commercial importance. They comprise one of the most important commercial fisheries of Chile and are held in high esteem and are of high value in Argentina, South Afri¢a, and New Zealand. The species are of less importance in Australia and Peru where they are over-shadowed by other fisheries. ; 2. Genypterus was proposed by Philippi (1857) with Genypterus nigricans Philippi the type-species (by monotypy). Genypterus nigricans. has long been regarded as a synonym of G. chilensis (Guichenot). Earlier, Andrew Smith (1847)3 had proposed Xiphiurus with Xiphiurus capensis Smith as its type-species (by monotypy). That capensis and chilensis are congeneric is not in contention. They were treated as generic synonyms by Gunther (1862) and have been so regarded by all subsequent workers. Authors of the nineteenth century commonly regarded as preoccupied those names that differed by one letter or in ending only. Kaup (1858) meanwhile proposed Hoplophycis with H. lalandi Kaup as the type-species (by monotypy). Gunther (1862) regarded Xiphiurus as preoccupied [by Xiphiura Fallén (1813) (Insecta, Hymenoptera)] and correctly recognized that Genypterus Philippi predated Hop/ophycis Kaup and so indicated in his synonymy of the genus. He further relegated H. /alandi to the synonymy of Genypterus capensis. Inasmuch as the articles by Philippi (1857) and Kaup (1858) were published in successive volumes of the same journal, there is no question concerning the fact that Hoplophycis is junior to Genypterus. 1. Contribution from the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149. 2 We thank Lillian P. Dempster, California Academy of Sciences; Daniel M. Cohen, National Marine Fisheries Service; and Frederick M. Bayer, University of Miami, for advice and Comment. 3 Although Smith’s Illustrations of the Zoology of South Africa is generally regarded to have been publisned in 1849, Waterhouse (1880, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.) showed that the various parts appeared from 1838 to 1849, that with Xiphiurus in 1847. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 Whether Gunther was correct in his allocation of Hop/ophycis we are unable to determine but it is immaterial to this case. Later, when such small differences in spelling were ruled sufficient to preclude homonymy [Article 57(d) ] the name Xiphiurus was not resurrected. Thus, to our knowledge, Genypterus was universally applied to this genus of commercially important fishes from 1862 until 1968 when Abe and Arai noted that Xiphiurus was the earliest available name and used it for X. blacodes. In fact, this combination was employed in an earlier paper in the same journal issue by Inoue, Arai and Abe (1968). 3. That Xiphiurus is not preoccupied by Xiphiura and that it predates Genypterus are beyond dispute. The writers believe that to upset 106 years of universal usage for a group of animals so widely reported on in fisheries literature and in basic faunal reports is to do a disservice to biology and fisheries science. By way of example, the following reports employ Genypterus: for South Africa - both major faunal treatises, those by Barnard (1927; also his more popular work, 1947) and J.L.B. Smith [1949 and four subsequent editions; as well as his article on ‘Kingklip’ (1971: 253) in the section on fishes in the Standard Encyclopedia of Southern Africa]; for Australia — Scott (1962) and Whitley (1964); for New Zealand — Graham (1953), Heath and Moreland (1967), and Whitley (1968); for Peru — Chirichigno Fonseca (1968 and Chirichigno 1974); for Chile — Mann (1954), De Buen (1959) and Miranda Brandt (1968); for Argentina — Norman (1937), Hart (1946), Angelescu, Gneri & Nani (1958), and Ringuelet and Aramburu (1960); for Uruguay — De Buen (1959); and for Brazil — Fowler (1941). It is also used by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 1974) in their annual digest of fishery statistics. 4. From a systematic standpoint, the genus Genypterus is in need of revision and such a study has been under way for some years by the senior author. All nominal species have been studied and no change in the generic limits is contemplated. Robins (1962) used the name Genypterus in his key to eastern Pacific species of LEPOPHIDIINAE even though he was aware of the status of Xiphiurus. Prof. J.L.B. Smith and the senior author had discussed this matter about the same time. Regan (1903) in one of the few comparative treatments of species in the genus, similarly used Genypterus. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has indicated recently (1972) that long established names should not be over- turned for reasons of priority [Article 23(a-b) ] and has provided guidelines to be used in requesting suppression of names like Xiphiurus. The papers cited above exceed the requirements suggested [Article 79(b) ]. They were selected to show the universality of application of Genypterus. No effort was made to document the extensive literature of the genus. 6. The applicants therefore request the International Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy the generic name Xiphiurus Smith, 1847; 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Genypterus Philippi, 1857 (gender: masculine), type-species under Article 68(c) Genypterus nigricans Philippi, 1857 [ = Genypterus chilensis (Guichenot) J; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name chilensis, as published in the binomen Conger chilensis, by Guichenot, 1849, in Gay, C. Hist. fis. polit. Chile, Zoologia vol. 2: 339; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Xiphiurus Smith, 1847, rejected under (1) above. LITERATURE CITED (References marked with an asterisk meet the requirements of Art. 79b) ABE, T. and ARAI, R., 1968. Notes on some fishes of New Zealand and Balleny Islands. J. Tokyo Univ. Fish. (Special edition), vol. 9(2): 141-145. *“ANGELESCU, V., GNERI, F.S. and NANI, A., 1958. La Merluza del Mar Argentino (Biologia y taxonomia). Republica Argentina, Secretaria de Marina, Servicio de Hidrografia Naval H. 1004: 224 pp.; 4 maps; 27 figs. *BARNARD, K.H., 1927. A monograph of the marine fishes of South Africa. Part Il. (Teleosti — Discocephali to end. Appendix). Annals S. Afr. Mus. vol. 21: 419-1065. *“_—_—————-___ 1947. A Pictorial Guide to South African Fishes, Marine and Freshwater. Maskew Miller Ltd., Cape Town. 226 pp. *“CHIRICHIGNO Fonseca, N., 1968. Nuevos registros para la ictiofauna marina del Pert. Bo/n Inst. Mar. Peru. - vol. 1 (8): 377-504 1974. Clave para identificar los peces marinos del Peru. Intme Inst. Mar. Peru - vol. 44: 387 pp. DE BUEN, F., 1950. La Fauna de Peces del Uruguay. El Mar de Solis y su Fauna de Peces. Il Parte. Servicio Oceanografico y de Pesca (Montevideo) Publicaciones Cientificas vol. 2: 144 pp. *“_—_—_—_————_ 1959. Lampreas, tiberones, rayas y peces en la estacién de biologia marina de Montemar, Chile. Revta Bio/. Mar. vol. 9 (1-3): 3-200. “FAO. 1974. Yearbook of Fishery statistics, vol. 36. Catches and landings, 1973. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. xxii + 590 pp. “FOWLER, H.W., 1941. A list of the fishes known from the coast of Brazil. Archos zool. S. Paulo vol. 3 (6): 115-184. *GRAHAM, D.H., 1953. A Treasury of New Zealand Fishes. Wellington, A.H. and A.W. Reed. 104 pp. GUNTHER, A., 1862. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygii, Pharyngognathi, and Anacanthini in the collection of the British Museum. London. xxi + 534 pp. “HART, T.J., 1946. Report on trawling surveys on the Patagonian continental shelf. ‘Discovery’ Rep. vol. 23: 223-408 + pl. xvi. “HEATH, E. and MORELAND, J.M., 1967. Marine Fishes of New Zealand. A.H. and A.W. Reed, Wellington, Auckland, Sydney. 56pp. INOUE, K., ARAI, R and ABE, T., 1968. Experimental fishing during the voyage of the “Umitara-Maru”. J. Tokyo Univ. Fish. (Special edition) vol. 9 (2): 135-140. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 1972. XVIIth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco. Minutes of the Meetings of the International Commission. Bull. zool Nom. vol. 29(4): 168-189. KAUP, J., 1858. Uebersicht der familie Gadidae. Arch. Naturgesch. vol. 24(1): 85-93. *MANN, G., 1954. La Vida de los Peces en Aguas Chilenas. Ministerio de Agrigultura - Universidad de Chile. Santiago de Chile. 342 pp. MENNI, R.C. and LOPEZ, H.L. 1974. Presencia en la Argentina de Raneya fluminensis (Miranda Ribeiro, 1903) Robins, 1961. Neotrépica vol. 20 (61): 1-6. 7 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 *MIRANDA BRANDT, O., 1968. Calendario Ictidlogico de San Antonio II. Catalogo de otolitos de Peces capturados en un habitat rocoso. Biologico Pesquera Chile vol. 3: 41-67. “NORMAN, J.R., 1937. Coast Fishes. Part Il. The Patagonian Region. ‘Discovery’ Rep. vol. 16: 1-150 + pl. i—v. PHILIPPI, R.A., 1857. Ueber einige Chilenische Vogel und Fische. Arch. Naturgesch. vol. 23(1): 262-272. REGAN, C.T., 1903. Description of a new fish of the genus Genypterus with notes on the allied species. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 11: 599-600. *RINGUELET, R.A. and ARAMBURU, R.H., 1960. Peces marinos de la Republica Argentina. Clave para el reconocimiento de familias y géneros. Catalogo critico abreviado. Agro vol. 2(5): 141 pp. ROBINS, C.R., 1962. Studies on fishes of the family OPHIDIIDAE. VII. The Pacific species of Lepophidium. Copeia 1962 (3): 487-498. *SCOTT, T.D., 1962. The Marine and Freshwater Fishes of South Australia. W.L. Hawes, Government printer, Adelaide. 338 pp. SMITH, A., 1847. lilustrations of the Zoology of South Africa; . .. . Pisces. — Plate xxxi. Smith, Elder and Co., London (unpaginated; 31 plates, each with corresponding text). “SMITH, J.L.B., 1949. The Sea Fishes of Southern Africa. Central News Agency Ltd. South Africa. 550 pp.; 103 pls. ; 519 figs. *"“——_—_—_—_———_ 1950. Idem. 2nd. ed. 550 pp.; 103 pls.; 519 figs. (incorrectly called “Second Impression”). *“—_—_—_—_———_ 1953. Idem. 3rd. ed. 564 pp.; 107 pis.; 550 figs. (called “Revised Enlarged Edition”). *_—_—_—_—_———_ 1961. Idem. 4th ed. 580 pp.; 111 plis.; 557 figs. *_—_—_—————_ 1965. Idem. 5th ed. 580 pp., 111 pls.; 557 figs. *“_—_—_—_————_ 1971. Fishes in Standard Encyclopedia of Southern Africa. pp. 230-261. “WHITLEY, G.P., 1964. Presidential Address. A survey of Australian ichthyology. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. vol. 89(1): 11-127. *“—_—_—_—_————_ 1968. A check-list of the fishes recorded from the New Zealand Region. Aust. Zool. vol. 15(1): 1-102. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FINANCIAL REPORT 1974 There was an excess of expenditure over income during 1974 of £2,976 (£1,592). The figures in parentheses are the figures for 1973. As a result there was a reduction in the accumulated reserve arising from previous surpluses and this now stands at £2,660 Under Income, the sale of publications produced £3,893 (£3,635) and total income was £5,576 (£5,405). Under Expenditure, publications cost £3,767 (£2,762) and Administrative Expenses £4,806 (£4,091). It is evident that the Trust is suffering from the general effects of inflation and rising costs and clearly urgent steps must be taken to deal with the situation. The sole source of revenue is from the sale of publications and it is difficult to see this source providing sufficient revenue to meet expenditure. Alternative sources of income must be found and found soon. 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR Incorporated under the Companies Balance Sheet — 1973 £ £ £ £ Revenue Reserves TOTCOO” SGOnGlalHeESGING. cans. cose aes cote cette ate 10,000.00 “Official List” Suspense Account 2,659 (per separate account) 2,656.63 Income and Expenditure Account 5,637 (per separate account) 2,660.49 18,296 ———_——_. 15,317.12 Current Liabilities - NORTON CORAM tr con oot aos oka Sette 2,000.00 2,733 SUndry creditors =f: 2. Pre" oe, BRR Pie 2,652.11 Subscriptions to publications 510 received in advance .................. 293.23 3,243 -__ 4,945.34 21,539 £20,262.46 REPORT OF In our opinion the above Balance Sheet and annexed Income and Expenditure Account give : 1974, and of the result for the year ended on that date and comply with the Companies Acts, KNIGHTWAY HOUSE, 20 SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, WIV 6QJ. 3rd July, 1975 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) 31st December, 1974 1973 £ £ £ £ Fixed Assets Office Equipment — Book value at 1st July 1948 1,285 and additions since at cost ................. 1,285.52 996 Less: Depreciation and amount written off 1,025.69 289 —_—___— 259.83 Investments at cost 14,354 £14,500 9% Treasury Loan Stock 1994 ....... 14,353.67 Market value at date £7,975 £5,000 City of Cambridge 7% 1978 5,016 Redeemable Loan Stock ....................- 5,016.23 Market value at date £3,850 19,370 —— ———— 19,369.90 Current Assets £ £ 458 Amounts duefor publications 294.44 248 \Income Tax recoverable ....... 57.75 -- Value Added Tax recoverable 45.55 706 — 397.74 1,174 Balances at bank and cash in hand ............ 234.99 1,880 632.73 NOTE: The Stock of Publications has not been valued FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN ) Members of the Committee C.W. WRIGHT ) of Management 1,539 20,262.46 THE AUDITORS respectively a true and fair view of the state of the Company's affairs as at 31st December, 1948 and 1967. NORTON KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants 96 1973 g £ 252 2,840 1,191 60 4,091 50 4,041 —— 32 2,672 £6,997 1,592 5,637 £7,229 1973 £ 50 2,658 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Income and Expenditure Account for EXPENDITURE Conference Expenses Administration Expenses — Salaries, National Insurance, etc. ......-.-.-.+seeeeeeees Office Expense ...........-.ccee eee eee eters ee renee reese tees Audit F@@S .........00c02cccc cece encesececsecensencencccesconcs Less: Proportion allocated to “Official Uist’? Te... Depreciation of Office Equipment ......-..------ssseereerees Printing and Distribution of Publications — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .............+++++- Balance brought GOWN ...........:seeeseeeeeeeeeeenee ee eseen ees Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet .......-.......+. Proportion of Adrninistration Expenses Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet £ £ 3,704.37 1,041.82 60.00 4,806.19 50.00 —_--- 4,756.19 28.86 3,767.41 £8,552.46 2,976.50 2,660.49 £5,636.99 “Official List” for the year ended» £ 50.00 2,656.63 £2,706.63 ad ee = ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the year ended 31st December, 1974 1973 INCOME 3 £ £ £ £ £ Sales of Publications — 256 International Cade’, coset» < 3 Si ber's ie} ™ ‘ S paneer nee (sniding pz61) 191480 099'z c juNODOW ain}Ipuedxy pue awoou} = vO Lory ‘+ JUBWSAAU] JO UOIJESI|}Bay UO SSO7 :Sse7 —_ = @idoo'ow + eRe p6| ‘Jequaceq ys [¢ ye eouRleg 000'0L ry 3AN3S3Y IVH3aN39 SSAY¥3S3Y ANNSASRY L0'822'2 ZL€'SL 2€°L06'2 9r6'b 82°860'L BOURAPY Ul PaAladay SUO!}dWOSqnS vEC 60°608'L - 2 "* $40}!pasD Aupung 259'2 00° eee ee Cee ueo7 wJ9a] Yous 000‘z SalLIevid LNadenod OOOO EEE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 116 86°062 ‘01 86°ES1'Z L2°OSL 0S°200'l 06°SZ 2€°S26'S v6 19'S ev 09€ 3 86°SZ “ LNAWdINO| 301440 4O NOILVID3Sed30d 96'980'S eee eee eee eee eee eee eee es SNOILVOITENd 4O NOILNGIYLSICG GNV DONILNIYd Z0°822'S O0°0G 0 eeeetetetetesees LSI IvioId4o., OL GSLVOOTIV NOILHYOdOdd “SS97 z0'98ze'S O09 0 heeeteetetestesessessessesesseneees $904 pny 09°689‘ L Re sesuedx BdIHO 4) Ahh suo}}nqls}Uu0D edUeINSU| [EUOI}EN puke selejes SASN3dX3 NOILVYLSININGY -Sse7 MEE eo Aree Mate Mal of a oid LS3HSINI LISOdaza YNVA etc c eres er scesessvesece (ssoB) JWOONI LNAWLSZANI Say Ee se nce tes 4 Tae ian peed SNOILLYNOG “+ gInjejOUBWON |e9!60j007 jo uNjelj/Ng a slnciin'so dais ES Satna, REN Se oOee apog jeuoneueyu; SNOILVOINENd 40 S31VS 3 62 Z9L'€ 9SL‘b 0s 908‘b 09 Z0'L vOL'E GLS'‘¢ €@ SS9'L S 268'E 969'E 961 3 3 rl6L SZ6L ‘YAGW30AC ISLE OL YVSA SHL HOS LNNOODOV JYNLIGNAdXA GNV JWOONI 117 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91°es9'23 DOCG. me rete ite ap BS ideo tev veges wens S3SNadx3 NOILVYLSININGY 40 NOILYOdOud ‘ssa7 9L°202'2 CS Sp. once atten Eee tte cae doe ets SNOILVOINENd 40 Satvs €9°9S9'z eee ee es psemso} 1yGnoig JONVIVa ——_— 2S9'23 os 2022 8b 659'Z $261 ‘YAGW3903C ISLE OL YW3A BH HOS LNNOODOV ASN3dSNS ..LSIT TVIOI440.., 1S°9/63 ee ee ey (Snidyns vZ61L) L33HS SONV1VE 0} pales 1/91430 6r'099'2 paemios yyBnog 3ONVIVE OOZES) Tite ete teeteeeensceeenneetcestaneonpieees YVIA 3H1 HOS JIWOONI Y3SAO AYNLIGN3dX3 AO SSSOXS 099'23 ZE9'S 2262 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME ERIOCOCCIDAE COCKERELL, 1899 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA) AND THE DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR ERIOCOCCUS TARGIONI- TOZZETTI, 1868 UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2140 By Douglass R. Miller (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, /iBiIl Agr. Res. Serv., U.S.D.A., Beltsville, Md.) and D.J. Williams (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) 1. The purpose of this application is to request the international Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (I.C.Z.N.) to use its Plenary Powers to insure continued usage of the family name ERIOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1899 and the generic name Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868. Should the Rules be strictly applied, Eriococcus would be removed from the group of genera traditionally placed in the ERIOCOCCIDAE, and the commonly used family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE would have to be replaced by one based on one of the remaining nominal genera. 2. Numerous accounts in the literature indicate problems surrounding the usage of the names Eriococcus and ERIOCOCCIDAE (e.g. Ferris, 1955, pp. 69, 70, 1957, pp. 81, 82; Hoy, 1962, pp. 11-14; Miller and McKenzie, 1967, p. 480; Morrison and Morrison, 1966, pp. 1, 69; Williams, 1969, pp. 318, 325), but no application to the Commission has been made. History of Eriococcus 3. Targioni-Tozzetti (1868, p. 726) described the genus Eriococcus but did not designate a type-species. He included five species previously described in Coccus Linnaeus by Fonscolombe (1834, pp. 204, 209, 216-218): C. festucae, C. rorismarinis, C. buxi, C. crispus, and C. fimbriatus. Because no detailed description of Eriococcus was given, — Borchsenius (1948, p. 501) regarded Eriococcus Targioni- Tozzettias a nomen nudum and attributed authorship to Signoret (1870, p. 283). Hoy (1962, p. 29) and Morrison and Morrison (1966, p. 69) correctly concluded that Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti was not a nomen nudum and was available according to Article 16 (a) (v) of the Code. 4. Signoret (1870, p. 283) in his treatment of Eriococcus stated that he was reserving that genus for C. festucae (...“Eriococcus Targioni, que nous réservons pour le C. festucae Fonscolombe” ...). Between 1870 and 1872 he apparently changed his mind, because he stated (1872, p. 429) that he was reserving Eriococcus for C. buxi. Although both of these “réservations” have been considered correct type-species designations (e.g. Lindinger, 1933, p. 78; Morrison and Morrison, 1966, p. 69), neither is valid according to Article 67(c) of the Code because they are not Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 designations in a “rigidly construed” sense. If Signoret’s “réservations” were accepted as a method of type-designation, the type-species of Eriococcus would necessarily be C. festucae, the first “type reservation”, which is now considered a member of the genus Eriopeltis Signoret, family COCCIDAE. 5. Signoret (1875, p. 34) described Acanthococcus. A. aceris Signoret, 1875 (p. 35) is the type-species by monotypy. 6. Maskell (1887, p. 95) considered Acanthococcus as a junior subjective synonym of Eriococcus. This synonymy was generally accepted until the work of Borchsenius (1948) (for details see paragraph 8). 7. Fernald (1903, p. 70) made the first valid type-species designation for Eriococcus when she gave crispus as the type. This was an unfortunate choice because the identity of crispus is unknown, although from the original description (Fonscolombe, 1834, p. 204 and fig. 3), it is apparent that crispus is not an eriococcid. Thus, if the Rules are strictly applied , Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti must be considered a nomen dubium until its type-species, Coccus crispus, is identified. Lindinger (1933, p. 78) believed that crispus was a junior synonym of ihe margarodid Gueriniella serratulae (Fabricius). However, because serratu/ae is found on Cistus, Daucus, Erica, and olive, and crispus was described from “copals ou figuiers d’Inde”, which is probably Opuntia ficus-indica, it is unlikely that serratulae and crispus are the same. 8. The generally accepted type-species of Eriococcus has been C. buxi (e.g., Borchsenius, 1949, p. 322; Hoy, 1962, p. 28, 1963, p.62; Morrison and Morrison, 1966, p. 69), and this has further confused the nomenclatural position of the genus. Borchsenius (1948, p. 501) considered Eriococcus to be monotypic, containing only buxi, and transferred the remaining species, normally placed in Eriococcus, to Acanthococcus. History of the family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE 9. Signoret (1875, p. 16) described the family-group taxon Acanthococcites and included Acanthococcus, Eriococcus, and five other genera. He apparently considered Acanthococcites to be a latinized name, not a vernacular one, because he gave the name in italics. The farhily-group name ACANTHOCOCCIDAE was used with various suffixes from 1875 to 1897 (e.g., Ashmead, 1891, p. 95; Atkinson, 1886, p. 286; Fuller, 1897, p. 1345; Maskell, 1887, p. 47; 1891, p. 18; 1894, p. 45). 10. Cockerell (1899, p. 389) described the family-group taxon ERIOCOCCINI which included Eriococcus and several other genera; Acanthococcus was not mentioned and presumably was considered to be a junior synonym of Eriococcus, because the type-species of Acanthococcus (aceris) was included in Eriococcus. From 1899 to the present, the family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE has gained wide acceptance. Even in Situations where both Eriococcus and Acanthococcus are considered distinct genera (e.g., Borchsenius, 1948, p. 501; Danzig, 1964, p. 820 and some current authors), ERIOCOCCIDAE is mainly used instead of 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ACANTHOCOCCIDAE. As evidence of the general usage of the family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE, the following list of citations is given: Afifi, 1968, p. 167; Balachowsky, 1942, p. 42; Bazarov, 1963, p. 67; Boratynski, 1962, p. 55; Borchsenius, 1948, p. 501; Borchsenius and Danzig, 1966, p. 41; Danzig, 1964, p. 820; Danzig, 1975, pp. 63, 81; Ferris, 1957, p. 81; Green, 1922, p. 345; Hoy, 1962, p. 5, 1963, p. 5; Kosztarab, 1968, p. 12; Koteja, 1972, p. 569; Koteja and Zak-Ogaza, 1969, p. 362; Maxwell-Lefroy, 1909, p. 758; McDaniel, 1964, p. 101; McKenzie, 1964, p. 21; Miller, 1970, p. 157; Miller and McKenzie, 1967, p. 471. 11. All major studies of the family have used ERIOCOCCIDAE including “A catalogue of the ERIOCOCCIDAE of the world” (Hoy, 1963), “ERIOCOCCIDAE of New Zealand” (Hoy, 1962), “A review of the family Eriococcidae” (Ferris, 1957), “Morphology and taxonomy of the adult males of the families PSEUDOCOCCIDAE and ERIOCOCCIDAE” (Afifi, 1968), and “A systematic study of Ovaticoccus Kloet and its relatives, with a key to North American genera of ERIOCOCCIDAE” (Miller and McKenzie, 1967). 12. Use of the name ACANTHOCOCCIDAE in its various forms has been very limited since Cockerell first used ERIOCOCCINI. Hoy (1963, p. 22) listed only two such citations and to our knowledge ACANTHOCOCCIDAE has been used only by Koteja (1974a, p. 46; 1974b, p. 248) since Hoy’s study. Hoy (1962, p. 14) stated that if Eriococcus and Acanthococcus are distinct genera as proposed by Borchsenius (1948), then the name ACANTHOCOCCIDAE by the Law of Priority might be used instead of ERIOCOCCIDAE. However, he did not accept Borchsenius’ concepts and continued to use Eriococcus and ERIOCOCCIDAE in the traditional manner. 13. Williams (1969, p. 318) in his paper on family-group names of scale insects agreed with Hoy and suggested that the name ACANTHOCOCCIDAE be accepted depending on whether Borchsenius’ (1948) concepts of Eriococcus and Acanthococcus are considered valid or not. Williams further pointed out that both family-group names Kermesites Signoret (1875, p. 15) and Dactylopites Signoret (1875, p. 305) in the past have been considered part of the ERIOCOCCIDAE and have priority. However, it is now established that both DACTYLOPIIDAE and KERMESIDAE are distinct from ERIOCOCCIDAE. 14. If the Rules are followed, the genus Eriococcus with its type-species Coccus crispus, would be removed from the taxon presently considered under the family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE and would have to be discarded as it is currently understood. The seldom used family-group name ACANTHOCOCCIDAE would be used in place of ERIOCOCCIDAE. This situation would be extremely undesirable, because in the current systematic literature the family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE is utilized by nearly all scale taxonomists. Although the generic name Eriococcus has somewhat varied usage, it is presently considered only as a member of the taxon generally recognized under the family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE. 15. The taxon generally recognized as the family ERIOCOCCIDAE contains species of economic importance. Because of this, a large quantity Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 of economic literature has been generated utilizing the current concepts of this name. Strict application of the Rules would upset general usage of this important name. 16. Of the five species first included in Eriococcus by Targioni- Tozzetti, only Coccus buxi is a representative of the taxon generally placed in the family ERIOCOCCIDAE. Coccus festucae is now placed in the COCCIDAE, C. rorismarinis in the PSEUDOCOCCIDAE, C. crispus in the MARGARODIDAE(?) (not an eriococcid), and C. fimbriatus in the ASTEROLECANIIDAE. Because C. buxi is a common, well-known species in Europe and because it is the only eriococcid of the first five species originally included in Eriococcus, we here suggest that it be designated as the type-species of Eriococcus. 17. Eriococcus buxi is not congeneric with Acanthococcus aceris (type-species of Acanthococcus). |If Acanthococcus is not treated as a junior synonym of Eriococcus, the family-group name ACANTHOCOCCIDAE (Acanthococcites) has priority over ERIOCOCCIDAE (ERIOCOCCINI). Because the family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE is used instead of ACANTHOCOCCIDAE by all but one living coccidologist including workers from Egypt, England, France, India, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, United States, etc., and because all major works on the taxon for the past 50 or more years have used ERIOCOCCIDAE (rarely DACTYLOPIIDAE), we are here requesting that the Commission grant the generally used name ERIOCOCCIDAE precedence over ACANTHOCOCCIDAE. 18. In the interests of stability and universality of scale-insect nomenclature, we therefore ask the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all designations of type-species made prior to the ruling now requested for the nominal genus Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868, and, having done so, to designate the nominal species Coccus buxi Fonscolombe, 1834, as the type-species of that genus; : to rule that the family-group name ERIOCOCCINI Cockerell, 1899 (type-genus Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868) is to be given precedence over the family-group name ACANTHOCOCCIDAE (correction of ‘“Acanthococcites”) Signoret, 1875 (type-genus Acanthococcus Signoret, 1875) by any zoologist who believes that both names denote.a single taxon at any given level in the family-group; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Coccus buxi Fonscolombe, 1834; (b) Acanthococcus Signoret, 1875 (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Acanthococcus aceris Signoret, 1875; (b ~— 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) buxi Fonscolombe, 1834, as published in the binomen Coccus buxi (specific name of type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, of Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868); (b) aceris Signoret, 1875, as published in the binomen Acanthococcus aceris (specific name of type-species, by monotypy, of Acanthococcus Signoret, 1875); (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ERIOCOCCINI Cockerell, 1899 (type-genus Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868) with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over ACANTHOCOCCIDAE Signoret, 1875 by any zoologist who believes that both names denote a single taxon at any given level in the family-group; (b) ACANTHOCOCCIDAE (correction of ‘Acanthococcites’”) Signoret, 1875 (type-genus Acanthococcus Signoret, 1875) with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over ERIOCOCCINI Cockerell, 1899 by any zoologist who believes that both names denote a single taxon at any given level in the family-group. LITERATURE CITED AFIFI, S.A., 1968. Morphology and taxonomy of the adult males of the families Pseudococcidae and Eriococcidae. Bu//. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. Entom. Suppl. 13: 1-210 ASHMEAD, W.H., 1891. A generic synopsis of the Coccidae. Family X - Coccidae. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 18: 92-102 ATKINSON, E.T., 1886. Insect-pests belonging to the homopterous family Coccidae. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 55: 267-298 BALACHOWSKY, A., 1942. Essai sur la classification des cochenilles. Annis Ec. natn. Agric. Grignon (ser. 3) 3: 34-48 BAZAROV, B., 1963. Coccid fauna of the Kondar Gorge. (in Russian) /zv. Akad. Nauk. tadzhik. S.S.R. Otd. Biol. Nauk 1: 64-78 BORATYNSKI, K., 1962. A new species of Acanthococcus Signoret, 1875 from Britain. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (ser. B) 31: 55-60 BORCHSENIUS, N.S., 1948. On the revision of the genus Eriococcus Sign. (in Russian) Doky. Akad. Nauk. S.S.S.R. 60: 501-503 1949. Fauna of U.S.S.R. Homoptera, Pseudococcidae. (in Russian) vol. Vil. Akad. Nauk Zool. Inst., 383 pp. & DANZIG, E.M., 1966. A new species of Greenisca Borchs. from the U.S.S.R. (in Russian) Trudy zool. Inst. Leningr. 37: 41-44 COCKERELL, T.D.A., 1899. Article Vil. - First supplement to the checklist of the Coccidae. Bull. Ill. nat. Hist. Surv. 5: 389-398 DANZIG, E.M., 1964. Suborder Coccinea - Coccids or mealy bugs and scale insects. pp. 800-850. in G. Ya. Bei-Bienko (editor). Keys to the insects of the European U.S.S.R. vol. 1. Apterygota, Palaeoptera, Hemimetabola. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Zool. Inst. 1214 pp. (translated from Russian by Israel program for scientific translations 1967) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 DANZIG E.M.. 1975. New species of the genus Acanthococcus Sign. (Homoptera, Coccoidea, Eriococcidae) from the Far East of U.S.S.R. Ent. Obozr. 54: 62-81 FERNALD, M.E., 1903. A catalogue of the Coccidae of the world. Bu//. Mass. agric. Exp. Stn 88, 360 pp. FERRIS, G.F., 1955. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Vol. Ill. The families Aclerdidae, Asterolecaniidae, Conchaspididae, Dactylopiidae, and Lacciferidae. Stanf. Univ. Press: California: 233 pp. 1957. A review of the family Eriococcidae. Microentomology 22: 81-89 FONSCOLOMBE, E.L.J.H., Boyer de, 1834. Description des Kermes qu’on trouve aux environs d'Aix. Annis Soc. ent. Fr. 3: 201-218 FULLER, C., 1897. Coccid literature. J/ W. Aust. Bur. Agr. 4: 1342-1343. Also privately printed GREEN, E.E., 1922. Coccidae of Ceylon. Part V. London, Dulau and Co., pp. 345-472 HOY, J.M., 1962. Eriococcidae of New Zealand. N.Z. Dep. Sci. ind. Res. Bull. no. 146, 219 pp. 1963. A catalogue of the Eriococcidae of the world. Bul/. N.Z. Dep. scient. ise Res. no. 150, 260 pp. KOSZTARAB, M., 1968. Cryptococcidae, a new family of the Coccoidea. Va J. Sci. 19: 12 KOTEJA, J., 1972. Notes on the Polish scale fauna. Polskie Pismo ent. 42: 565-571 1974a. Comparative studies on the labium in the Coccinea. Zesz. nauk. Akad. Roln. Krakow, Nr. 89: 1-162 1974b. The occurrence of acampaniform sensillum on the tarsus in the Coccinea. Polskie Pismo ent. 44: 243-252. & ZAK-OGAZA, B., 1969. The scale-insect fauna of the Ojcow National Park in Poland. Acta Zool. cracov. 14: 351-373 LINDINGER, L., 1933. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Schildlaise. Ent. Anz. 13: 77-78, 107-108, 116-117, 143, 159-160, 165-166 MASKELL, W.M., 1887. An account of the insects noxious to agriculture and plants in New Zealand. The scale-insects. Didsbury: Wellington, 116 pp. 1891. Further coccid notes: with descriptions of new species from New Zealand, Australia, and Fiji. Trans. Proc. N.Z. Inst. (1890) 23: 1-36 1894. Remarks on certain genera of Coccidae. Entomologist 27: 44-46, 93-95, 166-168 MAXWELL-LEFROY, H., 1909. Indian insect life. A manual of the insects of the plains (tropical India). Thacker, Spink: Calcutta, 786 pp. McDANIEL, B., 1964. Key to Texas species of the genus Eriococcus and a description of a new species. Tex. J. Sci. 16: 101-106 McKENZIE, H.L., 1964. Two new eriococcid scales from California. Scale studies - part XVI. Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric. 53: 21-25 MILLER, D.R., 1970. A new genus and species of scale insect from Tasmania.J. Aust. ent. Soc. 9: 157-159 & McKENZIE, H.L. 1967. A systematic study of Ovaticoccus Kloet and its relatives, with a key to North American Genera of Eriococcidae. Hilgardia 38: 471-539 MORRISON, H. & MORRISON, E.R., 1966. An annotated list of generic names of the scale insects. Misc. Publs U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1015, 206 pp. SIGNORET, V. 1870. Essai sur les cochenilles ou gallinsectes, 7© partie (1). Ann/s Soc. ent. Fr. (ser. 4) 10: 267-286 1872. Essai sur les cochenilles ou gallinsectes, 8© partie (1). Ann/s Soc. ent. Fr. (ser. 5) 1: 421-434 1875. Essai sur les cochenilles ou gallinsectes, 14© partie (1). Ann/s Soc. ent. Fr. (ser. 5) 5: 15-40, 305-352 TARGIONI-TOZZETTI, A., 1868. Introduzione alla seconda memoria per gli studi sulle cocciniglie, e catalogo dei generi e delle species delle famiglia dei Coccidi. Memorie Soc. ital. Sci. nat. (1869) 3: 694-738. Privately printed in 1868. Serial publication was printed in 1869 WILLIAMS, D.J., 1969. The family-group names of the scale insects. Bul/. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. Ent. 23: 315-341 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TANYSTROPHEUS H. VON MEYER, [1852] (REPTILIA): REVISED REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2084 By Rupert Wild (Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde, Arsenalplatz 3, 7140 Ludwigsburg, Germany) The generic name Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (for evidence of date, see W. Quenstedt, 1963) was first published in Zur Fauna der Vorwelt, zweite Abteilung: 42 in the description of some fossil bones from the Middle Trias which he recognized to be exceptionally elongate vertebrae. He says that G. zu Munster had taken them to be the limb-bones of an exceptionally long-legged saurian and had proposed the name Macroscelosaurus for them. Minster, who lived from 1776 to 1844, worked from 1806 mainly in Bavaria, where these bones come from; but the name Macroscelosaurus is not to be found in any of his known published works or in any relevant reference cited by von Freyberg, 1974 in his comprehensive geological bibliography of north-east Bavaria. 2. Macroscelosaurus (which does not preoccupy Macroscelesaurus Haughton, 1918, a Permian reptile from South Africa) was therefore first published as a synonym of Tanystropheus and must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 11d. The alternative possible view, that these two names, published simultaneously, should be dealt with under the first reviser principle (Art. 24a) is not supported by the evidence, since that provision must be based on the assumption that both names were valid for their author(s). It is plain that Macroscelosaurus was not valid (“nicht entlassig”) for von Meyer. 3. Tanystropheus has been used almost exclusively as the valid name for the genus (of which the type-species, by monotypy, is T. conspicuus von Meyer, [1852]) and | append a list of ten references by more than five different authors in the last 50 years to establish an a priori case for its conservation under Arts.23a-b and 79b. One author, however, (O. Kuhn, 1934: 118; 1966: 43; 1971: 11) has adopted Macroscelosaurus. The name is therefore available under Article 11d and can only be suppressed by the Commission using its plenary powers. Kuhn refers to “Macroscelosaurus Minster, 1834”, but it has proved impossible to verify any such reference. 4. A further potential threat to the stability of Tanystropheus is presented by the generic name Zanclodon Plieninger, 1847. In 1847 Plieninger (: 152 ff., pl. 3, figs 3-8) described and illustrated a fragment of an upper jaw, some vertebrae, phalanges and dermal ossifications from the Lettenkeuper of Gaildorf/Wurttemberg as Zanclodon /aevis. All of these specimens have been lost except the upper jaw-fragment, of which the teeth show that it cannot possibly belong to Tanystropheus. On the other hand, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 two of the vertebrae may be of Tanystropheus. E. Fraas (1896: 18) pointed out that Plieninger’s name had been misused shortly after its establishment by Quenstedt, whose great authority led to his usage being generally adopted. Fraas therefore proposed to leave usage undisturbed and renamed Plieninger’s species Zanclodon plieningeri. He based this name — which is a junior objective synonym of Zanclodon laevis Plieninger — on the description of the upper jaw fragment alone, but did not expressly designate it as the type-specimen either of Z. /aevis or of Z. plieningeri. Moreover, he did not refer Plieninger’s other syntypes to any other species than that in which they had been described, so that he must be assumed to have understood Plieninger’s concept in its original sense. To prevent any further confusion, as well as to safeguard Tanystropheus, | now designate as lectotype of Zanclodon laevis Plieninger, 1847, the fragment of upper jaw figured by Plieninger and housed in the Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde in Stuttgart, Ludwigsburg. 5. | therefore ask the Commission (a),to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852] for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place the generic name Tanystropheus H. von Meyer [1852] (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Tanystropheus conspicuus H. von Meyer, [1852], on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name conspicuus H. von Meyer, [1852], as published in the binomen Tanystropheus conspicuus (specific name of type-species of the nominal genus Tanystropheus), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], as suppressed under the plenary powers in (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (c ~— (d — REFERENCES Those marked with * fulfil the requirements of Art. 79b for Tanystropheus. *ADAM, K.D., 1951. Ein Tanystropheus-Fund aus dem Hauptmuschelkalk bei Schloss Stetten (Kreis Kunzelsau). N. Jb. Geol. Paldont., Monatshefte 1953: 40-43 BROILI, F., 1915. Beobachtung an Tanystropheus conspicuus H. v. Meyer. N. Jb. Miner. Geol. Palaont., Beil.-Bd. 1915, Il: 51-62 *EDINGER, T. 1924. Rickenmark im Wirbelkérper! Anat. Anz., vol. 57: 515-519 FRAAS, E., 1896. Die schwabischen Trias-Saurier. Mitth. kdnig/. Nat. Cabinet zu Stuttgart, No.5. Separate, 18 pp., Stuttgart (Schweizerbart) FREYBERG, B. von, 1974. Das geologische Schrifttum Uber Nordost-Bayern (1476-1965). Teil |, Bibliographie, Teil Il, Biographisches Autoren-Register. Geo/. Bavarica, vols. 70, 71 *HAAS, G., 1970. Eine bemerkenswerte Interclavicula von (?) Tanystropheus aus dem Muschelkalk des Wadi Ramon, Israel. Palaeont. Zeitschr. vol. 44: 207-214 HUENE, F. von, 1907-1908. Die Dinosaurier der europaischen Triasformation. Geo/. palaont. Abh., Suppl. vol. 1: 419 pp. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HUENE, F. von, 1931. Uber Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. N. Jb. Miner. Geol. Palaont., Beil.-Bd. Abt. B, vol. 67: 65-86 ————. 1944. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Protorosaurier. /Ibid., 1944: 120-131 “KUHN, E., 1947. Der Schadel von Tanystropheus. Eclog. geo!. Helv. vol. 40: 390 *“KUHN-SCHNYDER, E., 1959. Hand und Fuss von Tanystropheus longcobardicus (Bassani). Eclog. geol. Helv. vol. 52: 921-941 KUHN, O., 1934. Sauropterygia. Fossilium Cat., |: 69 1966. Die Reptilien. Krailling bei Munchen (Oeben), 154 pp. ————— 1971. Die Saurier der deutschen Trias. Altotting (Geiselberger), 105 pp. MEYER, H. von, [1852]. Die Saurier des Muschelkalkes mit Ricksicht auf die Saurier aus Buntem Sandstein und Keuper, in Zur Fauna der Vorwelt, zweite Abtheilung, 3. Lieferung, VIII + 167 pp., 70 pls., Frankfurt (Keller) “ORTLAM, D., 1967. Fossile Boden als Leithorizonte fir die Gliederung des hdheren Buntsandsteins im ndrdlichen Schwarzwald und siidlichen Odenwald. Geol. Jb. vol. 84: 485-590 PEYER, B., 1931. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass. sp. in Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Abh. schweiz. palaont. Ges. vol. 50: 5-110 1939. Uber die Rekonstruktion des Skelettes von Tanystropheus. Eclog. geol. Helv. vol. 32: 203-209 *“————— & KUHN-SCHNYDER, E., 1955. Squamates du Trias, in Piveteau, J., (ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, vol. 5: 578-605. Paris (Masson) PLIENINGER, T., 1847. Uber ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, zweischneidigen Zahnen in eine Familie. Jh. Ver. vaterl. Naturk. Wdrtt. vol. 2: 148-154 QUENSTEDT, W., 1963. Clavis Bibliographica. Fossilium Cat. |, 102 “WILD, R., 1973. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (neue Ergebnisse). Schweiz. palaont. Abh. vol. 95: 162 pp. * * Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 APPLICATION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME SMINTHOPSIS MURINA VAR. CONSTRICTA SPENCER, 1896 (MARSUPIALIA, DASYURIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2080 By M. Archer (Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Queens/and, Australia) The name Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896 was published in connection with a specimen of a small carnivorous marsupial collected at Oodnadatta, Northern Territory. The name has only been used twice (see 5 below) for a taxon but no material has been allocated to it except that assigned by its original author; its status has been discussed in the literature by Dixon (1970) and it has been listed in faunal lists by Iredale & Troughton (1934), Parker (1973), Tate (1947), Finlayson (1961) and Troughton (1965). In the last 50 years only Tate (1947) regarded the name as valid. He did not allocate any specimens to this taxon, indicated uncertainty in its application, and noted that he had not examined the type-specimen. 2. The type-specimen was neither nominated nor figured by Spencer (loc. cit.) in the type description. 3. The type-specimen is not known with certainty to exist, although there has been a suggestion by Dixon (loc. cit.) that a specimen C 6920 in the National Museum of Victoria may be the holotype despite the fact that the measurements and sex disagree with those published by the original author. 4. C 6920 is an undoubted specimen of the species Sminthopsis crassicaudata (Gould, 1844) and which would, if assigned to subspecies, be a specimen of the taxon which is currently called Sminthopsis crassicaudata centralis Thomas, 1902, by those who recognize that subspecies. The name centralis has been used by Jones (1923), Finlayson (1933), Iredale & Troughton (1934), Tate (1947), and Troughton (1965). Tate (1947, p. 122) anticipates the possibility that Sminthopsis murina var. constricta may equal centralis. 5. If specimen C 6920 is not the holotype (and | do not think it is), on geographical grounds it is possible that the name Sminthopsis murina var. constricta refers to the taxon which is recognized by me, in my current revision (accepted for publication by Bul/. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.) of Sminthopsis, as Sminthopsis ooldea Troughton, 1965. This possibility is suggested also by Parker (1973). The name oo/dea has been used by Troughton (1965 and 1967), Parker (1973), and Archer (1975a, b, 1976a, b). The name oo/dea is also involved in numerous publications by other authors in press, a consequence of the recent discovery of this form in many areas of central Australia. 6. Instability which results from the present situation can be removed by one of the alternative actions of either selecting a neotype for Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, part 2, September 1976 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Sminthopsis murina var. constricta or by suppressing it. The former alternative would, depending upon the nature of the specimen selected, either upset an established name (i.e. centralis) in favour of this name which has never been allocated to a taxon except by its original author, as a variety of murina, and by Tate (1947, but without additional material) as a variety of macroura, or the name ooldea which has both an adequate type-specimen and type-locality. The latter alternative would maintain existing usage. 7.1 hereby apply to the Internatonal Commision on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and to place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ARCHER, M., 1975a. Mem. Qd Mus. 17: 243 1975b. Mem. Qd Mus. 17: 252. 1976a. Aust. J. Zool. Suppi. Ser., 1976, No. 39: 2 1976b. Mem. Qd. Mus. 17: 346 DIXON, J.M., 1970. Mem. natn. Mus. Melb. 31: 107. FINLAYSON, H.H., 1933. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 57: 197-199. ———————— 1961. Rec. S. Aust. Museum. 14: GOULD, J., 1844. Proc. Zoo/. Soc. Lond. 12: 105. IREDALE, T. & TROUGHTON, E. Le G. 1934. Mem. Aust. Mus. Sydney, No. 6: 11. JONES, F. Wood, 1923. The Mammals of South Australia. Pt. 1. Adelaide, Govt. Print.: 115. PARKER, S.A., 1973. Rec. S. Aust. Museum 16: 7. SPENCER, W.B., 1896. Rept. Horn Sci. Exped. Central Australia 2, Zoology: 33. TATE, G.H.H. 1947. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 88: 122. THOMAS, O., 1902. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7) 10: 491-492. TROUGHTON, E. Le G. 1965. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 89: 317. —_—_————— 1967. Furred animals of Australia. 9th ed. Sydney, Angus and Robertson: 39. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing Director) The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. Mon. J. Forest Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Mr. N.D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. N.R, Stoll Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G.F. de Witte B. The Officers of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) Prof. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972). Lepidoptera Dr. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle 75231, Paris, France) (30 September 1972). Diptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (/nstytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975). Coleoptera Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (March, 1976) Nematoda CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Page International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report and Accounts for1974 ..............--.. 93 Financial Report and AccountS for1975 .............-..55 113 NEW AND REVIVED CASES ELAPIDAE (Reptilia: Serpentes): request for suppression and validation of names (H.M. Smith & R.B. Smith) ............. 73 Family-group name of the Leaf-Eating Monkeys (Mammalia, Primates): proposal to give COLOBIDAE Blyth, 1875, pre- cedence over SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843, and PRESBYZTINA Gray, 1625. (E. DelSOn) : . 5.5 2. 0... cen cee 85 Xiphiurus Smith, 1847: Proposed suppression in favour of Genyp- terus Philippi, 1857 (Pisces, OPHIDIIDAE). (C. Richard Robins I ier aro daia ce teeta ei atcleni donate aye eek le ROA 90 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Should Microform Methods be Accepted as Valid Methods of Publication under the Code? (R.V. Melville) .-.-----+++20007 Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda): proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers. (R.V. Melville) ...--- ERIOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1899 (Insecta, Homoptera) proposed conservation of the family-group name ERIOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1899 (Insecta, Homoptera): Eriococcus Targioni- Tozzetti, 1868: proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers (D.R. Miller & D.J. Williams) .....---++-++95 Tanystropheus H. von Meyer [1852] (Reptilia): revised request for conservation under the plenary powers. (R. Wild) © .5 h2.0 ats Sminthopsis murina vat. constricta Spencer, 1896 (Marsupialia, DASYURIDAE): application for the suppression of the name. (M. Arched). -:--ciraacus meaatereat 80" a Comments Euplilis Risso, 1826 (Hymenoptera, SPHECIDAE: Comment on pro- posed suppression in favor of Rhopalum Stephens, 1829 (R.M. Bohart & RS, MO@AKC) js. sone cee: Vans eae Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 (Nematoda): comment on application for a ruling on the availability of five specific names proposed as new genus in a “preliminary key to British Species of Heterodera” (R.M. HEtfardS) ook FEES. eae: aera Rhiniodon Smith, 1828 (Pisces): comment on proposed suppression in favour of Rhincodon Smith, 1829 (C.L. Hubbs, L.J.V. Compagno & W.I. PONE es ete ek eine «¥en Notozus Forster, 1853 (Insecta, Hymenoptera: CHRYSIDIDAE): comments on proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names (W.J. Pulawski a ROW. Bonarty oc ee eee Halecium Oken, 1815 (Coelenterata: Hydroida): comment on pro- posed validation: and suppression of Thoa Lamouroux, 1816 (Hydroida) (H. Lemche; reply by P. Gornelits) 2... 3 ss sea © 1976. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Norman Carter at 11 Broad Street, Teddington, Middlesex. Page 98 105 118 124 127 68 69 ° 70 a { a. tisr. S\ ISSN 0007-5167 Volume 33, Parts 3/4 \S "Casey, f 31st MARCH 1977 pp. 129-265, T.P. I-XIl ‘ i A — CGE YORAM RBS) OR iain ae ny OT as a < . ‘iV - af ; JADE SC ef rx r— Wee peed Bt, vee a * ‘ a , % a 7 A I= rt bye ‘tow, Sele |r eerie ta lh mead ba 2 6 oe re 0 eas | 4% abe = 7 -" - iF Pm Tha he -- . WO WGiSsiIWMOD 2A , r ft SRtit 2 . : st! *> \ ) , ry in : a ; ¥ P a ane @ AS eerie de: : ao. doco) i jac bw BY . * ‘Bereigun toca ee Jie % : : ie rok d c , ee a ! : i Att: os 4 ao Re *") - ~ Fe 7 3 DY g BO OURS Vateh Marnie’, : re . BYERS <1 Taye re 2A mS es % : Are + By _ = a Hy rr ve Pe. rll id 7% — e psi, a f tes arf ‘ jivliad ae , ye ¢ du ~~ , — Tie ae ‘aa, 2 ee f r ~~ Se ; ‘ ' xy Ae = 5 y : i i © hy 4 ea Lsy (i: > +. s ; ae ae t OGKOS Earn 1 er a ~ ' : 7 . a t ‘ : Tt) aC: a iY ' } - wenge ip etre, Cae. ag OTe ; Retain acts ter ee va tticht< = oie “yy vie 6a ae ¥ Oe tp eee tne vhs . re ax eaigorses netistackinnsad iotigonait et ip Hartod alti eaitesthie® 3 ait fr ent . “7 * eo) 2% Ai aed eae : ‘ Oe ™% . * a. | ; “ ie = Lane ‘sok PS, Le he EE 5 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission pipet President: Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (C.S.1.R.0., Division of Land Use Research, P.O. Box 1666, A.C.T. 2601 Australia}. Vice-President: Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5DB). Assistant Secretary: Dr. |.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural ere Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Dr. Eugene EISENMANN (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, U.S.A.) (30 January 1968) Ornithology Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum(Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (30 January 1968) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.1. STAROBOGATOY (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.A.) (30 January 1968) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972) Protozoa; Systematics Prof. T. HABE (National Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) Mollusca Dr. |1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (/nstituto Miguel Lillo, S.M. de Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. B.B. ROHDENDORF (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow V-71, U.S.S.R.) )21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale 16121, Genova, Italy) (30 September 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-22362, Lund, Sweden) (30 September 1972) Arthropoda, Ecology Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark) (30 September 1972) Opisthobranchia; Phylogeny Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departmento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea, Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) (30 September 1972). Mollusca Prof. Harold E. VOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972). Mollusca : Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972). (Vice-President) Crustacea Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972). Lepidoptera Dr. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231, Paris, France) (30 September 1972). Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (/nstytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975). Coleoptera Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March, 1976) Nematoda Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (C.S./.R.0., Division of Land Use Research, P.O. Box 1666 Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) (29 September 1976) (President) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. CurtisW. SABROSKY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.)(Councillor) Diptera. Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) (Reptilia; E D P Methods) INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing Director) The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. Mon. J. Forest Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Mr. N.D. Riley, C.B.E. Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G.F. de Witte B: The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) CONTENTS continued Opittiany: TiIDrAaNG|BOSGMIMNA. 25 steac clei aieinie cies oe ces nca clam wlers alere ele Gia we Minutes of general meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the XIX General Assembly of IUBS, Bangalore, India, from 27th September to 2nd October 1976 ......... Opinions Opinion 1065. Polyzonium germanicum Brandt, 1837, conserved: Platyulus audouinii Gervais, 1836, suppressed (Diplopoda, EOL ZONA) ous. ciiend. ewe . Tee). ARO. AS XE. Opinion 1066. Lyda alternans Costa, 1859, given precedence over Lyda inanis Klug, 1808 (Insecta: Coleoptera) ...................- > Opinion 1067. Suppression of De/phinus pernettensis de Blainville, 1817 and Delphinus pernettyi Desmarest, 1820 (Mammalia: Gelacea)igerls ty. .cevetiae «Aird. tela ie ne eee seis «tam a Opinion 1068. | LEPTOSOMATIDAE in Aves. and Nematoda: resolution of homonyny arising from similarity in the names of THEY DE. GeNnela’. toch rie - SHR aise sce ected weiss clini wpietens aueneeaie = Opinion 1069. Correction of entry in Official List of Family-Group names in Zoology for Name Number 428 (THRAUPIDAE) ........... Opinion 1070. Conservation of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer 1861. (AVeS) ena dicians DAS Rs PRT ee eh Re Opinion 1071. Emendation under the plenary powers of LIOPELMATINA to LEIOPELMATIDAE (Amphibia, Salientia) ........ Opinion 1072. Refusal of request to suppress Hyla crucialis Harlan, qipee (Amphibia): -eeacsteuaad.. Seer epee: aki «ees a weenie: Opinion 1073. Validation of RIODINIDAE Grote, 1895 (1827) (lkepidoptera) tresses once... PRY. . Opinion 1074. Murex rana bubo Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type- species of Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda) ................ Opinion 1075. Conservation of Striglina Guenée, 1877 (Lepidoptera, Pr MEIEIDAE na 26 2) Rin AOR ES eO TE. oe APD Opinion 1076. Refusal of application for use of the plenary powers to suppress Procyon brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837 and Procyon obscurus Wiegmann, 1837 (Mammalia, Carnivora) ................. Opinion 1077. Refusal of request to use the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Bomaees Boddaert, 1768 AIVIAUTIENT ALLA MEM craveese oye an yieaye ect cescn otene aia cctic saat Aleedecels chains mye etebaeety ie) 185 151 155 157 159 162 165 167 170 v2 174 176 179 New and revived cases Amendments to an application for the designation of a type-species under the plenary powers for Drupella Thiele, 1925 (Gastropoda). By W.O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, NOW Zealan\e cogs ojcnena aevetyaiitomecchs nts « Spustaatig: Bee Cotyle Boie, 1826 (Aves, HIRUNDINIDAE): request for suppression. By R.K. Brooke (Durban Museum, Smith Street, Durban 4001, FI te kine eee Sw ye hee a Bip iathn wives Rees 6 Request for the conservation of Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886, and the suppression of Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826 and Rana virescens Cope, 1889 (Amphibia: Salientia). By L.E. Brown and R.S. Funk (Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, U.S.A.); and Hobart M. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) ........ Leptotyphlops and Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilla, Serpentes): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. By A.F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London, S.W.7); J. Robb (Department of Zoology, University of Auckland, New Zealand) and G. Underwood (Department of Biological Sciences, City of London Polytechnic) .............cc0ccceeeeuees The type-species of Goniurellia Hendel, 1927 (Insecta: Diptera: TEPHRITIDAE): by A. Freidberg and J. Kugler (Department of Zoology, The George S. Wise Center for Life Sciences, Tel Aviv Linivertsitys ishadl). area Salles .. aemuiiot). PPS. ek. Chlorophis carinatus Andersson, 1901, proposed nomenclatural precedence over Philothamnus nigrofasciatus Buchholz and Peters, 1875, its senior subjective synonym. (Reptilia: COLUBRIDAE). By Barry Hughes (University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana) ........ Siack .. us. Helton. . eek. Seenee. . Calymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita): proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a neotype in harmony with current use. By R.P. Tripp (British Museum (Natural History), London) J.T. Temple (Birkbeck College, London ) and K.C. Gass (Milwaukee, U.S.A.) ......... O) PaeeT OF; Deve ee. CL. 216 218 221 228 233 241 245 248 Proposed direction to amend the date of Entomostracites punctatus Wahlenberg (Trilobita) from 1821 to [1818] (Official List of Specific Names in Zoology No. 1595). By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ............ Comments Comment: Pan and Panthera of Oken’s Lehrbuch? By P. Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605), and reply to P. Hershkovitz by G.B. Corbet, J.E. Hill, J.M. Ingles and P.H. Napier (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell ReadLondon SWL5DB)ines. . 28s. . Se eo. eee. Comments on Gjiraffa camelopardalis australis Rhoads, 1896 (Mammalia). By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) and A.|. Dagg (University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1) ... 1... ec eens Comments on a Challenge to the family name ATTACIDAE (Insecta: Lepidoptera). By |I.W.B. Nye, D.S. Fletcher and A. Watson (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5DB) and C. Lemaire (c/o Laboratoire d’Entomologie, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris) ................ Comments on the revised application for a ruling on the stem of the Family-group name based on the _ type-genus Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758. By W.l. Follett and L.J. Dempster (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A.) and C. Richard Robins (Chairman, Committee on Names of Fishes, American Fisheries Society and American Society of Ichthyologists and _ Herpetologists; Maytag Professor of Ichthyology, School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University OF Miami). arenes) ROME See Cae Comments on CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836 (Aves) versus CIRCINAE Dall, 1895 (Mollusca). By E. Elsenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.); G.N. Kashin (Propect Vernadskogo No. 61, app. 53, Moscow 117415, U.S.S.R.), R.K. Brooke (P.O. Box 1690, Salisbury, Rhodesia): reply by Dr. B. Roth (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A.) to K.M. Brooke; comment by D. Heppell (Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, foot It) we ee gi et ee Comment on proposed suppression of Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815 in favour of Zerynthia Ochsenhelmer, 1816. By O. Kudrna (Portsmouth Polytechnic, Portsmouth, England), P.R. Ackery, N.D. Riley and L.G. Higgins (British Museum (Natural History), London SW75BD) ...... Bh eadrai st riba SiR rth char rete erat en 253 135 136 137 142 143 Comments on the proposed designations fo type-species for Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina: Eriophyoidea). By E.E. Lindquist (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Research Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OC6, Canada); D.C.M. Manson (Department of Agriculture, Plant Health and Diagnostic Station, P.O. Box 241, Levin, New Zealand); M.K.P. Smith Meyer (Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa) and G.W. Ramsay (Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Entomology Division, Mt. Albert Research Centre, Auckland, New Zealand) .................. Comments on the request to determine the generic names of the Baboon and the Manarill. By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands); E. Delson and P.H. Napier; J. Meester (University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, Natal South Africa); and R.H.N. Smithers (Associate Curator of Mammals, Queen Victoria Museum, Causeway, Rhodesia) ......... Comments on the revived application concerning Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758 by L.B. Holthuis and the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ..................0e0eee BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Be Volume 33, parts 3/4 (pp. 129-254) 31st March, 1977 a NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting - In normal circumstances the Commission may start 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 [those marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b]: (1) (2) *(3) *(4) *(5) (6) (7) Drupella Thiele, 1925 (Gastropoda): designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 1891. Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 (Nematoda): revised proposals concerning validation. Z.N.(S.) 1955. Cotyle Boje, 1826 (Aves, HIRUNDINIDAE): request for suppression. Z.N.(S.) 2117. Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886, request for conservation of; Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826 and Rana virescens Cope, 1889, request for suppression of (Amphibia Salientia). Z.N.(S.) 2141. Alburnops plumbeolus Cope, 1865 and Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus Cope, 1868: request to suppress Fowler’s lectotype designations. Z.N.(S.) 2154. Leptotyphlops and Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia; Serpentes): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2155. Goniurellia Hendel, 1927 (Insecta, Diptera, TEPHRITIDAE): designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2157. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature *(8) ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Mammalia): proposed suppression. Z.N.(S.) 2159. *(9) Psammophis moniliger var. bilineatus Peters, 1867: proposed suppression in favour of P. sibilans subtaeniata Peters, 1882 (Reptilia, COLUBRIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2165. *(10) Philodryas nattereri Steindachner, 1870 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservaiion. Z.N.(S.) 2166. *(11) Siphonophora Fischer, 1823 (Bryozoa), status of: Siphonophora Brandt, 1837 (Diplopoda, Polyzoniida), validation of.Z.N.(S.) 2168. (12) Pieris castoria Reakirt, 1867 (Insecta, LEPIDOPTERA): proposed suppression. Z.N.(S.) 2170. *(13) Culex loewi Giebel, 1862 (Insecta, Diptera, CULCIDAE): request for suppression so as to conserve Toxorhynchites brevipalpis Theobald, 1901. Z.N.(S.) 2173. *(14) Chlorophis carinatus Andersson, 1901; proposed nomenclatural precedence over Philothamnus nigrofasciatus Bucholz and Peters, 1875. Reptilia; COLUBRIDAE Z.N.(S.) 2174. (15) Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886 (Fossil order Stromatoporoidea): problem of the type-specimen of the type-species, Stromatoporella granulata (Nicholson), 1873. Z.N.(S.) 2177. (16) Calymene_ variolaris Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita): proposed designation of a neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2189. (c) The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 33(2) on 30th September 1976. Those marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b. (1) Pharostoma Rouault, 1847, and Prionocheilus Hawle and Corda, 1847 (Trilobita): proposed regulation. Z.N.(S.) 2191 (D.J. Siveter). (2) Haliplanella Treadwell, 1943 (Polychaeta), proposed suppression in favour of Haliplaneila Hand, 1955 (Anthozoa). Z.N.(S.) 2192 (D. Fautin Dunn and C.Hand). (3) ‘Campylosteira Fieber, 1844 (Hemiptera, TINGIDAE): designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2193 (J. Péricart). (4) Baeocera Erichson, 1845 (Coleoptera, SCAPHIDIIDAE): designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2194 (I. LObl). *(5) Simia syndactyla Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, HYLOBATIDAE): proposal to give precedence over Simia gibbon C. Miller, 1779. Z.N.(S.) 2195 (C.P. Groves). (6) Alytus Hampe, 1863 (Insecta: Coleoptera, PSELAPHIDAE): proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Batrisodes Reitter, 1881 and Alytus Jacoby, 1887. Z.N.(S.) 2196 (C. Besuchet). (7) Davila consanguineus Distant, 1893: request to designate as type-species of Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (Hemiptera, LYGAEIDAE) Z.N.(S.) 219%(M.H. Sweet). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 (8) Loxoconcha tumida Brady, 1869 (Crustacea, OSTRACODA): proposal to validate. Z.N.(S.) 2198 (J. Athersuch). (9) Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865 (Insecta, Diptera, TABANIDAE): request for designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2199 (C.B. Philip). “(10) Lopus longirostris Jordan, 1947 (Insecta, Heteroptera, MIRIDAE): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2200 (I.M. Kerzhner). (11) MORPHIDAE Boisduval, 1836 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): request for revision of Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2201 (C.F. Cowan). *(12) Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas, 1766 and Lagis koreni Malmgren 1866 ( Polychaeta): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2202 (C. Nielsen). (13) Dipetalonema, viteae, Krepkogorskaya, 1933 (Nematoda, ONCHOCERCIDAE): proposed determination of correct spelling. Z.N.(S.( 2203 (O. Bain, A. Chabaud, B.Duke, R. Kouznetzov, R. Muller, P. Wenk). *(14) Tinea, bjerkandrella, Thunberg, 1784 and Phalaena (Noctua) cardui Hubner, 1790 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2204 (1.W.B. Nye, O. Karsholt, E.S. Nielsen). (15) Entomostracites punctatus Wahlenberg (Trilobita): proposed Direction to amend date from 1821 to 1818 on Official List of Specific Names in Zoology No. 1595, Z.N.(S.) 2205 (Secretary). (16) HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901 (Myriapoda, Chilopoda): proposed conservation. Z:N.(S.) 2206 (M. Wurmli). c/o British Museum (Natural History) R.V.MELVILLE Cromwell Road Secretary LONDON SW7 5BD, U.K. International Commission on Novemher 1976 Zoological Nomenclature 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS. A. ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. At the XIX General Assembly of IUBS at Bangalore, 27 September - 2 October 1976, the Division of Zoology, acting as successor in authority to the International Congress of Zoology, re-elected Dr. Ride, Dr. Sabrosky, Dr. Kraus and Dr. Mayr and elected Dr. H.G. Cogger a new member of the Commission. Dr. G.G. Simpson was not nominated for re-election. Dr. Harold Cogger is aged 41. He has been Head of the Department of Herpetology at the Australian Museum, Sydney, since 1961. His main fields of research are in various aspects of the biology of the reptiles and amphibians of Australia and the western Pacific region, and in the application of computers to biological and bibliographical problems. B. RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. Dr. Ernst Mayr (Commissioner-at-large) and Prof. Dr. H.K. Erben (Germany) have resigned from the Commission. _C. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES. Two vacancies exist in the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature owing to resignations. Nominations for candidates for election to the vacancies should be sent to the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom, within three months of the date of publication of this notice in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Candidates must be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature. Nominations must state the name, cate of birth, nationality, field(s) of specialisation and qualifications of each candidate, and the name(s) and status of the nominator(s). A list of the candidate’s publications and his curriculum vitae would also be helpful. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 D. DR. 1.W.B. NYE The Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Dr. R. Hedley, and the Keeper of Entomology, Dr. Paul Freeman, have kindly agreed that Dr. |.W.B. Nye may devote a part of his official time to work as Assistant Secretary to the Commission. The Commission is most grateful for his help c/o British Museum (Natural History), R.V. MELVILLE, Cromwell Road, Secretary, International London, SW7 5BD, Commission on Zoological United Kingdom. Nomenclature. November, 1976. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBITUARY: HILBRAND BOSCHMA The Commission announces, with great regret, the death of Dr. Hilbrand Boschma on 22 July 1976 at the age of 83. Dr. Boschma was born at IJsbrechtum in Friesland in 1893. He took his degrees at the University of Amsterdam and gained an early reputation for his researches on parasitic Copepoda (Rhizocephala) and corals. In later years he developed from a comparative anatomist to an all-round biologist of exceptional breadth of expertise and activity. In 1934, at the early age of 41, he became Director of the Rijksmuseum at Leiden and Professor of systematic zoology at Leiden University. His ability as an administrator is shown by the fact that, even in the great depression, he increased the financial resources and the staff of the Museum; and by his success in keeping all his staff out of German hands during the years of occupation. He retired as Director in 1958 and as Professor in 1963, but maintained his scientific activity to the end of his life. Dr. Boschma was elected a member of the Commission in 1946 and retired on reaching the age-limit in 1968. He attended the Paris (1948), Copenhagen (1953) and London (1958) Congresses of Zoology and took an active part in the Colloquia on nomenclature at Copenhagen and London. Apart from his work on the Commission he worked hard to interest his students in nomenclature and published several papers on nomenclature problems. Towards the end of his life his health began to fail and he suffered a fractured hip and arm a few days before his death, but passed peacefully away without pain. L.B.H. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Wee: COMMENT: PAN AND PANTHERA OR OKEN’S LEHRBUCH? Z.N.(S.) 482 (see vol. 31: 29) by Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, I/linois 60605) In their resubmittal of the application of Morrison-Scott (1965, Bul/. zool. Nomencl. vol. 22 (4): 230) for conservation of “Pan Oken” and “Panthera Oken”,Corbet, Hill, Ingles and Napier supply the previously omitted page references to Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, volume 3, part 2. Those given are 1030 for the term “Pan”, and 1052 for the term “Panthera”. The type species of “Pan” in the Morrison-Scott proposal is “Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779 (The Chimpanzee)”, and that of “Panthera” is “Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758 (The Leopard)”. With regard to “Panthera”, the pertinent information on page 1052 of the Lehrbuch appears as follows: “4. Art. Panthera, F. colocolo; [description follows]”. It is evident here and from the text in general that Panthera is a uninominal Latin vernacular name for a species of cat. The only generic name used in the excerpt is Felis (by inference) in the binomial ‘“F. coloco/o” without author or bibliographic reference. Were Panthera admitted as a generic name, its type species, by monotypy, would be Felis colocolo, presumably the small Chilean felid described by Molina in 1782 (Sagg. Stor. Nat. Chili: 295). Validation of “Panthera Oken, 1816”, from page 1052 would, therefore, only defeat the efforts of those who strive to conserve the name for the greater cats alone. The Morrison-Scott proposal, however, calls for the designation of Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of Panthera cited from Oken, 1816. This specific name appears on page 1058 of the Lehrbuch as one of a welter of Latin and barbaric names for which the only valid generic name mentioned is again F. for Felis (by inference) in the combination F. pardus, without author or bibliographic reference. Oken also used the vernacular “Art. P.’’on the same page for Pardalis in the concatenation, “P. vulgaris, Panthera, F. Pardus oder achter Panthera, Varia et Pardus”’. |It is evident that Oken no more proposed or used Panthera as a generic name on page 1058 than he did on page 1052, or elsewhere in the Lehrbuch. No ruling, decree or alchemy can transmute “Panthera” as used and understood by Oken into a generic name as used and understood by binominalists today or those of Oken’s day. Present opposition to ‘Pan Oken” is not directed against the generic name Pan as used and understood by modern authors. It is directed against Oken’s Lehrbuch where generic names are not proposed as new and none are used co-ordinately or in any consistent form in the text book. Attribution of a generic name to Oken as author is an error. The addition of a page reference to the attribution reinforces the fiction. Scientific names for animals are more than convenient handles. They are also symbolic instruments for the definition, description and comparison of taxa, and for the erection of phylogenetic schemes. Whatever the decisions or opinions of the International Commission, the systematist cannot accept a taxonomic name cited from a work where it does not appear as such or where its meaning is hopelessly confused or lacking. It is difficult to understand why a zoologist should request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make use of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of making available as a valid generic name a non-generic or vernacular term blindly culled from a non-binominal work officially rejected for nomenclatural purposes. Perhaps the request stems from too literal a reading of the invitation proffered to zoologists (1956, Opinion 417, Opinions and Declarations, vol. 14 (1): 3) for submittal of “applications for the validation under the Plenary Powers of any name published [in the proscribed Oken’s Lehrbuch], the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned”. If it is assumed that the International Commission can use its Plenary Powers to validate dubious names from rejected works, it may be granted that the Commission can also make SS Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature available properly proposed and zoologically unambiguous generic names that happen to be junior synonyms of unused names or junior homonyms of unused or invalidly used names.- Two cases might be considered: 1. Pan as a generic name for the chimpanzee has been used hundreds of times since its introduction into scientific literature by Palmer (1904, Index Gen. Mamm.: 508). The International Commission by use of its Plenary Powers can make Pan available as a generic name cited from Palmer, 1904, or any other binominal author, by suppression for purposes of Priority, of the generic names Theranthropus Brookes, 1828, Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, and Anthropopithecus Blainville, 1838. 2. Panthera, as a generic name for the great cats typified by Felis pardus Linnaeus, has been widely but not universally used since the term was mentioned by J.A. Allen (1902, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 16: 378) and Palmer (1904, Index Gen. Mamm.: 509): The valid generic name Panthera, however, can be dated from Severtzow (1858, Revue et Mag. Zool. (3) vol. 1; 386, 387, with type Felis pardus Linnaeus, selected by J.A. Allen, 1919, Bul/. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 41: 337). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has the authority to make this name available by suppression for purposes of Priority, of the unused senior homonym Panthera Hubner, 1823 (a genus of Lepidoptera), and the widely used and competing senior synonym, Leo Brehm, 1829. Zoologists who feel the need for conservation of Pan as the generic name for the chimpanzee, and Panthera as the generic name for the leopard are not obliged to base their proposals on Oken’s Lehrbuch because the work was published in 1816. Irrespective of the foregoing intimations, | see no need for modification of my stand in 1949 (J. Mammal., vol. 30: 289) and 1966 (Bu//. zoo/. Nomencl., vol. 23: p. 67). Time has proven that the sinking of names stemming from Oken’s Lehrbuch does not lead to instability or confusion, and that use of the pertinent valid and available names produces order and stability. REPLY TO P. HERSHKOVITZ By G.B. Corbet, J.E. Hill, J.M. Ingles and P.H. Napier (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD). We agree with Dr. Hershkovitz that Oken (1816) is less than satisfactory but, nevertheless, it is our opinion that the original proposal offers the most straightforward method of retaining Pan and Panthera in the sense in which they are now widely used. Our objective in re-submitting the application was to expedite a decision and we urge that the International Commission decide as soon as possible between the various views expressed since the original submission over 26 years ago. COMMENT ON G/RAFFA CAMELOPARDALIS AUSTRALIS RHOADS, 1896. Z.N.(S.) 1942 (see vol. 31: 171) (1) By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) | beg to differ from the Secretary’s opinion concerning the status of the name reticulata de Winton, 1899, as published in the combination Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata. He says that this name “has been protected from the threat presented to its stability by the senior homonym Camelopardalis giraffa var. reticulata Weinland, 1863, by the use of the plenary powers in Opinion 944...and placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology”, implying that by this action the name reticulata de Winton, 1899, is safeguarded against any attack made on it. | maintain that in Opinion 944 (Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. 27: 222), the Commission used its plenary powers to suppress the species-group name reticulata Weinland, 1863, but certainly did not validate the name reticu/ata de Winton, 1899. The fact that the latter name was placed ne ee Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 on the Official List does not give it an inviolable status; there are several names on the Official List which are currently considered invalid. As the validity of any name is entirely subjective, depending on the views of a zoologist, neither the Commission - nor any zoologist, for that matter - can declare a name valid. One can say at the most that one considers it the valid name for a taxon, but another specialist may have an entirely different opinion. As the name reticulata de Winton, 1899, notwithstanding it is placed on the Official List, normally competes with other available names, it certainly is threatened by a senior synonym. Therefore if the Commission does not act on the proposal by Ansell and Dagg (Bull. 28: 100-101), the name Giraffa camelopardalis australis Rhoads, 1896 will, for those who think this name and G.c. reticulata de Winton, 1899 synonymous, be the valid name for the subspecies. Other things being equal, the Commission should lend a sympathetic ear to requests for saving names that are on the List from threats that were not recognised when the name was Originally placed on the List. Therefore | should have no qualms in the Giraffa case now to suppress the name australis in order to save reticulata. (2) by Dr. Anne Innis Dagg (University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G 1) | have prepared the following list of scientific papers on the giraffe which refer to the reticulated giraffe as Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata: ANSELL, W.F.H., 1968. 8 Artiodactyla (excluding the genus Gazella). Preliminary identification for African mammals, Dr.J.A.J. Meester edit. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. BOURLIERE, F., 1965. Some mammals of the Samburu Reserve in northern Kenya. Afr. wild Life, vol. 19 (3): 193-202 CULLY, W., 1958. Giraffa camelopardalis. Parks and Recreation, vol. 41 (4): 197-198. DAGG, A.1|., 1971. Giraffa camelopardalis. Mammalian Species, vol. 5: 1-8 (Amer. Soc. Mammal.) GENSCH, W., 1969. Versuch der kiinstlichen Aufzucht einer Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.). Zoo/. Gart. vol. 37 (4/5): 231-242 KRUMBIEGEL, |., 1971 Die Giraffe. A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, 160 pp. REVENTLOW, A. 1949. The growth of our giraffes and giraffe-calves. Bijdr. Dierd., vol. 28: 394-396 SIDNEY, J., 1965. The past and present distribution of some African ungulates. Trans. zool. Soc. London, vol. 30: 139-168 STOTT, K., 1959. Giraffe intergradation in Kenya. J. Mammal., vol. 40: 251 ZELLMER, G., 1960. Hand-rearing of giraffe at Bristol Zoo. Internat. Zoo Yearbook, vol. 2: 90-93 Of course | agree with Mr. Ansell that the name australis should not be given precedence over reticulata. COMMENTS ON A CHALLENGE TO THE FAMILY NAME ATTACIDAE (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1997 (see volume 32: 149-152) (1) By 1.W.B. Nye, D.S. Fletcher and A. Watson (British Museum (Natural History), London) We are in complete agreement with the main objective of this case. The name Saturniidae not only has priority but has had overwhelming usage this century throughout the world. The following are recent examples of use, in Australia (Common, 1970 and 1974), in Canada (Riotte, 1970), in Japan (Inoue, 1970), in Mexico (Vazquez, 1966), in Netherlands (Lempke, 1960), in New Zealand (Sharell, 1971), in Rhodesia (Pinhey, 1972), and many more could be cited. 1. We fully support proposals (3) and (4) of paragraph 10, and we also support the first part of proposal (1) to place the name Saturnia Schrank, 1802, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. We disagree with the type-species designation in proposal (1), and we disagree with proposal(2). Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 138 ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2. Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (Edn 10) vol. 1: 496-497, proposed the name Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia followed by a brief description and a bibliography divided into two varieties minor and major. These latter names under the Code, Article 45(e) (i) as amended in 1972, must be interpreted as representing subspecies. Linnaeus himself referring to the two varieties stated “An Specie distinguendae?”, and it was later established that they did represent two distinct species. Both were independently named in 1775 by Denis and Schiffermiiller. The names and synonymy hitherto universally accepted are: pavonia Linnaeus, 1758 pyri (Denis & Schiffermiller) 1775 pavonia minor Linnaeus, 1758 pavonia major t.inn3eus, 1758 carpini [Denis & SchiffermUller], 1775 3. There is no confusion as to the identity of the species but there are two purely nomenclatural problems. (A) No nominate subspecies pavonia pavonia was proposed by Linnaeus. We therefore here designate as lectotype of Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia Linnaeus, 1758, and as lectotype of Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia minor Linnaeus, 1758, the male specimen in the collection of the Linnean Society of London bearing the handwritten label “810 pavonia minor. mas”, end ask the Commission to place Phalaena pavonia Linnaeus on the appropriate Officia’ List. (B) The name major Linnaeus, 1758, has not been used in this sense as a valid name fo; over 50 years, to the best of our knowledge, whereas its synonym pyri {Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, has been used as the valid name in many works including the eleven marked with an asterisk in — the bibliography. We therefore ask the Commission to place Bombyx pyri on the appropriate Official List and to use its plenary powers to grant pyri nomenclatural precedence over pavonia major. 4. Concerning the type-species of Saturnia, we consider that it is Phalaena pavonia Linnaeus, designated by Westwood (1840: 89) as Phalaena pavonia minor Linnaeus. Drs Sabrosky and Ferguson have, in paragraph 8 of their application, regarded this designation as invalid on the grounds that “neither Schrank nor Westwood indicated synonymy to relate it to one of the originally included nominal species”. This is not so as Schrank when proposing Saturnia listed the third of his four originally included species as: “3. Saturnia Carpini. Bombyx Carpini meiner Fauna n. 1422” This is a clear indication referring to the first part of his work in which Schrank gave descriptions and full synonymy with references. On page 249, under 1422, he cited Bombyx carpini with Phalaena pavonia minor in synonymy. The latter may therefore be accepted as one of the originally included nominal species in Saturnia. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked to approve the following as alternatives to the original proposals: (1) to place the genus-group name established as Saturnia Schrank, 1802 (gender: feminine), type-species Phalaena pavonia Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation by Westwood (1840: 89), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) to place the species-group name pavonia, as established in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) (a) to use its plenary powers to rule that the species-group name pyri, as established in the combination Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the species-group name major as established in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major Linnaeus, 1758, by any zoologist who considers that those names apply to the same zoological taxon. Having done so, (b) to place the species-group name pyri, as established in the combination Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the ruling that it has been granted nomenclatural precedence over Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major Linnaeus, 1758. (4) as the original proposal (3) in Bul/. zoo/. Nom. vol. 32: 152. (5) as the original proposal (4) in Bul/. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 152. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 REFERENCES 1. * AIZPURUA, ©.G., 1974. Catalogo de los Lepidopteros que integran ia Coleccion del Norte de Espana. 448 pp. San Sebastian. 2. * AUBERT, J.-F. 1952. Papillons d'Evrope vol. 2 (Nocturnes et Sphingides) (Edn Suisse). 239 pp. 68 text-figs, 52 plates. Neuchatel & Paris. 3. * BOLLOW, C., 1932. In Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde vol. 2 (Supplement): 129-136. Stuttgart. 4. COMMON, |.F.B., 197. In Mackerras, |.M., Insects of Australia (36, Lepidoptera): 765-866. Melbourne. 1974. Ibidem, Supplement (36, Lepidoptera): 98-107. Melbourne. GFERTSEMA, H., 1971. Descriptions of the stages of two subspecies of the Pine Tree Emperor Moth, Nudaurelia cytherea (Fabr.) (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). Annale Univ. Stellenbosch vol. 46 (A 1): 1-37, 59 text-figs, 2 plates, 5 tables. 6. * HERBULOT, C., 1948. Nouv. Atlas d’Ent. vol. 6 (Héetérocéres 2). 145 pp. 28 text-figs, 16 plates. Paris. ; 7. * HRUBY, K., 1964. Prodromus Lepid. Slovaciae. 962 pp. Bratislava. 8. INGUE, H., 1970, lconographia Insectorum Japonicorum (Edn 10) vol. 1: 92-95, plates 55-58, Saturniidae. Tokyo. 9. LEMPKE, B.J., 1960. Catalogus der Nederlandse Macrolepidoptera (Zevende Supplement). Saturniidae. Tijdschr. Ent. vol. 103: 178-183. ; 10. * LHOMME, L., 1923-35. Cat. Lépid. Fr. Belg. vol. 1. 800 pp. Paris. 11. * MOUCHA, J., 1972. Sbirame motyly. 236 pp, 24 plates. Prague. 12. PINHEY, E., 1972. Emperor Moths of South and South Central Africa. 150 pp, 13 text-fias, 43 plates. Cape Town. 13. * REIPRICH, A., 1960. Motyle Slovenska. 556pp, 137 text-figs, 68 plates. Bratislava. 14. RIOTTE, J.C.E., 1970. Eine neue Saturniiden-Unterart. Ent. Z., Frankfurt a.M. vol. 80: 89-93. ; 15. * ROBERT, P.-A., 1960. Les Insectes vol. 2. 302 pp, 76 text-figs, 32 plates. Neuchatel. 16. SCHRANK, F. von P., 1802. Fauna Boica vol. 2 (2). 412 pp. Ingolstadt. 17. * SCHUSSLER, H., 1933. /n Strand, Lepid. Cat. vol. 55. 81 pp. Berlin. 18. SHARELL, R., 1971. New Zealand Insects and their story. 268 pp, 199 col. figs, 72 b/w figs, 27 line drawings. Hong Kong. 19. * TULESHKOV, K., 1958. Lepidoptera of Bulgaria. 344 pp, 543 text-figs. Sofia. 20. VASQUEZ, G.L., 1966. Rhescyntis (Rhescyntis) septentrionalis sp.n. Y algunas observaciones sobre su ecologia y biologia. (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae, Rhescyntinae). An. Inst. Biol. Univ. Méx. vol. 36: 203-213. 21. WESTWOOD, J.O., 1838-40 Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects vol. 2 (Synopsis Genera Br. Insects). 158 pp. London. wn (2) par Claude Lemaire (c/o Laboratoire d'Entomologie, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 45, rue de Buffon, 75005 - Paris) Le Dr. Sabrosky et le Dr. Ferguson ont soumis a la Commission un ensembDic se propositions ayant pour objet principal l'inscription de SATURNIIDAE sur la Liste Officielle des Noms du Groupe-Famille, avec pour auteur Boisduval et pour date de publication [1837]. ATTACIDAE qui figure sur cette liste depuis 1957, en vertu de l’Opinion 450, deviendrait donc, du fait de la priorite de SATURNIIDAE, inutilisable pour designer la famille concernée, son inscription n’étant maintenue que pour application éventuelle a un taxon subordonneé du groupe-famille. Sabrosky et Ferguson estiment que I'entrée d’ATTACIDAE sur la Liste Officielle, a cree une certaine confusion, en raison de l’existence, dont ia Commission a eté a l’epoque insuffisamment informée, d'un nom a la fois plus ancien et plus couramment utilise. S'il est exact que des lacunes sont a reprocher a la procedure incriminée, et s'il est effectivement nécessaire de fixer une fois pour toutes Je nom que doit porter cette famille de el Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Lepidopteres, il apparait a l’examen que la solution envisagée n’est pas nécessairement la plus satisfaisante, qu’elle se heurte a des difficultes de principe, qu’un certain nombre de faits importants ont été omis ou insuffisamment indiqués dans le document précité et qu’il semble nécessaire d’en informer la Commission pour lui permettre de se prononcer en toute connaissance de cause. Le cas pose une question préalable extremement importante et délicate puisque touchant directement au statut des noms inscrits sur les Listes Officielles et que la reponse dépend essentiellement de la portée juridique et pratique que |’on enternddonner a cette inscription. La situation actuelle avait d’ailleurs ete prévue et réglée, en des termes parfaitement clairs, par l’article 19 du préambule a la Liste Officielle des Noms du Groupe-Famille en Zoologie (1958): “Un nom ainsi stabilise doit étre utilisé de préférence a tout autre pour le taxon concerné et il n’a pas a étre remplacé par un autre nom du groupe-famille, méme si... (2) il n’est pas le nom le plus ancien pour le taxon en question... tant que la Commission n’en aura pas ainsi décidé (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:37, Decision 58 (1)”. Malheureusement, par suite d’un oubli du Congrés de Londres (1958) et dans la redaction du Code de 1961, les dispositions du Congrés de Copenhague relatives au statut des noms inscrits sur les Listes et Index Officiels n'ont pas été reprises dans le Code, si bien qu’a |’heure actuelle, dans le silence de ce dernier, il peut exister deux fagons de considérer les Listes: soit qu’elles constituent un simple registre des décisions de la Commission, les noms qui y figurent n’étant utilisables que dans la mesure ou ils ne contreviennent pas aux Lois de Priorité et d'Homonymie, soit que leur autorité s’impose aux Zoologistes et que les noms ainsi repertoriés soient ceux a utiliser en tout état de cause pour les taxa considérés, méme en présence de noms plus anciens, tant que la Commission n’aura pas pris de décision contraire. Dans la premiere interpretation, l'inscription d’ATTACIDAE sur la Liste Officielle signifie simplement que le nom est utilisable pour un taxon subordonné du groupe-famille ayant Attacus pour genre-type (ATTACINAE, ATTACINI), sans porter atteinte a la validité de SATURNIIDAE, dans la seconde, ATTACIDAE doit étre regardé depuis 1957, date de |’Opinion 450, ayant décidé de son inscription, comme le nom officiel de la famille concernée. S’il semble que cette seconde interprétation doive Il’emporter, c'est parce que |’on ne voit pas quelle pourrait étre |’utilite pratique d’une telle inscription et des Listes en général, si celles-ci n’avaient pas precisement pour objet d’apporter aux zoologistes, a larecherchedunom a utiliser pour un taxon donné, une indispensable garantie de validité. Que cette recherche soit parfois délicate, le cas actuel en est une excellente illustration, si l'on en juge par les erreurs qui ont été commises, méme par de tres hautes Autorités, aussi bien en ce qui concerne les dates, auteurs, priorites respectives d’ATTACIDAE et de SATURNIIDAE et si l'on sait notamment que la date de publication de ce dernier ne résulte que de preuves extrinséques (dont il faut souhaiter qu’elles ne soient pas remises en question!) a un ouvrage relativement rare. Si, dans un tel cas, il n’est pas possible de se fier aux Listes Officielles, et si l'usage des noms qui y figurent peut étre considéré comme mal fondé en droit, il est permis de se demander de quels moyens dispose I'utilisateur de bonne foi pour savoir comment désigner correctement le taxon auquel ses travaux sont consacrés. || parait donc inutile d’insister davantage sur cet aspect essentiel du probléme et sur la nécessité d’éviter de telles incertitudes ou revirements qui porteraient finalement atteinte a la stabilite de la Nomenclature dans le domaine des >ropres décisions de la Commission. Quant aux faits se rapportant directement au cas présent, il faut tout d’abord souligner - que, si l’on se reporte aux travaux préparatoires, l'idée d’une utilisation limitée a un taxon subordonné du groupe-famille n’a jamais méme été envisagée par la Commission et qu’ATTACIDAE a bien été placé sur la Liste Officielle pour étre utilisé au rang auquel il a été effectivement inscrit, au méme titre que les sept autres noms (BOMBYCIDAE, GEOMETRIDAE, NOCTUIDAE, TORTRICIDAE, PYRALIDAE, TINEIDAE, ALUCITIDAE), dérivés des subdivisions génériques de Linné, validés par I‘Opinion 450. C’est d’ailleurs en fonction de la situation nouvelle créée par celle-ci et de l'usage qui ena resulté et non dans l'optique de 1957 ot se sont placés Sabrosky et Ferguson, que lopportunité d’une modification de la Liste Officielle doit étre appréciée. Or, il est certain que, si effectivement SATURNIIDAE était, avant 1957, le nom le plus utilisé, la situation s'est complétement inversée depuis |’inscription d’ATTACIDAE sur la Liste Officielle. Ce nom qui était deja loin d’étre 4 epoque un nomen oblitum, ainsi qu’en temoigne Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 son emploi, notamment, a la suite de Hampson (1918), dans les importants travaux de Lhomme [1932-1933] et de Bourgogne (1951) est incontestablement celui qui a ete le plus utilisé dans les 20 derniéres années. ll est frappant que la plupart des ouvrages mentionnés par Sabrosky et Ferguson sont antérieurs a 1957 et que le seul travail spécialisé important ou SATURNIIDAE ait ete employe sans restriction depuis cette date, soit precisement celui de Ferguson (1971-72) lui-méme. Deux des auteurs ayant le plus publié sur cette famille, Darge (1969 et 8 autres publications) et Rougeot (1971 et plus de 30 autres publications) ont constamment utilise ATTAC!IDAE, de méme que Griveaud (1961), Aubert (1968) et Viette (1965). Bien qu'ayant d'abord regretté que la Commssion n’ait pas strictement appliqué la Loi de Priorite dans la décision contestée, j'ai estimé devoir me conformer a celle-ci dans le travail (Lemaire, 1971) cite par Sabrosky et Ferguson, ainsi que dans 21 publications ultérieures. Ainsi, contrairement a ce qui parait résulter de la lecture des propositions, l'usage d'ATTACIDAE, au détriment de celui de SATURNIIDAE, s'est considérablement affirme a la suite de Opinion 450, en particulier chez les spécialistes, et la situation sur laquelle la Commission aura a se prononcer est en fait totalement differente de celle de 1957. De plus, il serait peut étre choquant de désavouer implicitement les auteurs qui, en toute bonne foi ont utilise un nom qu’ils étaient admis a considérer comme oOfficialisé par la Commission et dont la seule erreur aurait été d'ignorer que le statut des noms inscrits sur la Liste Officielle était en réalité different de celui qui figure dans le preambule méme de cette liste! L’action de Sabrosky et Ferguson aurait tres certainement ete fondée si l'Opinion 450, dans le cas d’'ATTACIDAE, était restée lettre morte mais, étant donné ce qui precéde, il est évident qu’un retour en arriére serait, plus que le statu quo, de nature a créer la confusion et a porter atteinte a la stabilite de ta Nomenclature qui est un besoin constant pour tous les chercheurs. || parait donc souhaitable, en rejetant toute proposition contraire, de maintenir purement et simplement, sur ce point essentiel les dispositions actuelles. En revanche, indépendamment de la décision a intervenir sur la question précédente, il est nécessaire de corriger le nom d'auteur et la date, actuellement attribués sur la Liste Officielle au nom du groupe-famille ATTACIDAE. Comme je l’'avais moi-méme suggéré initialement, Sabrosky et Ferguson proposent de remplacer Burmeister, 1878 par Duponchel, 1844. Il m’est apparu ulterieurement (Lemaire, 1975: 95)que le nom a été appliqué valablement pour la premiére fois 2un taxon suprageénérique par Bianchard (1840: 483), sous la forme ATTACITES, et que ce nom d'auteur et cette date sont ceux a mentionner, a la suite d‘ATTACIDAE, sur la Liste Officielle. LITERATURE CITEE AUBERT, J.—F., 1968. Papilions d'Europe, vol. 2, Nocturnes et Sphingides. Delachaux et Niestle, Neufchatel. 281 pp., illus. BLANCHARD, E., 1840. Histoire naturelle des Insectes, Orthoptéres, Neévropteres, Hemipteres, Hyménopteéres, Lépidoptéres et Diptéres, 3. Jn Castelnau, Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés, vol. 3. P. Duménil, Paris. 672 pp., illus. BOURGOGNE, J., 1951. Ordre des Lépidoptéres. In Grassé, Traité de Zoologie, vol. 10 (1). Masson et Cie, Paris. pp. 174-448, illus. DARGE, Ph.,1969. Lépidoptéres Attacidae de la région de Franceville Gabon). Bull. 1.F.A.N., vol. 21, Serie A: 920-926 FERGUSON, D.C., 1971-2. In Dominick, R.B. et al, The Moths of America North of Mexico, Fasc. 20 (2), Bombycoidea (Saturniidae). E.W. Classey Ltd. et R.B.D. Publications Inc., London. pp. 1-277 + XV-XXI, illus. GRIVAUD, P., 1961. Insectes. Lépidoptéres Eupterotidae et Attacidae. In Faune de Madagascar, vol. 14, 64pp., illus. HAMPSON, G.F., 1818. Key to the families of the Lepidoptera. Novit. Zoo/., vol. 25: 388-394 LEMAIRE, C., 1971. Revision du genre Automeris Hubner et des genres voisins. Biogéographie, Ethologie, Morphologie, Taxonomie (Lep. Attacidae), [1]. Mém. Mus. natl. Hist. nat., Paris, (nouv. sér.), sér. A, Zool.,vol. 68: 232 pp., illus. 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LEMAIRE, C., 1975. Liste synonymique des Attacidae américains [Lep.] Bull. Soc. ent. France, vol. 80: 89-98 LHOMME, L., [1932-33]. Catalogue des Lépidoptéres de France et de Belgique, vol. 1, signature 39. Lhomme, Le Carriol, par Douelle (Lot). pp. 388-394 ROUGEOT, P.C., 1971. Les Bombycoides (Lepidoptera-Bombycoidea) de l'Europe et du Bassin méditerranéen, 1. Lemoniidae, Bombycidae, Brahmaeidae, Attacidae, Endromididae. In Faune de I'Europe et du Bassin Méditerranéen, vol. 5. Masson et Cie., Paris, 159 pp., illus. VIETTE, P., 1965. L’Antherina suraka de |’Archipel des Comores [Lep. Attacidae). Bull. Soc. ent. France, vol. 70: 28-29 ete COMMENTS ON THE REVISED APPLICATION FOR A RULING ON THE STEM OF THE FAMILY—GROUP NAME BASED ON THE TYPE—GENUS PETROMYZON LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 2045 (See vol. 32: 154-155) (1) By W.1. Follett and Lillian J. Dempster (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A.) In the revised application noted above, Drs. Viadykov and Gruchy have requested, inter alia, that the International Commission ascribe the designation of the type-species of Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758, to Jordan (1917). However, a much earlier designation of the type-species of Petromyzon is.that by Jordan & Copeland (1877:161): “Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1766. Type: P. marinus L.” This type- designation is to be accepted as valid for Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758, despite the reference to 1766 rather than 1758 (Article 67 (g) ). Drs. Viadykov and Gruchy have requested also that the Commission recognize the family-group name as dating from Petromyzides Risso, 1826. But Risso’s name for this family was not published as a scientific name, it was published as a French vernacular: “Les Pétromyzides”. As such, it is not an available name unless “it has been generally accepted by zoologists interested in the group concerned as dating from its first publication in vernacular form" (Article 11 (e) (iii); emphasis added). Drs. Viadykov and Gruchy have failed to demonstrate that this family-group name has been generally accepted as dating from Risso (1826). On the contrary, we find that this family-group name has not been generally accepted as dating from Risso (1826). Petromyzides Risso (1826: 99, 113) is therefore not an available name. The earliest available name for this family that we have found is that of Bonaparte (1832: 165, 189): “Famiglia 36. Petromyzonidae”. Dr. Gruchy (Bull. zoo!. Nomencl. vol. 32: 20) states that, in his opinion, usage favours the stem Petromyzon-. He cites only 5 publications that use the stem Petromyzont-. However, our brief search reveals 53 publications (exclusive of those cited by Dr. Gruchy) that, during the past 50 years, have used the stem Petromyzont-. REFERENCE JORDAN, David S., and COPELAND, Herbert E., 1877. Check list of the fishes of the fresh waters of North America. Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci. vol. 3(4): 133-164. (2) By C. Richard Robins (Chairman, Committee on Names of Fishes, American Fisheries Society and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists; Maytag Professor of Ichthyology, School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami. In his comments on the petition concerning the stem of the family-group name for the lampreys, Carl L. Hubbs (Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 32: 18-19) stated that the Committee on Names of Fishes in the 1960 and 1970 editions of its list “without explanation, named Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 Petromyzontiformes... and the family... Petromyzontidae’’. The implication that the committee originated this spelling or departed from custom of the day in using it is unfortunate and incorrect. It was not until fhe 1970 edition that the committee instituted the policy of documenting changes from the previous edition and therefore no reason was given for the use of Petromyzontidae or. for that matter. any other name. in the 1960 edition A widely used and standard fish book in North America is “Fishes of the Great Lakes Region” by Carl L. Hubbs and Karl F. Lagler. In 1947, this work used the spelling Petromyzonidae but in the third printing (1952) this name was changed to Petromyzontidae and this spelling is repeated in the extensively revised 1958 edition. Moreover, in an “unpublished” but extensively circulated, dated (1953) and mechanically reproduced ‘Manuscript List of the Fishes of California” by Carl L. Hubbs and W.1. Follett, the name Petromyzontidae was also used. In “lowa Fish and Fishing”, (1951), an important state ichthyology, and another widely used publication, the authors (James R. Harlan and Everett B. Speaker) used Petromyzontidae, presumably in agreement with Reeve M. Bailey, whose checklist and keys to lowa fishes (included at the end of their book) also employed Petromyzontidae. None of the commentors to the Commission seems to have mentioned these works. The Committee on names of Fishes meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia, in June, 1975 agreed that the famiiy-group name in question should be stabilized but declined to submit any opinion as to its choice to the Commission. It did wish to note that in employing Petromyzontidae in 1960 it followed the literature widely used in North America, literature coincidentally authored by some of the foremost authorities on lampreys. While the Committee recognizes that its list will be used as a source of scientific as well as common names and has carefully edited its work to that end, it provided in the 1970 edition (p. 4) a specific discussion of the scientific names stating “The purpose of this list is to recommend common names for North American fishes; it is not to impose scientific names”. COMMENTS ON CIRCINAE SUNDEVALL, 1836 (AVES) VERSUS CIRCINAE DALL, 1895 (MOLLUSCA). Z.N.(S.) 2112 (see vol. 32: 270-273) (1) By E. Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.) Dr. Roth calls attention to the family-group name homonymy between CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836 based on Circus Lacépéde, 1799, used for the harriers (French “busards”; German “Weihen”), and CIRCINAE Dall, 1895, based on the bivalve genus Circe Schumacher, 1817. He askes that the avian name, which is earlier, be placed on the Official List and that the molluscan name be emended to CIRCEINAE and then placed on the Official List. Dr. Roth also points out that Sundevall in introducing the avian name (as a tribal name CIRCI) credited the generic name Circus to Bechstein, whereas it was established by Lacépéde (1799, Tabl. Ois. : 4) with type-species Falco aeruginosus Linnaeus, 1758 (the Marsh Harrier). As chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress and of the American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on Classification and Nomenclature, | support on behalf of these committees Dr. Roth’s proposals in their main objectives. | cannot, however, see the need, or justification, for declaring Bechstein’s use of Circus a““cheironym”. A cheironym is an unpublished manuscript name. So far as is known, Bechstein published only the plural form “Circi” and that only once (as referred to by Dr. Roth) in 1802, later than the publication of Circus Lacépéde, 1799, and with the same meaning. 4 It is, of course, possible that Bechstein, who was publishing before 1799, may have published the name Circus before Lacépéde, and that this has lain undiscovered. If so, Dr. Roth's proposal (1)(a) still does not help matters; but his proposal (1)(b) would be strengthened by the addition of the words “regardless of any prior publication by Bechstein”. | also think that the statement in proposal (1) (d) is misleading since it might be taken to imply that CIRCINAE Dall, 1895, was always an incorrect original spelling, which is factually incorrect. It appears tome that, given proposal (1) (c), proposal (1) (d) is superfluous and can be dropped. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) by GN Kashin (Prospect Vernadskogo No 61 app 53. Moscow 117415.USSR)\ There is one proposal missing from Dr. Roth's application: (5)(b) to place the family-group name CIRCI Sundevall, 1836, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as an incorrect original spelling for CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836. It is necessary to take this step. (3) By R.K. Brooke, (P.O. Box 1690, Salisbury, Rhodesia) Dr. Roth is quite right (Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 32: 270-273) to raise the problem of the homonymous family-group name CIRCINAE in both the Aves and the Mollusca. He proposes that the Commission alter the molluscan name to void the homonymy on the grounds, apparently, that the avian name has priority and is in current use in ornithological systematics. Article 55(a) of the Code does not require the Commission to make its decision in terms of priority though in view of the Preamble it must have great weight. Dr. Roth's belief that the avian CIRCINAE is in current use is not, | believe, correct. While there has been no recent review of the ACCIPITRIDAE Vieillot, 1816, the family to which the avian CIRCINAE is now universally considered to belong, | think | am right in saying that ornithological systematists are more and more inclined to the view that the ACCIPITRIDAE are oversplit (cf. Brown & Amadon, 1968 and Sibley & Ahiquist, 1972). This means that the avian CIRCINAE is unlikely ever again to be regarded as a valid taxon with the corollary that it is the more suitable name to suffer an arbitrary but necessary change of spelling and pronunciation. Stability of the molluscan CIRCINAE is of greater importance to many since it appears to be a name in current use in amuch studied taxon. | suggest that Dr. Roth’s proposals 6(1)(c) and (d) be deleted and the following substituted:- (c) to declare that the stem of the generic name Circus Lacépéde, 1799, for the purpose of Article 29 is CIRCO-; (d) to declare CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836, an incorrect original spelling of CIRCOINAE Sundevall, 1836. This suggestion will require consequential amendments to Dr. Roth's proposals 6(2) and (3). LITERATURE CITED BROWN, L.H. and AMADON, D., 1968. Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world, vol. 1. Country Life Books, Feltham. SIBLEY, C.S. and AHLQUIST, J.E., 1972. A comparative study of egg white proteins of non- passerine birds. Bull. Peabody Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 39. (4) Reply by Dr Roth to Mr Brooke | believe that Mr Brookes alternative proposal merits support. If ornithological systematists share his belief that the avian CIRCINAE is unlikely to figure importantly in future work, then emendation of it, rather than the molluscan CIRCINAE, is to be preferred. A recent paper — Fischer-Piette, E. & Vukadinovic, D., 1975. Revision des Circinae... du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, J. Conchy/., vol. 112: 3-74 — adds further to the usage of the molluscan CIRCINAE. These authors consider Circe Schumacher, 1817, a junior synonym of Gafrarium Roding, 1798. and correctly (Article 40) maintain the family-group name based on Circe. (5) By David Heppell (The Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) It is always dissatisfying to have to accept the legal fiction of a correctly formed and well known family-group name becoming an incorrect original spelling for some newly coined mutation. The proposed emendation of CIRCINAE to CIRCEINAE to avoid the homonymy arising from similar type-genera is no exception. In this case an alternative name is available based on a genus so close to Circe that several authors have regarded the one as no more than Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 a subgenus ot the other. The name GAFRARIINAE or GAFRARIIDAE is not an innovation of Nordsieck’s but dates at least from Korobkov (1954: 166) where it is used for the genus Gafrarium and the subgenus Circe. As this work is a text-book it seems likely that the authorship of GAFRARIIDAE should be sought in the Russian literature earlier than 1954. | submit therefore the alternative proposal that CIRCINAE Dall, 1895, be rejected as a junior homonym of CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836. GAFRARIINAE can then be used as the name for the subfamily, the author and date being somewhat immaterial. REFERENCE KOROBKOV, I.A., 1954. Spravochnik i metodicheskoe rukovodstvo po Tretichnim Mollyuskam. Plastinchatozhabernie. 444 pp. incl. 96 pis. Leningrad. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PARNALIUS RAFINESQUE, 1815, IN FAVOUR OF ZERYNTHIA OCHSENHEIMER, 1816. Z.N.(S.) 1884. (see vol. 31: 204-5) (1) By O. Kudrna (Portsmouth Polytechnic, Portsmouth, England) and P.R. Ackery (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5BD) The main point of the application by Riley and Higgins inthis case is that Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815 had remained unused from its publication in 1815 until 1969. It had, however, been correctly listed in both Sherborn’s Index Animalium and in Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus. However, since the name was revived in 1969 it has rapidly gained acceptance and has been used in a number of publications, many of which are likely to become standard works of reference on butterflies. To those listed by Riley and Higgins, we add: ACKERY, P.R., 1975. Bull. Br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) (Ent.), vol. 31: 71-105, 16 pls. WATSON, A., and "others 1975. The dictionary of butterflies and moths in colour [xvi] + 296 pp., 144 pls. New York. KUDRNA, O., 1975. Final chapter of 1974 season summary. News Lepid. Soc. for 1975, No. 1: 3-4 SMART, P., 1975. The international butterfly book. 275 pp. New York. In these circumstances we feel that the International Commission need not take the action proposed by Riley and Higgins and that the Law of Priority should apply. (2) reply by N.D. Riley andL.G. Higgins At the time when our application was originally submitted to the Commission, in 1969, Parnalius Rafinesque had never been used in the primary literature since its original publication in 1815, 154 years earlier. It was as though it had been still-born. Under Art. 79b(i) the listings in Sherborn and Neave do not constitute usage, as Drs Kudrna and Ackery must Know. It is not in dispute that in the interval since 1969, Parna/ius has been used on theoccasions that Kudrna and Ackery enumerate, all of them in contravention of the Code as amended in 1972, and certainly contrary to its spirit. We consider that these events do not affect the validity of our application, which we see no reason to amend. Accordingly, we ask that it be considered by the Commission as it stands and voted upon at an early opportunity. We call attention to the fact that, under Article 40, the family-group name ZERYNTHIINAE. Kirby (1904-1906) remains valid, whatever the decision of the Commission regarding the generic names involved. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS OF TYPE-SPECIES FOR ERIOPHYES SIEBOLD, 1851 AND PHYTOPTUS DUJARDIN, 1851 (ACARINA: ERIOPHYOIDEA). Z.N.(S.) 2044. (see vol. 30: 196-197, vol. 32: 17-18, 86-94) (1) By Evert E. Lindquist (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agri ilture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OC6, Canada) This is written in response to the comments by H.H. Keifer, R.A. Newkirk and L.R. Jeppson regarding this case. The comments by Keifer and Newkirk are unfortunately distorted and provincial in outlook. The goal of the Code is to achieve stability and universality in nomenclature, that is, an international common usage. The only acarologists actively supporting the comments of Keifer and Newkirk are some of their own American colleagues. They indicate that they know of no other objections to their 1971 name changes other than those of the Soviet acarologists. Yet, Keifer knew of mine a year ago through personal correspondence when he was seeking support for his views. Far more important, a perusal of the recent eriophyid literature throughout the world, except for the United States, shows nearly total lack of adoption of Newkirk and Keifer’s 1971 changes in nomenclature. Only a handful of American workers, within the sphere of influence of Keifer and Newkirk, have accepted their changes in publications. Yet they “presume ‘wholehearted support’”’. Keifer and Newkirk rest their case heavily on “following the provisions of the Code”. But the problem was created by Keifer’s not following the Code for over 30 years, and then abruptly making changes instead of drafting a proposal for international consideration by the Commssion. Keifer and Newkirk refer to having consulted about this problem with “other interested zoologists”, who remain unnamed. It seems unlikely that any of these zoologists were eriophyid specialists outside the United States. It would have been preferable to seek a consensus from leading specialists of the world, and then to draft a proposal to the Commission. Also, they justify their action in part on ‘needless and numerous exceptions” not serving the stability and universality of nomenclature. However, this case is concerned with neither “needless” nor “numerous” exceptions. The justification for occasional, carefully- considered exceptions, for the sake of maintaining international common usage, has been well expressed recently by Menke and Bohart (1975 Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. 32: 97-98) in another, unrelated case currently up for consideration by the Commission: such cases are by no means precedent-setting, but instead are reasonable solutions to special taxonomic problems. Keifer and Newkirk’s citing of an action taken by Nalepa in 1878 is hardly to be taken seriously. There was little literature (other than Nalepa’s) on the ERIOPHYIDAE in Nalepa’s day, and he was the dominant force among a few specialists. Today, there is a relatively vast, international compilation of literature on this group, and there are a number of leading specialists throughout the world, none of whom are dominated by another. Keifer and Newkirk’s arguments — (a) that only a few, rather than many, species of ERIOPHYIDAE are of great economic importance; (b) that the species with changed binominals are still recognized by their E.S.A.-approved vernacular names in the applied economic literature; and (c) that the U.S. EPA list uses the changed binominals — show a lack of understanding of the world literature on this group. There are many eriophyid species of economic importance throughout the world, the majority of which do not have American- approved vernacular names (what would such names mean to German, Indian, Brazilian, Russian, etc. workers?), and are not accounted for by the U.S. EPA list. To suggest that, because the E.S.A. has world-wide membership, its approved vernacular names and binominals have world-wide acceptance, is therefore misleading and somewhat presumptuous. Finally, a response to Dr. Lee R. Jeppson’s note in support of Newkirk and Keifer’s 1971 Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 changes. He advocates adhering to established rules in the Code, and refers to a new book on plant-feeding mites, jointly-authored by him, which is purported to be world-wide in scope and employs the changed binominals for eriophyid mites. Yet, in this very book, he persists with Keifer (another of the authors) in not following the Code regarding family-group names! Also, the book is not as comprehensive for the economically important eriophyids which do not occur in North America as for those that do. This case is not merely one of divergence of usage between Russian and American specialists, as the comments on it unfortunately suggest. If the recent eriophyid literature from other countries and in other languages is considered, it will be found that Newkirk and Keifer’s changes are followed in very few taxonomic or applied papers. (2) By Dr. D.C.M. Manson, (Department of Agriculture, Plant Health and Diagnostic Station P.O. Box 241, Levin,New Zealand) Having seen Evert E. Lindquist's comments on this name change (Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 32: 17-18) | would like to say | fully agree with his proposals, and support the retention of the usage of the generic names Eriophyes, Phytoptus and Aceria as known prior to Newkirk and Keifer’s 1971 paper. Lindquist’s proposals are logical and common sense ones, whereas although Newkirk and Keifer may be “legally” correct, the introduction at this stage of new definitions for Eriophyes, Phytoptus and Aceria, all standard and well recognized genera, would create considerable confusion to both students and specialists alike. (3) By Magdalena K.P. Smith Meyer (Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa) Newkirk & Keifer (1971) published an article containing changes in the nomenclature of some eriophyid species. Shevtchenko (1974) and Lindquist (1975) objected against the changes of the names and the concepts of some of the most important genera and species. They pointed out that the names of many economic important species are subjected to changes and that may lead to confusion among taxonomists and biologists. Herewith | want to support Shevtchenko's proposal that the previous designations of the type-species of the genera concexned are retained and that the situation is left unchanged as before the publication of Newkirk & Keifer's paper because of the long-established usage of these names. LITERATURE CITED NEWKIRK, R.A. & KEIFER, H.H., 1971. Revision of types of Eriophyes and Phytoptus. Eriophyid studies, C-5, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. : 1-14. LINDQUIST, E.E., 1975. Comment on the proposed designations of type-species for Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina, Eriophyoidea). Z.N.(S.) 2044.Bull. zoo!. Nomencl!. 32(1): 17-18. (4) By G.W. Ramsay (Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Entomology Division, Mt. Albert Research Centre, Auckland, New Zealand) In response to the various petitions and comments by Keifer, Newkirk, Jeppson, Lindquist, Shevtchenko, Sukhareva and Sapozhnikova concerning the proposed changes with the names of three eriophyid mite genera (published not only in this Bulletin, but also in Canadian Entomologist vol. 106: 209-212, 1974) | write to Support the case developed by Lindquist and Shevtchenko against the proposed changes. The three names concerned, Aceria, Eriophyes and Phytoptus are widely used and involve species of economic importance as shown by Shevtchenko (Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 32 (2): 91-94, 1975). He lists numerous and important scientific publications in which these generic names have been used in their established sense during the past decade. The 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Australian Common Names List (CSIRO Bulletin 287, 1973) retains the pre-1971 usage as will a forthcoming New Zealand List and a projected World List of Common Names of Acari. This being so there can be no doubt that the proposed changes, although in “complete formal agreement with the provisions of the Code”, can only result in the “utmost confusion”. The assumption that because the Entomological Society of America with a world-wide membership accepts the standard Common Names of the species concerned and recognises the proposed changes so therefore a majority of world acarologists agree with these changes, is parochial. Even in the English speaking world the standard common names of the EPA and ESA lists are not uniformly used. The fact that some of the species concerned have standard common names will not help with langauges other than English. It is unreasonable to expect all users to realise that Eriophyes after a certain date is identical with Aceria and that Eriophyes before that date is really Phytoptus. The points set out by Lindquist negate the case for change from the viewpoint of usage. Therefore, for the sake of stability, the common usage of Aceria, Eriophyes and Phytoptus should be accepted and the proposed changes declined. These remarks are supported by Dr. E. Collyer, Dr. R.M. Emberson and Mr. D.C.M. Manson. COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST TO DETERMINE THE GENERIC NAMES OF THE BABOON ANDTHE MANDRILL. Z.N.(S.) 2093 (see vol. 33: 46-60) (1) by L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The type-species of Papio P.L. Statius Muller, 1773 is Simia sphinx Linnaeus, 1758, by Linnean tautonymy. Statius Muller (1773: 123) cited Papio of Jonstonus and Ray under Simia sphinx, as did Linnaeus (1758: 25). There is therefore no need to use the plenary powers to designate Simia sphinx L., 1758, the type-species of Papio Statius Muller, 1773. Also, because of the absence of any type material of Simia sphinx, the plenary powers are not needed to designate the neotype of that species; the designation in Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 33: 54 is fully valid. Alternative A, para (a) is thus entirely superfluous, and in para (b) (1) the words “type-species under the plenary powers in A(a) above ” should be changed to “‘type-species by Linnean tautonymy”. In order to save Papio Erxleben, 1777, it is not only necessary to suppress Papjo Statius Muller, 1773, for purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy, but to do so also for all uses of Papio before its publication by Erxleben in 1777. The type-species of Papio Erxleben, 1777 is likewise Simia sphinx L., 1758, by Linnean tautonymy. Papio Statius Muller, 1773, and Papio Erxleben, 1777, are thus not only homonyms, but also objective synonyms. What, therefore, is the use of suppressing one to save the other? The only difference is in the author's name and the year. The purposes of Alternative B would be reached just as well if the plenary powers were used to designate Cynocephalus papio Desmarest, 1820 the type-species of Papio Statius Muller. In this way only one, not two actions under the plenary powers are needed. Alternative B, para (a) would run as follows: (a) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species prior to the Ruling here requested for the nominal genus Papio Statius Muller, 1773, and having done so to designate Cynocephalus papio Desmarest, 1820, as the type-species of that genus; In the succeeding paragraphs, Papio Erxleben, 1777, should be replaced by Papio Statius Muller, 1773, and para (d) can be deleted. The author’s name for Papio is usually cited as Muller, but in fact it is more correctly Statius Muller. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 (2) by E Delson and PH Napier Dr Holthuis’s comment makes certain alterations necessary to both Alternatives A and B of our original request. In Alternative A it is no longer necessary to designate the type-species of Papio Muller, as Linnean tautonymy constitutes an Original designation under Article 68. Alternative A should therefore now read: Alternative A: to uphold priority and thus (a) place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (i) Papio Muller, 1773 (gender: masculine), type-species, by Linnean tautonymy, Simia sphinx Linnaeus, 1758, as defined by the neotype designated by Delson & Napier, 1976: (ii) Chaeropithecus ... In Alternative B there is now a question as to whether Cynocephalus papio Desmarest, 1820, the Guinea baboon, should be designated as type-species of Papio Muller (as suggested by Dr. Holthuis) or of Papio Erxleben. Nomenclaturally speaking, the two are objectively identical, but they differ both in Original content and in taxonomic usage. Indeed, it is this difference that is the whole point of the presentation of two alternatives to the Commission, as follows: Papio Muller, 1773, the candidate of Alternative A, is zoologically speaking a hotch-potch from its included species (S. nemestrina L., 1766, S. apedia L., 1758 and S. sphinx L., 1758). However, although its type-species by Linnean tautonymy, S. sphinx, may be either a drill or a mandrill from its cited synonyms, it is described unequivocally as a mandrill and is So fixed by the neotype which we have jointly designated. Papio Erxleben, 1777, includes not only all the original content of Papio Muller, 1773, but two further mandrills, S. maimon and S. mormon L., 1766. However, Erxleben’s concept of the description, so that any citation of it with him as author implies a “savannah” baboon, and it is the extensive usage of the name in that sense which Alternative B requests the Commission to uphold. Briefly, while it is entirely appropriate to interpret Papio Erxleben as a “savannah” baboon, to re-define Papio Muller in that way would be less than Satisfactory and, indeed, confusing. To follow Dr Holthuis’s Suggestion would be to compound the existing confusion; we offer a choice between two ways of removing its cause. We accept Dr. Holthuis’s point in his second Paragraph and amend the first part of Alternative B as follows: Alternative B: to uphold widespread current usage and thus: (1) suppress the generic name Papio Muller, 1773, and all uses of Papio prior to its publication by Erxleben in 1777. for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. In citing Philipp Ludwig Statius Muller as Muller we follow the examples of the printed catalogues of the libraries of the British Museum (Natural History) and the Zoological Society of London. (3) by J. Meester (University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, Natal, South Africa). Having studied this application | tend to favour the retention of Papio for the savanna baboons (i.e. alternative B). | am not really convinced of the genericdistinctness of the baboons and mandrilis, and while the generic name Papio includes both, as it does in much current literature, nomenclatural stability is not seriously at risk. However, for those authors who prefer to distinguish between them the instability implicit in the use of Chaeropithecus for the baboons would be serious. If we had been dealing, for example, with shrews or bats, where most of the workers concerned are taxonomically literate, it would not have worried me as much, but particularly in Primatology, with so many workers with little taxonomic, or even zoological background, | believe this instability would be most undesirable. Most workers in 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature this field seem to have trouble naming their animals properly even within the framework of a stable nomenclature, and if the name Papijo should change its meaning in midstream, so to speak, the mind boggles at the resulting confusion. For these reasons, and despite my necessary fundamental adherence to the principle of priority, | support alternative B. (4) by Dr. Reay H.N. Smithers, Associate Curator of Mammals, Queen Victoria Museum, Causeway, Rhodesia. ! believe that not to support Alternative B at this stage would cause confusion as then there would have to be a reversal of all that has been published over the last 50 years or so. To enforce the rule of priority in this case by reverting to the generic name Papio for the drill and mandrill and Chaeropithecus for the baboon would in view of the very large volume of veterinary, biomedicaland biological research, be to my mind anunnecessary retrograde step which should at all costs be avoided. They are now too well known under their present genera. COMMENT ON THE REVIVED APPLICATION CONCERNING TIPULA OLERACEA LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 896 (see vol. 33: 39-45) (1) By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Naturlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The following change is required in paragraph 14 (: 44): (1) Add in subpara (1)(b) after “Tipula paludosa”, “and all uses of this name before the publication in 1830 of the name Tipula paludosa by Meigen." [This date was inadvertently wrongly given as “1803” on p. 41, para 7, line 9. R.V.M.] lam opposed to the endorsement proposed in subpara (3) (c) of para14 on: 44. | donot see why we have to say that “the Law of Priority is to apply when these names are held to denote a single taxon at the same level in the species-group”. Does this mean that this Law does not apply when they are used at different levels? Besides, no special endorsement is needed for the Law of Priority to be applied; it applies automatically unless the Commission uses its plenary powers to set it aside. If T. subcunctans Alexander, 1921, and T. czizeki de Jong, 1925, are both placed on the Official List, this means that the former has priority over the latter. (2) Reply by the Secretary ! was responsible for the endorsement to subpara (3) (c) of para 14 of the application. | inserted it with the following considerations in mind. First, Hemmingsen & Lemche proposed that subcunctans should be suppressed in favour of the junior name czizeki. The present applicants (Hutson, Vane-Wright & Cranston) do not support this suggestion. It therefore seemed well that they should ask the Commission to state unequivocally that the Law of Priority should apply. Secondly, it seems to me that the Law of Priority can only apply when the two names are used for the same taxon at a given level in the species-group. If they are used for the same species, the Law of Priority makes subcunctans the valid name; but if they are used for different species they are independently valid and do not compete for priority. If subcunctans is divided into subspecies, the nominate subspecies is subcunctans ; if czizeki is regarded as another name for the same subspecies, the Law of Priority makes T.s. subcunctans the valid name, and T.s. czizeki the invalid one. But if they are employed for different subspecies of subcunctans (or for subspecies of different species), then they are independently valid and do not compete for priority. | agree, however, that there is no need to cumber the Official Lists with unnecessary endorsements. | am quite prepared to invite the members of the Comission to vote separately on whether the endorsement in question is to be included (for the sake of clarity) or omitted. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151 OPINION 1065 POLYZONIUM GERMANICUM BRANDT, 1837, CONSERVED; PLATYULUS AUDOUINII GERVAIS, 1836, SUPPRESSED (DIPLOPODA, POLYZONIIDA) RULING. - (1) Under the plenary powers (a) the generic name Platyu/us Gervais, 1836, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) the specific name audouinii Gervais, 1836, as published in the binomen Platyulus audouinii, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Polyzonium Brandt, 1837 (gender: neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Polyzonium germanicum Brandt, 1837, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2035. (3) The specific name germanicum Brandt, 1837, as published in the binomen Polyzonium germanicum (specific name of type-species of Polyzonium Brandt, 1837) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2585. (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) Platyu/us Gervais, 1836, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above (Name Number 2075); (b) Platyjulus Brandt, 1840 (an unjustified emendation of Platyu/us Gervais, 1836 (Name Number 2076). (5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) audouinii Gervais, 1836, as published in the binomen Platyulus audouinii, and aS suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above (Name Number 1014); (b) audouinianus Gervais, 1837, as published in the binomen Platyulus audouinianus (an incorrect subsequent spelling of audouinii, Platyulus, Gervais, 1836) (Name Number 1015). (6) The family name POLYZONIIDAE Newport, G.V., 1844, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 480. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1962 An application from Dr.C.A.W. Jeekel (/nstitut. vaor Taxonomische Zodlogie, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands) for the validation of Bull. zoo!. Nomencl. vol 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the generic name Polyzonium Brandt, 1837, and the specific name germanicum, Polyzonium, Brandt, 1837, was received on 22 March 1971. It was sent to the printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 8 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 28: 126-128. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and was sent to the other prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 31: 97) and to eight entomological serials. The application was opposed by Professor Ernst Mayr and supported by Dr. Nell B. Causey (Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA) and Dr.H.F. Loomis (U:S. Department of Agriculture, Crops Research Division, Miami, Florida 33158, USA). Before the case was submitted for a vote, the XVII International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1972) adopted the modifications to Articles 23a, b and 79b published in Bul/. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 31: 79-81 and 87-89. Dr. Jeekel was accordingly asked to provide references to the use of © Polyzonium germanicum by five authors in ten publications in the preceding fifty years. Owing to delays outside his own control he was unable to do this before January 1975. The references are: BLOWER, J.G., 1958. British Millipedes (Diplopoda), Synopses Br. Fauna, VOL dil he: BROLEMANN, H.W., 1935. Myriapodes Diplopodes (Chilognathes |), Faune Fr., vol. 29: 102, 104. HAMMER, P., 1931. Tusindben (Myriapoda), Danm. Fauna, vol. 35: 110, 111 LANG, J., 1954. Mnohonozky - Diplopoda, Fauna CSR, vol. 2: 1-187 (147). PALMEN, E., 1949. The Diplopoda of Eastern Fennoscandia, Suomal. elain- ja kasvit. seur. van. elain. Julk, vol. 13 (6): 43 SCHUBART, O., 1934. Tausendfissler oder Myriapoda |: Diplopoda, Tierwelt Dtl. vol. 28: 302. STOJALOWSKA, W., 1961. Krocionogi (Diplopoda) Polski, (Warszawa, Panstwowe dawnictwo Naukowe), p. 179. STRASSER, K., 1966. Uber Diplopoden Bulgariens, Annis zoo/. Warsz., vol. 23(12): 331, 375. (Polyzonium germanicum Brandt, 1831). Die Diplopoden Sloweniens, Porocila, Acta carsol. vol. 4: 205-220. VERHOEFF, K.W., 1934. Diplopoda, Symphyla, Pauropoda, Chilopoda, Tierwelt Mitteleur. vol. 2(3): 53. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 16 June 1975 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (75)9 for or against the proposals published in Bul/. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 27: 127. At the close of the Voting Period on 16 September 1975 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Eisenmann, Melville, Lemche, Willink, Holthuis, Vokes, Starobogatov, Mayr, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Binder, Rohdendorf, Corliss, Alvarado, Ride, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 Bayer, Habe Negative votes — three (3): Dupuis, Bernardi, Nye Abstention: Mroczkowski Late Affirmative votes: Brinck, Kraus Voting Papers not returned: Simpson, Heppell, Erben. In January 1976, when the present Opinion was in preparation, Dr. Jeekel wrote to draw attention to an error of fact that he had discovered in his application. The family name POLYZONIIDAE was first published, not by Gervais, 1844 (? August) as there stated, but by Newport, G.V., 1844 (May), Conclusion of Mr.Newport’s “Monograph of the Myriapoda Chilopoda”, Proc. linn. Soc. London, vol. 1: 195. This discovery entailed the alteration of an entry in the Official List already voted on by tthe Commission. On 31 January 1976 | therefore wrote to the members of the Commission asking for approval for the correction of that entry and asked for replies by 10 March 1976. On that day my proposal had been approved by Professor Brinck and Dr.Eisenmann and opposed by M. Dupuis. The correction was accordingly made. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Dupuis: J’aurais préféré une proposition validant Polyzonium germanicum dés 1834. Mroczkowski: | propose another, very simple solution of the problem: to use the plenary powers to rule that the valid date of publication of the generic name Polyzonium Brandt and the specific name germanicum Brandt is 1834 (/sis (Oken): 704) though the description was published by Brandt three years later. Bernardi: Gervais devait revenir Aa une synonymie correcte dés 1844, puisque la priorité de son nom était établie par lui-méme. Nye: | would vote in favour of a ruling that Polyzonium and P. germanicum should be given nomenclatural precedence over Platyu/us and P. audouinii by any person who treats them as congeneric and conspecific respectively but | am not willing to vote for the suppression of subjective synonyms when the desired end can be achieved by the other method. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling in the present Opinion: audouinianus, Platyulus, Gervais, P., 1837, Annis Sci. nat. Zool. (3) vol. 2: 48 audouinii, Platyulus, Gervais, P., 1836 (28 December), L’/nstitut (1) vol. 4 (190): 435 germanicum, Polyzonium, Brandt, 1837 (19 January), Bull. sci. Acad. imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg vol. 1 (23): 178-179 Platyulus Gervais, P., 1836 (28 December), L’/nstitut (1) vol. 4 (190): 435 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Platyjulus Brandt, 1840, Bull. sci. Acad. imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg vol. 7 (20-22): 327, footnote Polyzonium Brandt, 1837 (19 January), Bull. sci. Acad. imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg vol. 1 (23): 178-179 POLYZONIIDAE Newport, G.V., 1844 (May), Proc. linn. Soc. London vol. 1: 195. - CERTIFICATE | hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (75)9 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1065. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 July 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 OPINION 1066 LYDA ALTERNANS COSTA, 1859, TO BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER LYDA INANIS KLUG, 1808 (INSECTA; COLEOPTERA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is ruled that the specific name a/ternans Costa, 1859, as published in the binomen Lyda alternans, is to be given precedence over the specific name /nanis Klug, 1808, as published in the binomen Lyda inanis, by any zoologist who regards both names as denoting the same taxon. (2) The specific name a/ternans Costa, 1859, as published in the binomen Lyda alternans, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement stating the ruling given under the plenary powers in (1) above, with the Name Number 2586. (3) The specific name inanis Klug, 1808, as published in the binomen Lyda inanis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name a/ternans Costa, 1859, as published in the binomen Lyda alternans, by any zoologist who regards both names as denoting the same taxon, with the Name Number 2587. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1944 An application from Dr Karel Benes (Prague) for the suppression of Lyda inanis Klug, 1808, was first received on 7 October 1970. It was sent to the printer on 18 March 1971 and was published on 1 May 1972 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 29:25. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bu//etin and sent to the other prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 31:97) as well as to seven entomological serials. No comment was received. In October 1974 Dr Benes sent in a revised application to take account (a) of the modifications to Articles 23a-b and 79b introduced by the XVII International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1972) published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 31: 79-81 and 87-89, and (b) of Dr Nye’s comment published in Bull. zool. Nomen. vol. 30: 140-141. Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given as on the first occasion. Again, no comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (76) 1 for or against the proposals set out on p. 121 of Bul/. zool. Nomencli. vol. 32. At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Willink, Tortonese, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Mroczkowski, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Habe, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi, Nye, Ride Negative votes: Sabrosky, Dupuis Late affirmative votes: Alvarado, Brinck, Kraus Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Simpson, Erben, Starobogatov. Dr. Sabrosky commented: “For a rare species ‘of no economic importance’, let priority apply”. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: alternans, Lyda, Costa, 1859, Fauna Reg. Napoli, Lydidae, page 3, pt. 78, fig. 6 inanis, Lyda, Klug, 1808, Mag. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berlin, vol. 2: 278. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76) 1 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that Voting Paper were duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so reached, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1066. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 July 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 OPINION 1067 SUPPRESSION OF DELPHINUS PERNETTENSI/S DE BLAINVILLE, 1817 AND DELPHINUS PERNETTY! DESMAREST, 1820 (CETACEA) RULING (1) The following specific names are hereby suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) pernettensis de Blainville, 1817, as published in the binomen Delphinus pernettensis; (b) pernettyi Desmarest, 1820, as published in the binomen Delphinus pernettyi. (2) The specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) and (b) above are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 1016 and 1017 respectively. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1974 An application for the suppression of the specific names pernettensis, Delphinus, de Blainville, 1817, and pernettyi, Delphinus, Desmarest, 1820, was received on 3 June 1971. It consisted of a separate of a paper published on 28 May 1971 in Beaufortia vol. 19 (244): 21-25. The Director of the Institute of Taxonomic Zoology, University of Amsterdam, and the Board of Editors of Beaufortia kindly gave permission for the paper to be republished in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. |It was accordingly sent to the printer, with a note of introduction, on 14 January 1974 and published on 31 July 1974 in ~ Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 31: 44-48. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. 31: 97) and to mammalogical serials. No comment was _ received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (76) 2 for or against the proposals set out on p. 47 of Bull. zool. Nomencli. vol. 31. At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — fourteen (14) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Willink, Tortonese, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Habe, Bayer, Nye, Ride Negative votes — five (5): Sabrosky, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis Late affirmative votes: Alvarado, Brinck, Kraus Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Erben, Simpson, Starobogatov. ga a oe 2 ee SS SE Ee EE ee Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their Voting Papers: Sabrosky: | am opposed to actions by the Commission on nomina dubia. The author's careful checking of the type-locality as the Cape Verde Islands removes the threat to Stene//a plagiodon. Let pernettensis and pernettyi rest in peace. Nye: Although | am usually opposed to the suppression of subjective synonyms, this is acase of anomen dubium in a well-worked group and has my support. Bernardi: Je suis d’accord qu’un nomen dubium meérite d’étre rejeté et qu’il ne faut pas se livrer a des “intellectual games” sur un nomen dubium. Je vote cependant contre parce qu’on ne voit pas dans le texte de van Bree le minimum d’effort tout de méme souhaitable pour tenter de déterminer a quelle espéce appartient pernettensis: 1° puisqu’il ne s’agit pas de Stenella plagiodon absent des iles du Cap Vert j’aimerai savoir avec quelles “several species” il peut étre confondu — celan’est pas abordé; 2°j’aimerai qu’il soit clairement précisé que la figure de Pernetty n’est pas utilisable pour déterminer pernettensis. Or, cette figure n’est pas discutée. Dr. van Bree was twice written to, in May and July 1976, with an invitation to reply to these comments, but he did not answer. It was accordingly decided to issue an Opinion in the terms of the clear majority vote of the Commission, without further delay. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: pernettensis, Delphinus, de Blainville, 1817, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. vol.9: 154 pernettyi, Delphinus, Desmarest, 1820, Mammalogie, ou description des espeéces de mammiféres. (Agasse), Paris : 513. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76) 2 were cast as set out above, that the proposals there set forth have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1067. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 September 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159 OPINION 1068 LEPTOSOMATIDAE IN AVES AND NEMATODA: RESOLUTION OF HOMONYMY ARISING FROM SIMILARITY IN THE NAMES OF THE TYPE-GENERA RULING. — (1) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816 (gender: masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Cabanis & Heine, 1862, Cuculus discolor Hermann, 1783 (Name Number 2036); (b) Leptosomatum Bastian, 1865 (gender: neuter), type-species, by original designation, Leptosomatum elongatum Bastian, 1865 (Name Number 2037). (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) discolor Hermann, 1783, as published in the binomen Cuculus discolor (specific name of type-species of Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816) (Name Number 2588); (b) elongatum Bastian, 1865, as published in the binomen Leptosomatum elongatum (specific name of type-species of Leptosomatum Bastian, 1865) (Name Number 2589). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) LEPTOSOMIDAE Blyth, 1838 (type-genus Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816) (Name Number 481) (Class Aves). (b) LEPTOSOMATIDAE Filipjev, 1916 (type-genus Leptosomatum Bastian, 1865 (Name Number 482) (Class Nematoda). (4) The generic name Leptosoma Bonaparte, 1850, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2077. (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) LEPTOSOMATINAE O. des Murs, 1860, an incorrect subsequent spelling of LEPTOSOMINAE Blyth, 1838 (Name Number 474); (b) LEPTOSOMATINI Filipjev, 1916, an incorrect original spelling of LEPTOSOMATIDAE Filipjev, 1916 (Name Number 475). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1975 An application for the resolution of the homonymy between the family-group names LEPTOSOMATIDAE in Aves and Nematoda was first received from Dr. A.M. Sudilovskaia (Zoological Museum, State University Bull. zoo!. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4. March 1977 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of Moscow) and Dr. G.N. Kashin (Moscow) on 21 June 1971. Before it was sent to the printer, support was received from Dr. Vladimir E. Flint (Moscow). After further correspondence, the application was sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 and was published on 13 January 1975 in Bull. zoo!. Nomencl. vol. 31: 209-211. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (76)3 for or against the proposals set out on pp. 210-211 of vol. 31 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski, Vokes, Sabrosky, Willink, Tortonese, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Habe, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi, Nye, Ride. Negative votes — none (0) Abstained: Dupuis Late affirmative votes: Alvarado, Brinck, Kraus Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Simpson, Erben, Starobogatov. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their Voting Papers: Mayr: Since the type-genus of the avian family is Leptosomus (undisputed in the whole current literature), LEPTOSOMATIDAE is clearly in violation of the Code. Holthuis: Bonaparte (1850, Conspectus Generum Avium: 96) used the name “Leptosoma Vieill. ” in the heading of the genus, and the name “Leptosomus viridis Vieill.” in the synonymy of the species Cuculus afer Gmelin, placed in that genus. Nowhere else in Bonaparte’s work is either of those names used. Although it seems most likely that Bonaparte’s use of the spelling Leptosoma is intentional, this cannot be proven and it therefore has to be treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Leptosomus. | would therefore suggest deleting in para (4) on p. 211 the words “or unjustified emendation” in the third line. Even if Leptosoma Bonaparte, 1850, were an available name (which it is not), it would be invalidated by several senior homonyms, the earliest of which is Leptosoma Risso, 1827. [Account has been taken of this comment in drafting the Ruling in this Opinion. R.V.M.] Dupuis: Le vote ne doit pas intervenir maintenant car les données sont incomplétes. Il existe un Leptosomatus Nitzsch, 1829. Si Filipjev a utilisé Leptosomatus au lieu de Leptosomatum il fallait le souligner. [Leptosomatus Nitzsch, 1829, Obs. de avium arteria carotide communi, is cited without author, description, indication, or included species and is a nomen nudum. Filipjev did not in fact cite Leptosomatus. R.V.M.] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in this Opinion: discolor, Cuculus, Hermann, 1783, Tab. Aff. Anim. (2nd edit.): 186 elongatum, Leptosomatum, Bastian, 1865, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 25: 145 Leptosoma Bonaparte, 1850, Consp. gen. Avium, vol. |: 96 LEPTOSOMATINAE O. des Murs, 1860, Traité gen. ool. ornith.: 530 LEPTOSOMATINI Filipjev, 1916, Ezhegodnik zoo/. Mus. vol. 21:64 Leptosomatum Bastian, 1865, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 25:144 LEPTOSOMIDAE Blyth, 1838, Mag. nat. Hist. (2) vol. 2: 421 Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816, Ana/. nouv. ornith. élém. : 28. The following is the original reference to a subsequent type-species designation entered on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in this Opinion: Of Cuculus discolor Hermann, 1783, for Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816, by Cabanis and Heine, 1862, Mus. Hein. vol. 4: 57. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76) 3 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1068. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 July 1976 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1069 CORRECTION OF ENTRY IN OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY FOR NAME NUMBER 428 (THRAUPIDAE) (1) The request to use the plenary powers to suppress all uses of the family-group name THRAUPIDAE (Aves) prior to its use by Wetmore & Miller, 1926, is refused. (2) The entry for Name Number 428 on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology is hereby corrected to read: THRAUPIDAE, Cabanis, 1847 (type-genus Thraupis Boie, 1826) (Class Aves). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1976 An application to correct the entry relating to the family name THRAUPIDAE on the Official List was first received from Dr. Kashin (Moscow) 0n 13 May 1971. It was sent to the printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 1 May 1972 in Bul! zool. Nomencli. vol. 29: 28-29. It immediately followed an application by Dr George Steyskal (c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) for the correction of the spelling of a number of family-group names, in which it was said that the correct spelling of THRAUPIDAE was THRAUPIDIDAE. Dr Eisenmann, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. supported Dr Kashin's proposal but opposed Dr Steyskal’s (Bul//. vol. 29: 197). Dr Lemche (Bul/. vol. 31: 171-172) proposed that the plenary powers should be used to suppress al! uses of THRAUPIDAE prior to Wetmore & Miller, 1926 and was opposed by Dr Eisenmann (Bull. vol. 32: 131-133); Dr Lemche replied and the Secretary showed, on the same occasion, that correction of the entry concerned was necessary. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (76)4 for or against Dr Lemche’s proposal to use the plenary powers in the present case. The following note was issued with the Voting Paper: “This case began as an application by Dr Kashin (Bu//. vol. 29: 28-29) for the author and date of the family-group name THRAUPIDAE (Official List No. 428, Opinion 852) to be corrected from “Wetmore & Miller, 1926” to “Cabanis. 1847”. This action, and the placing of certain other names Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 involved on the Official Index, can be taken without the use of the plenary powers. “In a paper published at the same time as Dr Kashin’s application (Bull. vol. 29: 26-27), Dr Steyskal pointed out that the correct form of the name in question, under Article 29, is THRAUPIDIDAE. At that time it would have been necessary to use the plenary powers to justify the retention of the spelling THRAUPIDAE; but the Monaco Congress (see Bull. vol. 31: 81) added a new section d to Article 29 protecting family-group names that are in general use from change on account of an incorrectly formed stem. . Dr Eisenmann (Bull. vol. 29: 197) supported Dr Kashin and opposed Dr Steyskal, and later (Bul/. vol. 32: 131-3) showed that the spelling THRAUPIDAE is covered by the Monaco provision. “Meanwhile Dr Lemche (Bull. vol. 31: 171) in the interests of the Stability of Official List entries, opposed Dr Kashin and (Bull. vol. 32: 132) Dr Eisenmann. He asked that the plenary powers be used to suppress all uses of the name THRAUPIDAE before that of Wetmore & Miller, 1926. A suggestion by Dr Eisenmann led me to discover (Bu//. vol. 32: 133) that the entry “THRAUPIDAE Wetmore & Miller, 1926” can only be protected if the plenary powers are further used to suppress the family-group names PROCNIATINAE, EUPHONIINAE. PHOENICOPHILINAE and PITYLINAE, all of Sclater, 1886, so far as present information goes. However, no formal proposition for the suppression of those names is at present before the Commission, and the possible use of the plenary powers to that effect has not been advertised. “tam therefore calling fora vote on V.P. (76) 4 for a vote for or against the use of the plenary powers in the present case. This, being a procedural vote. can be carried by a simple majority: if carried, the case will have to be re-published and the possible use of the plenary powers advertised. But if the majority vote is against the use of the plenary powers, Dr Kashin’s Original proposals will be considered to have been approved” At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - one (1): Habe Negative Votes - seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Mayr, Lemche, Mroczkowski, Vokes, Sabrosky, Willink, Tortonese. Corliss, Rohdendorf, Heppel!. Bernardi, Nye, Dupuis, Bayer Late Affirmative Votes: Alvarado, Brinck Late Negative Votes: Ride, Kraus Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Erben, Simpson, Starobogatov. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their Voting Papers: Mayr: Correcting authorship to Cabanis, 1847, avoids all the difficulties correctly and perceptively pointed out by the Secretary. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Lemche: | do not want to cause trouble even though | still consider it important to protect the Official Lists. Vokes: While | agree in principle with Dr Lemche on the need for maintaining the stability of the Official List, | cannot justify to myself the attitude that would say that we are unable to make a mistake. Bernardi: Utilisons les pleins pouvoirs le moins souvent possible. Heppell: | see no value in perpetuating errors on the Official Lists and believe that automatic correction without recourse to the plenary powers should be the rule wherever information received subsequent to publication of the Opinion so indicates. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference for the changed entry for Name Number 428 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: THRAUPINAE Cabanis, 1847, Archiv Naturges. Jahrg. 1847, vol. 1: 316. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76) 4 were cast as set out above, that the proposal to use the plenary powers contained in that Voting Paper has been duly rejected, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1069. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 July 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 OPINION 1070 CONSERVATION OF ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA VON MEYER 1861 (AVES) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is ruled that the specific name /ithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx lithographica, is to be given precedence over the specific name crassipes von Meyer, 1857, as published in the binomen Pterodactylus crassipes by any zoologist who believes that the two specific names apply to the same taxon. (2) The entry for Name No. 1748 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is hereby corrected to read as follows: lithographica, Archaeopteryx, von Meyer, 1861, Neues Jahrb. Min. Geol. Pal. 1861: 578 (specific name of type-species of Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) (Class Aves); to be given precedence over crassipes, Pterodactylus, von Meyer, 1857, by any zoologist who believes that both specific names apply to the same taxon. (3) The specific name crassipes von Meyer, 1857, as published in the binomen Pterodactylus crassipes, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2590 and with an endorsement that it is not to be used in preference to /ithographica, Archaeopteryx, von Meyer, 1861, by any zoologist who believes that both ’ specific names apply to the same taxon. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1977 An application for the suppression of Pterodactylus crassipes von Meyer, 1857 was first received from Dr John H. Ostrom (Yale University) on 2 August 1971. It was sent to the printer on 23 September 1971 and published on 1 May 1972 in Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 29: 30-31. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bul/. zool. Nomencl. vol. 31: 97) and to two palaeontological serials. Dr Nye (Bull. vol. 30: 141) proposed that the application should be altered to a request for /ithographica, Archaeopteryx, von Meyer, 1861, to be given precedence over crassipes, Pterodactylus, von Meyer, 1857, and this was accepted by Dr Ostrom. Dr Eisenmann thought that the application was unnecessary (Bull. vol. 31: 114-115) but otherwise took the same view as Dr Nye. Bull. zoo!. Nomencl. vol. 33. parts 3/4, March 1977 . 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr Ostrom’s application was supported by Dr Donald Baird (Princeton University), Dr Hildegarde Howard (Los Angeles County Natural History Museum) and Dr Alexander Wetmore (Smithsonian Institution). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February.1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (76) 5 on the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 29: 31, as modified in Bull. vol. 30: 141. At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski, Vokes, Sabrosky, Willink, Tortonese, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi, Nye, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes - none (0) Late Affirmative Votes: Alvarado, Habe, Brinck, Kraus Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Erben, Simpson, Starobogatov. Dr Holthuis suggested a wording to replace that proposed in Dr Nye’s comment, which has been substantially adopted in the present Ruling. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference for a name placed on an Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: crassipes, Pterodactylus, von Meyer, 1857, Neues Jahrb. Min. Geol. Pal. 1857: 535. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76)5 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1070. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 July 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167 OPINION 1071 EMENDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF LIOPELMATINA TO LEIOPELMATIDAE (AMPHIBIA SALIENTIA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the family-group name LIOPELMATINA Mivart, 1869, is hereby emended to LEIOPELMATIDAE. (2) The generic name Leiope/ma Fitzinger, 1861 (gender: neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Leiopelma hochstetteri Fitzinger, 1861, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2038. (3) The specific name hochstetteri Fitzinger, 1861, as published in the binomen Leiopelma hochstetteri (specific name of type-species of Leiopelma Fitzinger, 1861) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2591. (4) The generic name Liopelma Gunther, 1868, an _ unjustified emendation of Leiope/ma Fitzinger, 1861, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2078. (5) The family-group name LEIOPELMATIDAE Mivart, 1869, (emend- ation under the plenary powers in (1) above of LIOPELMATINA) (type-genus Leiopelma Fitzinger, 1861) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 483. (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) LTOPELMATINA Mivart, 1869 (an incorrect original spelling, by reason of the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above, of LEIOPELMATIDAE) (Name Number 476); (b) LLOPELMIDAE Noble, 1924 (a junior objective synonym of LEIOPELMATIDAE Mivart, 1869) (Name Number 477); (c) LEIOPELMIDAE Turbott, 1942 (a junior objective synonym of LEIOPELMATIDAE Mivart, 1869) (Name Number 478). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1936 An application for the emendation of LIOPELMATINA Mivart, 1869 to LEIOPELMATIDAE was first received from Dr James D. Fawcett and Dr Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado) on 6 August 1970. It was sent to the printer on 26 October 1970 and published on 10 August 1971 in Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 28: 50-52. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same number of the Bulletin and to the other prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bu//. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 31: 97) Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and to a herpetological journal. Dr George Steyskal (Bu//. vol. 29: 2) pointed out that the correct gender of Leiope/ma is neuter. Dr Sabrosky (Bull. vol. 29: 156-157) proposed that the Code be amended so as to remove the need to use the plenary powers in such cases as the present one. Dr Eisenmann (Bull. vol. 31: 10) supported Dr Sabrosky but favoured the use of the plenary powers in this instance. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (76)6 for or against the proposals set out on p. 58 of vol. 28 of the Bul/. zoo/. Nomencl. At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — thirteen (13) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Sabrosky, Willink, Tortonese, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Nye Negative Votes — four (4): Mroczkowski, Heppell, Bernardi, Ride Abstention: Dupuis Late Affirmative Votes: Alvarado, Habe, Brinck, Kraus Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Erben, Simpson, Starobogatov. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their Voting Papers: Sabrosky: | vote in favour of this only because | approve of LEIOPELMATIDAE, but | reiterate my point that such cases should not require action by the Commission but should be answered by the normal operation of provisions of the Code. Mroczkowski: | agree with Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for an amendment to the Code. Corliss: Essentially in agreement with colleague Sabrosky. | see no reason to require the Commission’s time or powers on such cases. Let the Code permit authors to take care of such obvious cases without resort to a proposal and an Opinion. Bernardi: J’appuie la proposition de Sabrosky. Heppell: While taking note of the final sentence of Commissioner Eisenmann’s comment, | believe it is better to decline to act in individual cases where a general principle covering such cases is sub judice. Although agreeing with the applicants as far as their object is concerned | prefer to support the change in the Code proposed by Sabrosky and extended by Eisenmann. Dupuis: Je ne vote pas et je demande que |’on examine sérieusement la proposition de Sabrosky. Pour étre correct, un texte frangais devrait étre réedigé comme suit: “Un nom du groupe-famille, fondé sur une €mendation injustifiee d’un nom du group-genre doit étre corrigeé conformément a l’orthographe originale du nom émendé, a moins que |l’émendation ne soit devenue le nom valide du genre”. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 Ride: | agree with Dr. Sabrosky’s interpretation and that there is no need for action by the Commission. | agree that the Code should be made explicit in this respect. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY TO COMPLETE THE RULING IN THE PRESENT OPINION When this Opinion came to be written, it was clear that there was an omission in the proposals put forward by the applicants, and in the case as presented for a vote by the Commission: there was no proposal to place the specific name hochstetteri Fitzinger, 1861, as published in the binomen Leiopelma hochstetteri (specific name of type-species of Leiope/ma Mivart, 1869) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Since the Commission had already voted to place Leiopelma, with L. hochstetteri as type-species, on the Official List of Generic Names, the placing of the name of that species on the appropriate Official List follows inevitably. | therefore placed a minute to that effect on file No. Z.N.(S.) 1836 and completed the Ruling accordingly. 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: hochstetteri, Leiopelma, Fitzinger, 1861, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 11: 218 Leiopelma Fitzinger, 1861, Verh. zool. -bot. Ges. Wien vol. 11: 218 LEIOPELMIDAE Noble, 1924, Amer. Mus. Novit. (132): 9 Liopelma Gunther, 1868, Proc. zool. Soc. London 1868: 478 LIOPELMATINA Mivart, 1869, Proc. zoo/. Soc. London 1869: 291 LIOPELMIDAE Turbott, 1942, Trans. roy. Soc. N.Z. vol. 71: 247. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76) 6 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is, with the additional item minuted by the Secretary, truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1071. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 July 1976 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1072 REFUSAL OF REQUEST TO SUPPRESS HYLA CRUCIALIS HARLAN, 1826 (AMPHIBIA) RULING.- (1) The request for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name crucialis Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Hyla crucialis, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, is refused. (2) The specific name crucialis Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Hyla crucialis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2592. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1982 An application for the suppression of Hy/a crucialis Harlan, 1826, was first received from Dr Linda Trueb (University of Kansas) on 13 September 1971. It was sent to the printer on 23 September 1971 and published on 1 May 1972 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 29: 39-40. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bu/l/. 31: 97) and to one herpetological serial. The application was opposed by Dr R.|. Crombie (National Zoological Park, Washington D.C.) (Bull. vol. 30: 4-6) and supported by Dr M.J. Tyler (South Australian Museum, Adelaide), Dr Hobart Smith (University of Colorado) and Dr A.M. Grandison (British Museum, Natural History). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three Month Rule on Voting Paper (76)8 for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 29: 40. At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - seven (7) received in the following order: Melville, Mayr, Lemche, Eisenmann, Tortonese, Corliss, Rohdendorf Negative Votes - eleven (11) received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Sabrosky, Willink, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Bernardi, Nye, Dupuis, Bayer, Ride Late Affirmative Vote: Brinck Late Negative Votes: Habe, Kraus Late Conditional Vote: Alvarado Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Erben, Simpson, Starobogatov. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their Voting Papers: Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 Mayr: | found Crombie’s comments utterly unconvincing. Eisenmann: Dr Trueb’s Proposal seems to fall clearly within the recently amended provisions of Article 79b. There are no requirements (contrary to the assumption of Dr. Crombie) that well known species be involved or that usage is to be determined only by papers that add new data. Faunal check-lists compiling distributional information already published are among the most authoritative works for nomenclature . Vokes: | must agree with Crombie’s last paragraph. Priority must remain when little-used, non-significant names are involved. Sabrosky: Crombie’s remarks are to be commended. The species is not common, important, widely distributed, or either zoologically or economically significant. Further, | am unimpressed by the failure of so many eminent authors to recognize the obvious. Willink: | agree with Dr. Crombie’s comments. Corliss: Despite Crombie’s thought-provoking objection, | believe that the reasons for the obscurity of any senior synonym are beside the point in application of the benignly useful “statute of limitation”. Bernardi: Je suis totalement d’accord avec le point de vue exposé par Crombie. Dupuis: L’opposition de Crombie repose sur des considérations générales d’une portée trés réelle.. Alvarado: | prefer to vote witha majority of the Commissioners, because | found in Dr. Crombie’s comment very important questions implying more than the factual case. Kraus: Together with Crombie | feel that the names in question are too unimportant for the procedure requested by the applicant. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the Original reference for aname placed on an Official List by the Ruling given in the Present Opinion: crucialis, Hyla, Harlan, 1826 Amer. J. Sci. Arts, vol. 10 (7): 64. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76)8 were cast as set out above, that the proposal for the use of the plenary powers contained in that R.V.MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 July 1976 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1073 VALIDATION OF RIODINIDAE GROTE, 1895 (1827) (LEPIDOPTERA ) RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family name RIODINIDAE Grote, 1895, (type-genus Riodina Westwood, [1851] shall have precedence as from 1827. (2) The family name RIODINIDAE Grote, 1895 (1827), (type-genus Riodina Westwood, (1851])is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 484. (3) The generic name Riodina Westwood, [1851], (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Papilio /ysippus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2039. (4) The specific name /ysippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Papilio lysippus (specific name of type-species of Riodina Westwood, [1851], is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2593. (5) The family name ERYCINIDAE Swainson, 1827 (invalid because the name of its type-genus is a junior homonym) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 479. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1948 An application for the validation of the family name RIODINIDAE Grote in Lepidoptera was first received from Lt.-Col. C.F. Cowan (then of Little Gaddesden, Herts., England) on 9 December 1970. It was sent to the printer on 20 September 1972 and published on 29 December 1972 (Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 29: 206-208). Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bu//. vol. 31: 97) and to eight entomological serials. The application was supported by Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos. Lt.-Col. Cowan asked that RIODINIDAE, which was first published by Grote in 1895, should be given precedence over its senior synonyms - all of which are in use at subfamily or tribe level, and the oldest of which dates from 1859 - by being given the arbitrary date of 1851 (the date of the name of its type-genus, Riodina). He saw no need to give it the date (1827) of the invalid name ERYCINIDAE Swainson which it replaces. The Secretary, however (Bull. vol. 32: 11) thought that the latter course would be more in keeping with the spirit of Article 40 (and of Article 39 before 1964). He proposed not only that RIODINIDAE should be given precedence from 1827, but also that the invalid name ERYCINIDAE Swainson, 1827, be placed on the Official Index. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 1976(9) for or against the proposals set out in Bu//. vol. 29: 207-208 and supplemented in Bull. vol. 32: 11. At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - seventeen (17), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Willink, Tortonese, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Habe, Heppell, Nye, Dupuis, Bayer, Ride Negative Vote: Sabrosky Late Affirmative Votes: Alvarado, Brinck, Kraus. Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Erben, Simpson, Starobogatov. Dr. Nye said on his Voting Paper: “I vote for the original proposals supplemented by placing the rejected name ERYCINIDAE on the Official Index. | vote against antedating RIODINIDAE to 1827 when the date of establishment of the type-genus, [1851], is sufficient.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: ERYCINIDAE Swainson, 1827, Philos. Mag. (n.s.) vol. 1: 185 lysippus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10): 484 Riodina Westwood, [1851], Genera of diurnal lepidoptera, vol. 2 (47): 430 RIODINIDAE Grote, 1895, Mitt. Roemermus. Hildesheim (1): 2. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76)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 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1073. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 August 1976 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1074 MUREX RANA BUBO LINNAEUS, 1758, DESIGNATED AS TYPE-SPECIES OF TUTUFA JOUSSEAUME, 1881 (GASTROPODA) RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881, hitherto made are hereby set aside and the nominal species-group taxon Murex rana bubo Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Murex rana bubo Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2040. (3) The species-group name bubo Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Murex rana bubo (specific name of type-species of Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2594. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2021 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the gastropod genus Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881, that would conserve the current interpretation of that name was first received from Dr. R.P. Suggate (Acting Director, New Zealand Geclogical Survey) on behalf of Dr. A.G. Beu on 6 October 1972. It was sent to the printer on 29 January 1973 and published on 6 July 1973 in Bul/. zool. Nomencl. vol. 30: 54-56. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 31: 97) and to three malacological serials. A comment by Dr. Harald A, Rehder (U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C.) containing revised proposals that had been accepted by Dr. Beu was published on 31 July 1974 in Bull. vol. 31: 11-12. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 1976 (10) for or against the proposals set out on p.56 of Bull. vol. 30 and modified on p. 12 of vol. 31. At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Sabrosky, Willink, Tortonese, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Habe, Heppell, Bernardi, Nye, Bayer Negative Votes - none (0) Abstention: Dupuis Late Affirmative Votes: Alvarado, Ride, Brinck, Kraus Leave of Absence: Binder Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1%5 Voting Papers not returned: Erben, Simpson, Starobogatov. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their Voting Papers: Nye: Surely the type-species of Tutufa as in the modified proposals is Murex rana Linnaeus. If, as the proposer believes, bubo Linnaeus is a valid Species and if he considers that it should be the type-species, then it must be designated as “bubo Linnaeus, as published in the combination Murex rana bubo”. Linnaeus, 1758, did not use the term “var.” for this taxon. [This comment has been taken into account in drawing up the Ruling in this Opinion. R.V.M.] Dupuis: || est impossible de voter maintenant, alors que “there are at least 6 species of Tutufa sensu Stricto. The nomenclature of some of the species is obscure as yet, particularly the status of the name Murex rana bubo Linnaeus, 1758...” (Beu, p.55). ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the Original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: bubo, Murex rana, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1: 748 Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881, Bull. Soc. Zool. France, vol. 6: 175 CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes on Voting Paper (76)10 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1074. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 August 1976 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1075 CONSERVATION OF STRIGLINA GUENEE, 1877 (LEPIDOPTERA, THYRIDIDAE) RULING.-(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the generic name Striglina Guenée, 1877 is to be given precedence over the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859, by any zoologist who believes that both names denote the same taxon. vi (2) The generic name Striglina Guenée, 1877 (gender: feminine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Whalley, 1964, Striglina lineola Guenée, 1877, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2041, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859, by any zoologist who believes that both names denote the same taxon. (3) The generic name Daristane Walker, 1859 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Daristane tibiaria Walker, 1859, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2042, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Striglina Guenée, 1877, by any zoologist who believes that both names denote the same taxon. (4) The specific name scitaria Walker, 1862, as published in the binomen Drepanodes scitaria, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2595. (5) The specific name tibiaria Walker, 1859, as published in the binomen Daristane tibiaria (specific name of type-species of Daristane Walker, 1859) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2596. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2025 An application for the conservation of the generic name Striglina Guenée, 1877, by the suppression of the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859, was first received from Mr. P.E.S. Whalley (British. Museum, Natural History) on 22 November 1972. It was sent to the printer on 29 January 1973 and published on 6 July 1973 in Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 30: 61-62. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bul/. vol. 31: 97) and to nine entomological serials. In 1974 Dr. Nye proposed (Bu//. vol. 30: 140-141) that in this case (and others of the same general sort), it would be better to rule under the plenary powers that the junior synonym should take precedence over the senior synonym than to suppress the senior synonym. In 1975 (Bull. 31: 173) Mr. Whalley accepted this suggestion and offered the Commission a choice between his original proposals and a new (and completed) set of proposals based upon Dr. Nye’s suggestion. No other comment was received. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (76) 11 for Alternative A (Mr. Whalley’s original proposals in Bul/. vol. 30: 61-62) or for Alternative B (the proposals in Bull. vol 31: 173 on the lines of Dr. Nye’s suggestion). At the close of the Voting Period on 10 May 1976 the state of the voting was as follows: For Alternative A - five (5) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Heppell For Alternative B - twelve (12) received in the following order: Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Willink, Tortonese, Habe, Bernardi, Nye, Bayer Abstention: Dupuis Late votes for Alternative B: Alvarado, Ride, Brinck, Kraus Leave of Absence: Binder Voting Papers not returned: Erben, Simpson, Starobogatov. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Heppell: There are a number of unsatisfactory aspects to both alternatives of this case. In (A) we are asked to place the specific name scitaria on the Official List although nowhere does this name occur in the discussion, reference to Whalley’s 1964 type-designation being necessary to elucidate the fact that it is a senior synonym of /ineo/a. In (B) we are asked to place Daristane and tibiaria on the Official Lists alongside Striglina and its ‘type-species’ (presumably scitaria, not /ineola, is intended) even though the application shows the two genera to be subjectively congeneric. The main purpose of the application is to conserve the name Strig/ina and it is unfortunate that, as the Code stands, placement of this name on the Official List does not give it automatic precedence over Daristane. In the face of the unsatisfactory alternatives | can only vote against (B) and, consequently, for (A). In principle, however, | endorse Nye’s comments on the treatment of such cases as this. Dupuis: Je vote contre (A) et contre (B) car Striglina n’est pas assez ‘widely known’ pour qu’on enfreigne en sa faveur la regle de priorité. Je rappelle qu’en anglais comme en frangais il n'y a pas deux alternatives, mais les deux termes d’une alternative. Bayer: This voting paper makes a vote for one or other alternative mandatory, and provides no opportunity for a negative vote. Kraus: For reasons of principle | vote for Alternative B as this case also involves taxonomic questions, and Alternative B seems to be in better harmony with taxonomic freedom. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Daristane Walker, 1859, J. linn. Soc. London vol. 3: 193 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature scitaria, Drepanodes, Walker 1862, List of lepidopterous insects in the British Museum (Brit.Mus.) pt. 26: 1488. Striglina Guenée, 1877, Ann. Soc. ent. France vol. 7: 283 tibiaria, Daristane, Walker, 1859, J. linn Soc. London vol. 3: 194. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (76) 11 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1075. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 August 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179 OPINION 1076 REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS PROCYON BRACH YURUS WIEGMANN; 1837 AND PROCYCON OBSCURUS WIEGMANN, 1837 (MAMMALIA CARNIVORA) RULING.- (1) The application for the of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name brachyurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837, and obscurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837, is hereby refused. (2) The names mentioned in Clause (1) remain available and are subject to the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, including Article 23a-b. (3) The specific names brachyurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837, and obscurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837, are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 2597 and 2598 respectively, with the endorsement given in clause (2) of this Ruling. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N (S )1640. An application for the suppression of Procyon brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, and Procyon obscurus Wiegmann, 1837, was first received from Dr. Charles A. Long (Department of Zoology, University of I/linois) on 5 March 1964. It was sent to the printer on 8 May 1964 and published on 16 October 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencli. vol. 21: 318-320. Dr Lemche objected to the references to type-localities in the detailed proposals to the Commission (para 9 of the application). The application was supported by Dr. Hobart M. Smith (then of Department of Zoology, University of I/linois) (Bull. vol. 22: 16) and opposed by Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum) (Bull. vol. 22: 338). The Committee on Nomenclature of the American Society of Mammalogists sent the following comment, which was circulated to members of the Commission with their Voting Papers: “In reviewing Long’s proposal for the suppression of the two Wiegmann names for raccoons, the Committee was mindful that they are in a sense nomina dubia. Still in all, in the opinion of the majority, no sound reasons exist for suppressing these two names. No convincing evidence was brought forth by Long that the name brachyurus was applied to an Antillean or Bahaman raccoon or that a ‘stateof confusion’ would result if the name was applied to some kind of raccoon. Suppression was asked for the name obscurus simply because its ‘type-locality is unknown’. “After weighing the proposal by Long and subsequent comments written by Philip Hershkovitz, five members of the committee voted against suppression of Procyon brachyurus and Procyon obscurus. The remaining two members saw some merit in Long’s proposal, but did not give it their unqualified support.” This comment was signed by W.H. Burt, C.O. Handley, Jr., P. Hershkovitz, K.F. Koopman, W.Z. Liddicker, R.L. Peterson and J.K. Jones, Jr., Chairman. Slaten Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 16 June 1966 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1966)35 for or against the proposals set out in Bul/. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 21: 319-320. At the close of the Voting Period on 16 September 1966, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - five (5) received in the following order: Lemche, Holthuis, Binder, Mayr, Mertens Negative Votes - fourteen (14) received in the following order: China, Brinck, Boschma, Vokes, Sabrosky, Jaczews''. Obruchev, do Amaral, Uchida, Tortonese, Kraus, Forest, Alvarado, Evans Late Affirmative Votes: Ride, Stoll, Simpson, Bonnet Voting Papers not returned: Hubbs, Munroe The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their Voting Papers: Lemche: The two names are obviously nomina oblitaand as such do not deserve to be revived. The opponents of the present proposal do not offer any solution to a situation where two scientists would try to apply one of these names each to his own species of Procyon. The present proposal has the merit that it will prevent such purposeless discussion. Jaczeswki: | agree with the objections raised by P. Hershkovitz and the Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Mammalogists. Binder: The only way to prevent with certainly a nomen dubium from being used in the future in place of an unequivocal name is to suppress it. There may be other ways to dispose of it in the present case (as a junior synonym, for instance), but these can be challenged. Since the Commission has been given the trouble to deal with the case, it might as well settle it definitively. Kraus: | vote against the proposal especially because the reasons why the name obscurus should be suppressed are not discussed at all. Mayr: | see no harm in removing these two dubious names from the rank of availability. In their present status they continue to be a potential threat to stability. Admittedly it would have been better never to have bothered the Commission with this case. Simpson: As Hershkovitz admits, P. brachyurus and P. obscurus are simply unidentifiable. They may be senior synonyms of several different names. Hershkovitz’s discussion does not eliminate confusion, and stability does require Commission action. Smith’s arguments are cogent. NOTE BY THE SECRETARY It is not clear why an Opinion was not issued on this case immediately after the completion of the voting. My attention to this lapse was drawn by Dr. Karl. F. Koopman (American Museum of Natural History, New York) in a letter dated 8 July 1976. In examining the file with a view to preparing the ruling in this Opinion, it was Clear that the situation concerning these names has been materially altered Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 by the action of the XVII International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1972) concerning Articles 23a-b and 79b. For while it may be inferred from the Commission’s decision that the validity of Procyon brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837, and P. obscurus Wiegmann, 1837, is a matter for zoologists to decide, it is also clear that it would be a contravention of Article 23a-b to give either name validity in such a way as to displace a long-established name in its accustomed meaning. Since both names remain available, it seems prudent to endorse their entries on the Official List with a reference to their position under the Code as it now stands. If this is not done, misunderstandings may arise in the future as to the conditions which limit the potential validity of these names, even though they appear on the Official List. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: _brachyurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837, Arch. Naturges. vol. 3 (1): 369 obscurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837, Arch. Naturges. vol. 3(1): 370. CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes on Voting Paper (66)35 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been rejected, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1076. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 August 1976 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1077 REFUSAL OF REQUEST TO USE THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME CYNOCEPHALUS BODDAERT, 1768 (MAMMALIA) RULING.- (1) The application for the use of the plenary powers for the suppression of the generic name Cynocephalus Boddaert, 1768, is hereby refused. (2) The generic name Cynocephalus Boddaert, 1768 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Lemur volans Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2043. (3) The specific name volans Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lemur volans (specific name of type-species of Cynocephalus Boddaert, 1768) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2599. (4) The generic name Galeopithecus Pallas, 1783, (a junior objective synonym of Cynocephalus Boddaert, 1768) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2079. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1792 An application for the validation of the generic name Galeopithecus Pallas, 1783, was first received from Dr. Leigh van Valen (University of Chicago), Dr. P.M. Butler (Royal Holloway College), Drs M.C. McKenna and F.S. Szalay (American Museum of Natural History) and Drs B. Patterson and A.S. Romer (Museum of Comparative Zoology) on 20 February 1967. It was sent to the printer on 3 March 1967 and published on 30 June 1967 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 24: 190-191. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bu//etin as well as to the prescribed serials (Constitution Art. 12b; Bul/. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 31: 97) and to two specialist serials. The application was supported by Dr. W.D.L. Ride (then of Western Australian Museum) and Dr. Everett Lindsay (University of Arizona). Objections were received from Dr. P. Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago) (Bull. vol. 25: 202), Professor J. Knox Jones (University of Kansas), Dr. Th. Haltenorth (Zoo/ogische Staatssammlung, Munich), Dr. H.J. Kuhn (Senckenbergische Anatomie, Frankfurt a.M.), Professor J.L. Harrison (University of Singapore), and the Committee on Nomenclature of the American Society of Mammalogists (Bul//. vol. 25: 203). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 May 1969 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 1969(27) either for or against the proposals set out on p. 191 of vol. 24 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 At the close of the Voting Period on 15 August 1969 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - ten (10), received in the following order: Lemche, Mayr, Bonnet, Vokes, Obruchev, Uchida, do Amaral, Ride, Mertens, Binder Negative Votes - twelve (12) received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Brinck, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Simpson, Jaczewski, Melville, Forest, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Kraus Voting Papers not returned: Munroe, Tortonese. Dr. G. Owen Evans returned a blank voting paper. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Sabrosky: First | believe the attitude of mammalogists should be given great weight in judging names of mammals. Secondly, | am unimpressed by the applicants’ argument that the flagrant and intentional disregard of Opinion 90 by some of them now justifies its reversal. Thirdly, should not Hershkovitz’s proposal have been noted as the alternative to be adopted if the application by van Valen and others is rejected? [The Secretariat took the view that the proposals expressed by Dr. Hershkovitz were the inevitable result of a rejection of the original proposals. R.V.M.] Simpson: | still believe, as in my 1945 publication cited in this application, that the 1925 effective minority decision of the Commission was discreditable. It has nevertheless gone unchanged for 44 years [in 1969] and there is no real doubt that reversing it now would lead to present instability. STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY | am indebted to Dr. Kar! Koopman (American Museum of Natural History, New York) for drawing my attention to the fact that this application seemed to have lapsed. On examining the file, | could find no reason why the issue of the Opinion should have been delayed and consequently prepered it as promptly as possible. ORIGINAL REFERENCES : The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the Ruling given in this Opinion: Cynocephalus Boddaert, 1768, Dierkundig Mengelwerk, vol. 2: 8 Galeopithecus Pallas, 1783, Acta Acad, Sci. imp. Petropolitanae vol. 4 (for 1780): 208 volans, Lemur, Linnaeus, 1758, syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1: 30 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTIFICATE | certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)27 were cast as set out above, that the proposal for the use of the plenary powers contained in that Voting Paper has been duly rejected, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1077. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 August 1976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Minutes of general meeting at the XIX General Assembly of IUBS, Bangalore, India, from 27th September - 2nd October 1976. The Commission met first on 27th September and daily thereafter. The following were present at all or some of the sessions: Dr. W.D.L. Ride (President) in the Chair, Dr. Bayer, Dr. Bernardi, Dr. Corliss, Dr. Dupuis, Dr. Holthuis, Dr. Nye, Dr. Sabrosky, Dr. Welch, and the Secretary. Apologies were received from Dr. Binder, Dr. Brinck, Dr. Habe, Dr. Heppell, Dr. Kraus, Dr. Lemche, Dr. Mayr, Dr. Mroczkowski and Dr. Tortonese. 1. The following agenda was adopted: (1) Nomination of candidates for election to the Commission by the Section on Nomenclature. (2) Review of the By-Laws of the Commission. (3) | The status of microform as publication. (4) | Any other business. (a) Financial support for the work of the Commission. (b) Questions of policy concerning the 3rd edition of the Code. (c) Format of the Bulletin. (d) Functions and role of members of the Commission. 2. The President reminded the meeting that it was in his power to make procedural rulings, subject to challenge. Any such challenge, if seconded, would be discussed and voted on. He added that as no proposals for the amendment of the Code or the Constitution had been submitted to the Commission in time for presentation to the meeting, no motions of either kind could be received. Since the meeting was a general meeting under Article 11a of the Constitution, any other business could be considered. 3. Nominations. The President said that the Commission had already agreed that the number of places to be filled should be the same as the number of retiring members, namely five, and stated that it would be well to send two nominations for each place to the Section on Nomenclature. The Council had already decided under Article 3b of the Constitution that the retiring members of the Commission (Kraus, Mayr, Ride, Sabrosky, Simpson) should be considered eligible for re-election. The following additional nominations had been received: Dr. Karl Koopman (U.S.A. - Mammals) (under Article 4c of Dr. Boris Peshev (Bulgaria - Mammals) the Constitution) Dr. Walter Bock (U.S.A. - Birds) (presented by Dr. Corliss) Dr. H.G. Cogger (Australia - Reptiles) (presented by the President) 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature V.A. Trjapitzin (U.S.S.R. - Hymenoptera ) Dr. O.A. Scarlato (U.S.S.R. - Mollusca) J.H.O. Day (S. Africa - Polychaetes) presented by J.A.J. Meester (S. Africa - Mammals) the Secretary Dr. H.E.P. Paterson (S. Africa - population genetics) Dr. B.R. Stuckenberg (S. Africa - Diptera) As the President had been nominated for re-election, it was agreed that the preparation of the slate of 10 nominees should be conducted under the chairmanship of Dr. Holthuis, Vice-President of the Commission. 4. Discussion of the nominations then began. It was agreed that five pairs of names should be presented, from each of which the Section on Nomenclature could elect one. It was further agreed that each pair should bring together, as far as practicable, candidates of similar specialities, so as to preserve the disciplinary balance of the Commission, and that the Commission should indicate its preference for one member of each pair (though this preference would in no way limit the freedom of choice of the Section on Nomenclature). The names of candidates who were already members of the Commission would be indicated by an asterisk. On a motion by Dr. Sabrosky, seconded by the Secretary, it was agreed as a matter of policy not to nominate candidates aged over 60 for election as new members of the Commission. 5. Dr. Ride and Dr. Sabrosky then withdrew while their cases were considered and Dr. Holthuis took the chair. It was decided that the first two pairs of nominees should be: H. A. (1) Sabrosky : Stuckenberg (2) Ride : Meester 6. The President then resumed the Chair. He informed the Commission of correspondence between himself and Professors Simpson and Mayr which he had initiated in view of the fact that neither, if elected, would be able to serve a full term. Noting this, and in view of the fact that Professor Simpson would reach the age of retirement in only one year, the Commission decided to nominate only Kraus and Mayr of the other retiring members. The meeting then proceeded to prepare the remaining three pairs of names by elimination, with the following result: (3) Kraus : Trjapitzin (4) Mayr ; Bock (5) Cogger 5 Koopman These decisions were re-examined and ratified at a later meeting and were forwarded to the Section on Nomenclature. 7. Review of By-Laws. The President read out the definition of the By-Laws in Article 17 of the Constitution and explained that votes on matters connected with them would not be votes on matters of zoological nomenclature under Article 12 of the Constitution. In consequence, amendments to the By-Laws could be adopted and put into operation during the present meeting. Dr. Sabrosky was asked to choose the members of a small working party to examine the existing By-Laws and a draft revision prepared by the Secretary, and to produce a new draft. 8. The meeting then began a consideration of the By-Laws in order to identify the problems to which Dr. Sabrosky’s working party would need to give Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 particular attention. These were listed as:- |. Commissioners : Nominations and Elections 1. Possible different treatment for early interim and late interim vacancies. 2. Clarification of nomination by individuals (now implied) as well as by institutions and organisations (now provided for). 3. Provision in duties of Secretary for verification of essential data sub- mitted for nominees, before submission to Commission. 4. Critical review of questions of national representation [cf. |.A. (b) and (d) ] ll. Officers and Council 1. Review of method of election of officers (President and Vice-President), presently unwieldy. a) Use of experience of the retiring members of Council? b) Permissible re-election of President? c) Discontinuance of automatic re-election of past-President and substitution of some other system for continuity? d) Clarification of succession of V.P. to Presidency. e) See IIl(2) below. 2. Voting by Councillors. 3. See III(4) below. Ill. Secretariat . Retention of possibility that Secretary might not be a Commissioner. . Should the Secretary, if a Commissioner, also be a Councillor? . Should the Secretary also be Secretary of the Council? . Should the President keep the Secretary informed of Council business? (Possibly solved by answer to No. 2 or No. 3). 5. Evaluate Ill.B.4 of By-Laws and re-draft to make it more meaningful. (3 possible reports: to Council, |IUBS and Commission). 9. Ata later session, the Commission considered and, on a motion by Dr. Bayer, seconded by Dr. Sabrosky, unanimously adopted the revised By-Laws. The Secretary was instructed to circulate the new By-Laws, so adopted, to all members of the Commission, drawing attention to the right of any member to propose amendments to be voted upon by the Commission in a postal ballot. Any amendment, so proposed, seconded, and carried by a simple majority, would replace the existing provision - otherwise the By-Law adopted at Bangalore would stand. Drs. Bernardi and Forest would prepare a French text of the revised By-Laws. 10. Under the new By-Law IIB the Commission resolved, on a motion by Dr. Holthuis, seconded by Dr. Bayer, that the date of election of the next President, Vice President and two new members of Council should be 3 October 1977, so that the Secretary should seek nominations on 3 July 1977. Either, or both, of these dates could be varied by the Council at the request of the Secretary if proposals to amend the By-Laws were not fully resolved by that time. 11. The Commission noted that the electoral provisions for the President, Vice President and Council in the new By-Laws were adopted to provide for continuity in the work of the Council. The Secretary was instructed to prepare -fWNhM— 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature consequential amendments to the Constitution to the extent necessary to achieve this object and to present them to the Council. These would be dealt with by the Commission for presentation to the Section on Nomenclature at the next General Assembly. 12. Financial support for the work of the Commission. The Commission noted with pleasure the successful completion of the negotiations between the Secretary and IUBS on finding new sources of financial support for the work of the Commission. It recorded its special gratitude to the United States delegation for having proposed a motion, eventually adopted as a Resolution by the General Assembly of IUBS, whereby all member countries of IUBS were urged to subscribe annually to the Commission, on a voluntary basis, sums calculated on the same formula as that used for IUBS dues, but based on a unit figure of $16.00. 13. Format of the Bulletin; role of members of the Commission. These subjects, which had been placed on the agenda at the request of M. Dupuis, were not discussed, since he was unable to be present to introduce them. The President formally adjourned the meeting on Saturday 2 October at 10.30 a.m. The Editorial Committee on the 3rd edition of the Code and its Glossary Working Party met under the chairmanship of the President on 2, 3, 4 and 5 October, with valuable assistance from those members of the Commission who remained in Bangalore. Complete drafts of the Code and the Glossary were available for study and much useful new work was done on them. The results, insofar as they entail alterations to the Code and Glossary, will be submitted to the Commission in due course. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 7 October 1976. Minutes of the Section on Nomenclature of the Division of Zoology of |IUBS, Bangalore, India, 29 September 1976 The Section met at 14.00 hrs. Dr. J.O. Corliss was voted into the Chair. 1. The Chairman said that the only business before the Section was the election of members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The slate of nominees presented by the Commission was as follows:- 1. *Sabrosky : Stuckenberg 2. *Ride : Meester 3. “Kraus 3 Trjapitzin 4. *Mayr : Bock 5 Cogger : Koopman Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 (Those marked with an asterisk were retiring members of the Commission.) The Commission had expressed a preference for the candidates listed in the left-hand column of the table, but the Section could vote freely for either member of each pair. 2. The five candidates recommended by the Commission were duly elected by 12 votes to none, with no abstentions. The Secretary was instructed to communicate the result to the President of the Divison of Zoology, and the meeting was adjourned at 15.00 hrs. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary London, 7 October 1976. ° The Division of Zoology, meeting immediately after the Section on Nomenclature under the chairmanship of Dr. Farner, and acting as successor in authority to the International Congress of Zoology, ratified the elections made to the Commission. R.V.M. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AMENDMENTS TO AN APPLICATION FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A TYPE—SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS FOR DRUPELLA THIELE, 1925 (GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.)1891 By W.O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) Since the original publication of application Z.N.(S.)1891 five years ago (Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 26: 233), further information pertinent to this case has come to light which necessitates amendments to the original application. | am grateful to Dr Harald A. Rehder (U.S. National Museum of Natural History) for drawing attention to certain defects in that application and for supplying me with specimens of Purpura ochrostoma Blainville, 1832, from which it has been possible to establish the proper systematic position of that species. Thiele (1925, p. 171) established the genus Drupella for a group of Thaidine species in the family MURICIDAE. The four originally included species comprised Purpura elata Blainville, 1832, Ricinula spectrum Reeve, 1846, Sistrum ochrostoma (Blainville, 1832, as Purpura ochrostoma) and Ricinula siderea Reeve, 1846, but Thiele failed to designate a type-species for his new genus Drupella. 2. The earliest subsequent type-designation is that by v. Ihering and Haas (1927: 215). In a review of Thiele’s 1925 publication, the authors designated Ricinula siderea Reeve, as the type-species of Drupella. 3. The application for setting aside v. Ihering and Haas’s type-designation is based on the grounds of misidentification of the type-species by Thiele, which makes it obligatory to seek a ruling from the Commission under Article 70 of the Code of |.C.Z.N. The dentition figured by Thiele (/oc. cit. : 171, text-fig. 3) for “Ricinula siderea Reeve” is actually the radula of the muricid species Drupa cornus Roeding, 1798, whereas the true Ricinula siderea Reeve not only belongs to a different genus but also a different family and superfamily. Tryon(1880: 190) and the writer in his original application erroneously presumed that R. siderea Reeve belongs to the COLUMBELLIDAE, but recent examination of the three syntypes of R. siderea and the radular anatomy of living specimens, shows conclusively that R. siderea Reeve belongs to the genus Engina Gray, 1839, in the family BUCCINIDAE (Cernohorsky, 1975). 4. If v. Ihering and Haas’s type-designation were allowed to stand, Drupella Thiele would disappear in the synonymy of Engina Gray, in the family BUCCINIDAE, and the creation of a new genus for the muricid Drupella group of species would be necessary in view of the absence of available synonyms. From the species originally included in Drupella by Thiele, in conjunction with the illustrated dentition of two of the species, it Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4. March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 is quite clear that Drupe/la was meant for a genus in the MURICIDAE and not BUCCINIDAE. 5. In the best interests of nomenclatural stability and in order to preserve Drupel/a in its accustomed sense, it would be most appropriate to set aside v. Ihering and Haas’s type-designation and select Purpura elata Blainville, 1832 (p. 207), as the type-species of Drupella Thiele. P. elata Blainville, 1832, is a synonym of the widely distributed, common tropical Indo-Pacific species Drupa cornus Roeding, 1798. Purpura elata is one of the originally included species, the dentition is of the Drupel//a pattern and the selection of this species would safeguard usage in its accustomed sense. In the original application the selection of Purpura ochrostoma Blainville, 1832, as the type-species of Drupella has been requested. However, recent examination of the radular anatomy of this species shows that P. ochrostoma actually belongs in the Muricid genus Morula Schumacher, subgenus Cronia H. & A. Adams, 1853, and bears no close relationship within the family to Drupel/a. The type-selection of P. ochrostoma is clearly unsuitable and its effect would be a disappearance of Drupella in the synonymy of Morula Schumacher. Apart from the species already discussed, the fourth species included by Thiele in Drupel/a is Ricinula spectrum Reeve, 1846, which is another synonym of Drupa cornus Roeding, 1798. 6. In the interests of nomenclatural stability and to obviate the need for a new genus-group name, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested under the provisions of Article 70(a) of the Code: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Drupel/a Thiele, 1925, made prior to the present ruling, and, having done so, designate Purpura elata Blainville, 1832 (a synonym of Drupa cornus Roeding, 1798) as the type-species of Drupel/a Thiele, 1925; (2) to place the generic name Drupella Thiele, 1925 (gender: feminine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Purpura elata Blainville, 1832, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name cornus Roeding, 1798, as published in the binomen Drupa cornus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BLAINVILLE, H.M.D. de, 1832. Nouv. Ann. Mus. d’Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 1 (2): 189-263, 3 pls. CERNOHORSKY, W.O., 1975. Supplementary notes on the taxonomy of buccinid species of the subfamily Pisaniinae (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Rec. Auckland Inst. Mus. vol 12: 175-211, text-figs IHERING, H. v., and HAAS, F., 1927. Literatur. Arch. f. Mollusk. vol. 59 (3): 215-216. THIELE, J., 1925. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf dem Dampter “Valdivia” 1898-1899. Gastropoda. || Teil. Jena. vol. 17 (2): 38-382, pis. 13-46, text-figs. TRYON, G.W., 1880. Manual of Conchology. Muricinae, Purpurinae. Philadelphia, vol. a 1-289, pls. 1-70. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COTYLE BOIE 1826 (AVES, HIRUNDINIDAE): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION Z.N.(S.)2117 By R.K. Brooke (Durban Museum, Smith Street, Durban, 4001, Republic of South Africa) Cotyle Boie (1826: 971 - not seen) has not been used since 1890 as a generic name for a group of species including its type-species Hirundo fucata Temminck. It was abandoned on the theory of homonymy with Cotile Boie, 1822, (which is an objective junior synonym of Riparia Forster, 1817) under the former one letter rule or as an unjustified emendation of Cotile. Cotyle is thus available, but a powerful case exists for its suppression not only under Articles 23 (a-b) and 79 (b) but also because of the substantial confusion and disturbance of stability that its revival would cause. 2. Sharpe & Wyatt (1894: xiviii) state that Boie designated Hirundo fucata Temminck (1822: pl. 161) as the type-species of his new genus Cotyle, as discussed in Brooke (1974). Even if Boie did not designate a type- species for Coty/e as we now understand the act, Sharpe & Wyatt (op. cit.) did designate one in 1894. In 1903 Ridgway (1903: 106) proposed Alopochelidon with type-species Hirundo fucata Temminck. Ridgway’s name is thus an objective junior synonym of Cotyle Boie, 1826, irrespective of whether Boie or Sharpe & Wyatt designated its type-species. Some authors had placed Temminck’s H. fucata in Atticora Boie, 1844, with type- species Hirundo fasciata Gmelin, but after Ridgway’s proposal this placing gradually fell away and for over 50 years (see below) fucata has been referred to Alopochelidon. The last time that fucata was referred to Cotyle, whether in its correct sense or as an unjustified emendation of Cotile, was by Stempelmann & Schulz (1890: 400). 3. It must be appreciated that Coty/e Boie, 1826, is not Cotile Boie (1822: 500) with type-species Hirundo riparia Linnaeus (1758: 192) by monotypy. Coti/e is a junior objective synonym of Riparia Forster, (1817: 17), a much mentioned genus in the literature of the Aves. Cotile is not a classical word though coti/lum is a rare Greek word for sexual organs. Cotyle is a Greek word meaning a little cup or depression and was used by ancient writers for the suckers on the tentacles of octopuses (Cephalopoda, Mollusca). Why anybody thought the latter name appropriate for a member of the avian family HIRUNDINIDAE | do not know. The first author to use Cotyle after its proposal was C.L. Brehm (1831: 142) who used it in the binomina Cotyle fluviatilis sibi, a subjective synonym of H. riparia L., and Cotyle riparia. Thereafter, Cotyle was used intermittently for a hundred years for Cotile Boie, 1822 (= Riparia Forster, 1817) by those who considered that the emendation was justified either on the grounds of classical etymology or to avoid the suspicion of obscenity. Some of these —————— ee a Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4. March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193 authors did include H. fucata in Cotyle in their sense but | have found nc evidence that anybody has ever used Cotyle in its correct sense since its proposal. 4. Alopochelidon fucata is a well-established binomen in the literature — see Wetmore, 1926: 342; Naumburg, 1930: 319; Chapman, 1931: 105; Hellmayr, 1935: 48; Pinto, 1944: 316; Zimmer, 1955: 16; Peters, 1960: 92: Cuello & Gerzenstein, 1962: 140; Meyer de Schauensee, 1964: 301, 1966: 396. Other references could be cited, but this seems unnecessary in a case where current usage is unequivocally established. The last occasion before 1975 (see below) when the species was referred to any other genus was when Chubb (1921: 348) used the binomen Atticora fucata. 5. Recently, however, Short (1975: 287) has proposed that H. fucata Temminck be placed in Ste/gidopteryx Baird, 1858. The type-species of this genus is Hirundo serripennis Audubon, 1838, by monotypy. The effect of this proposal — which | accept as taxonomically sound — is to sink Alopochelidon as a junior subjective synonym of Stelgidopteryx (which is, in its own right, a well-established name in New World ornithology). It is obviously too soon to say whether Short’s proposal will gain general acceptance, but that question does not affect the main purpose of this proposal, which is to ensure that, whatever name is used for the genus containing Hirundo fucata Temminck, it shall not be Cotyle Boie, 1826. The confusion arising from the revival of Cotyle would be increased by its peculiar history, since most authors have treated it as an emendation ‘(justified or unjustified) of Cotile rather than as a nominal genus with its own type-species. | therefore take the somewhat unusual step of asking for the suppression of one generic name without asking for its junior synonym to be placed on the Official List. 6. | therefore ask the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cotyle Boie, 1826, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Coty/e Boie, 1826, as suppressed in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES ‘BAIRD, S.F., 1858. in Baird, Cassin & Lawrence Reports of explorations and surveys for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, vol. 9, Birds. United States Government Printing Office, Washington BOIE, F., 1822. Uber classification, insonderheit der europaische Vdgel. /sis (Oken) Jena p. 545-564 1826. General Ubersicht derornithologischen Ordnungen, Familien und Gattungen. Isis (Oken) Jena p. 975-982 BREHM, C.L., 1831. Handbuchder Naturgeschichte aller Vogel Deutschland’s B.F. Voigt, IIlmenau BROOKE, R.K., 1974. Nomenclatural notes on and the type-localities of some taxa in the APODIDAE and HIRUNDINIDAE. Durban Mus. Novit. vol.10: 127-137 CHAPMAN, F.M., 1931. The upper zonal bird-life of Mts. Roraima and Duida. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 63: 1-135 CHUBB, C., 1921. The birds of British Guiana, vol. 2. B. Quaritch, London CUELLO, J. & GERZENSTEIN, E., 1962. Las aves del Uruguay. Comun. zool/. Mus. Hist. nat. Montevideo vol.6 (93): 1-191 FORSTER, T.|.M., 1817. Synoptical cataloque of British birds. London HELLMAYR, C.E., 1935. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and the adjacent islands. Publis Field Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool. Ser.) vol. 13 (8) LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema Naturae. vol. 1, ed. 10. L. Salvius, Stockholm MEYER DE SCHAUENSEE, R., 1964. The birds of Colombia. Livingston Publishing Co., Narberth (Pa) 1966. The species of birds of South America and their distribution. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia NAUMBURG, E.M.B., 1930. The birds of Matto Grosso, Brazil. Bu/l. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 60: 1-432. PETERS, J. L., 1960. Check-list of the birds of the world, 9. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge (Mass.) PINTO, O.M. de O., 1944. Catalogo das aves do Brasil, 2. Publ. Dept. Zool. Sec. Agric. Industr. Comerc., Sao Paulo. RIDGWAY, R., 1903. Descriptions of new genera, species and subspecies of American birds. Proc. biol. Soc. Washington vol.16: 105-111 (Alopochelidon p. 106) SHARPE, R.B. & WYATT, C.W., 1894. A monograph of the Hirundinidae. Authors, London. SHORT, L.L., 1975. A zoogeographic analysis of the South American Chaco avifauna. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol.154: 165-352 STEMPELMANN, H. & SCHULZ, F., 1890. Enumeracion de las Aves de la Provincia de Cérdoba, Republica Argentina. Bo/n Acad. nac. Cienc. Cérdoba vol.10: 393-408 TEMMINCK, C.J., 1822. Nouveau recueil-de planches coloriées. livr. 27. G. Levrault, Paris WETMORE, A., 1926. Observations on the birds of Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Chile. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. vol.133: 1-448 (No Stelgidopteryx; Alopochelidon fucata: 342. Alopochelidon roraimae: 342) ZIMMER, J.T., 1955. Studies of Peruvian birds. No. 66. The swallows (Hirundinidae). Am. Mus. Novit. No. 1723: 1-35 (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis ruficollis (Vieillot) p. 15; S.r. uropygialis (Lawrence) p. 16; Alopochelidon fucata (Temminck) p. 16) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 REQUEST FOR THE CONSERVATION OF RANA SPHENOCEPHALA COPE, 1886, AND THE SUPPRESSION OF RANA UTRICULARIUS HARLAN, 1826 AND RANA VIRESCENS COPE, 1889 (AMPHIBIA: SALIENTIA). Z.N.(S.) 2141 By Lauren E. Brown (Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, U.S.A.); Hobart M. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.); and Richard S. Funk (Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, U.S.A.) For nearly a hundred years herpetologists have recognized two forms of leopard frogs (Rana pipiens complex) in eastern North America. During most of the period since the beginning of this century each of these forms had a relatively stable nomenclature. The northerly distributed form has been referred to as R. pipiens Schreber, 1782 (or R. pipiens pipiens), and the form with a more southern distribution has been known as R. sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (or R. pipiens sphenocephala). Recent evidence (Littlejohn and Oldham, 1968; Brown and Brown, 1972; Brown, 1973; Mecham, Littlejohn, Oldham, Brown and Brown, 1973) indicates that the two forms are reproductively isolated from each other, being particularly. well different- iated in their species-specific mating calls (an important isolating mechanism in anuran amphibians). Although the two species are similar in appearance, they can be distinguished by a combination of morphological characteristics (Mecham et al., 1973), but not by features of their vocal sacs. The revelation that the two forms are distinct species did not disrupt nomenclatural stability since herpetologists have long been familiar with the names A. pipiens and R. sphenocephala. More recently, however, Pace (1974) proposed an unwarranted and disruptive resurrection of the forgotten name RA. utricularius Harlan, 1826 (emended to A. utricularia), for the more southerly distributed species. Since the stability of the nomenciature of this complex is of great importance to biologists of many disciplines, we here develop an alternate proposal that the name A. sphenocephala be conserved for the southerly distributed species, and that the names A. utricu/arius and R. virescens Cope, 1889, be suppressed. 2. The first name applied to the species with a southern distribution was R.aquatica Catesby, 1743. This name was pre-Linnean and thus lacks legal status. Kalm (1761) provided the name “Rana virescens plantis tetradactylis...”, the first two words of which were applied by some later workers as a second name for southern frogs. Since Kalm’s (1761) name was not a binominal or trinominal, it lacks availability. Nevertheless, in 1782 Schreber described RA. pipiens and listed “Rana virescens,...” as a eee Seen we RE he CR he ee a PE It (ner es two Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature synonym. However, “A name first published as a synonym is not thereby made available...” (Art. 11d, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1964, p. 11). [The first usage of the name in conformance with the requirements for availability appeared in Cope (1889, p. 397), to which we return hereinafter.] S. Garman (1884) also listed the name “RA. virescens Kalm” but provided no description. A third name, R. oxyrhynchus, was given to leopard frogs from near the St. John’s River, Florida, by Hallowell, 1857 (no types designated). That name, however, was preoccupied by an African species. This led Cope (1886) to propose a fourth name, R. h. [alecina] sphenocephala, as a replacement name for Hallowell’s AR. oxyrhynchus (R. halecina Daudin, 1802, is a junior synonym of R. pipiens). Art. 72d requires that the types of R. oxyrhynchus, however determined, constitute the types of the replacement nominal taxon. The replacement name does not date from 1889 as indicated by Pace (1974, p. 18). However, the first description for the name sphenocephala was given by Cope in 1889 under the combination R. virescens sphenocephala (no types designated). He also indicated that R. v. sphenocephala was distributed in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and other states. The name virescens was soon ignored in later works (because it was thought to be a junior synonym of RA. pipiens), and the name sphenocephala (as either R. p. sphenocephala or R. sphenocephala) became firmly established as a name for the more southerly distributed species in the eastern United States. A great many subsequent herpetological publications utilized sphenocephala, the most influential being: all editions (ist - 6th) of “A Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles” (Stejneger and Barbour, 1917, 1923, 1933, 1939, 1943; Schmidt, 1953); Dickerson (1906); Noble (1931); A.A. Wright and A.H. Wright (1933, 1942); A.H. Wright and A.A. Wright (1949); Conant (1958); Mecham et al. (1973); and Nace, Culley, Emmons, Gibbs, Hutchison and McKinnell (1974). The name sphenocephala was also used in a variety of disciplines and types of publications (e.g., Andrewartha and Birch, 1954; Cochran and Goin, 1970; Comstock, 1939; Cott, 1957; Cuellar, 1971; Foote, 1952; Goin and Goin,1971; Herald, 1949; Kudo, 1954; Mecham, 1969; Minckley, 1963; P.W. Smith, 1961; Thorson and Svihla, 1943). Many embryologists, physiologists, biochemists and other experimental biologists are familiar with the name sphenocephala because leopard frogs are among the most frequently utilized animals for experimental research in the United States. To have sphenocephala (which has remained stable as a name for the southerly distributed species for over fifty years) replaced by any other name would be highly confusing to non-herpetologists and even to herpetologists who are not taxonomically oriented. Consequently, it is of far reaching importance that the stability of nomenclature be served by conserving the long entrenched name R. sphenocephala. 3. In 1826 Harlan described R. utricularius (no types designated) for leopard frogs from Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Although he utilized the name in two subsequent publications (Harlan, 1827-1829; 1835 [this Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 publication represents reprints of Harlan’s earlier papers] ) it never became widely accepted and (until Pace, 1974) was used as a senior synonym in only two other publications (Boulenger, 1882; H. Garman, 1892). Pace (1974, p. 21) stated that a third reference used A. utricularia: “... Gunther (1900) used the name for Mexican leopard frogs...”. She misinterpreted Gunther (1900) since he clearly indicated (p. 198) that A. utricularia is a junior synonym of R. halecina (= R. pipiens). We have completed an extensive examination of the literature and we are quite certain that the name utricularia was not used as a senior synonym during the fifty years between 1924 and Pace’s 1974 publication. This forgotten name was never even listed in The Zoological Record in any of the years of its publication. Nonetheless, Pace (1974) felt it necessary to revive R. utricu/aria to replace the well established name A. sphenocephala. She also designated neotypes for both nominal taxa. The sole justification for these actions was based on her contentions about vocal sac structure. She maintained that she could distinguish RA. utricularia from R. pipiens by the large external vocal sacs of the former and lack of external vocal sacs in the latter. Moreover, she felt that Harlan (1826) differentiated AR. wutricularius from R. halecina (= R. pipiens) in the same manner. If this was true, then AR. utricularius Harlan, 1826, would have priority over R. sphenocephala Cope, 1886. Pace (1974, p. 12) stated “He [Harlan] named it Rana utricularius ... because of the large balloon-like external vocal sacs by which he distinguished it from Rana _ halecina.” fe careful reading of Harlan’s (1826) species description does not substantiate this claim. Harlan’s only references to vocal sacs in R-~utricularius were: (1) p.60, “a vocal vesicle on each side of the neck”, and (2) p. 61, “a greenish vocal bladder extending on each side of the inferior jaw and crossing the arms in the male”. Furthermore, in his description of R. halecina (1826, p. 61-62), Harlan made no mention of vocal sacs nor did he mention the sex of the animal he described. The specimen could have been a female, juvenile, or male collected out of breeding condition, all of which lack external vocal sacs. Thus, Harlan (1826) did not compare RA. halecina and R. utricularius, and he did not even mention that his R. utricularius had large vocal sacs. Pace read things into Harlan’s (1826) descriptions that are not there. 4. We have examined a great many living and preserved specimens of R. pipiens and the southern species from many parts of their ranges. It is quite clear that preserved and living males of both species in breeding condition have internal vocal sacs and enlarged external vocal sacs. Other workers that were aware of the differentiation of the two forms (e.g., Conant, 1958; Wright and Wright, 1942) have also noted the enlarged external vocal sacs of R. pipiens. Even Pace (1974) indirectly admitted the presence of external vocal sacs in R. pipiens, but she referred to them as stretched skin. We have seen many A. pipiens with external vocal sacs crossing the arms in the exact manner that Harlan (1826) described for the vocal sacs of his A. utricularius. Therefore it is equally likely that Harlan 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1826) utilized male R. pipiens for his species description of A. utricularius. This explanation was offered earlier by Hallowell (1857, p. 142): “Both authors [Dumeéril and Bibron; Holbrook] quote among the synonyms of halecina [= R. pipiens], the Rana utricularia of Harlan, which is the male halecina with distended vocal vesicles”. 5. Another fallacy in Pace’s (1974) interpretation of Harlan’s papers (1826, 1827 - 1829, 1835) concerns geographical distributions. In these publications the distribution Harlan gave for A. utricularius (Pennsylvania and New Jersey) encompassed the edges of the ranges of both A. pipiens and the southern species (see figs. 1 and 4, Pace, 1974). In 1827-1829 and 1835 Harlan stated that R. halecina inhabited Pennsylvania and southern states. It is thus obvious that Harlan considered R. halecina to be the correct name for the southern species. Pace (1974, p. 12) attempted to salvage Harlan’s confusion by stating: “the frog illustrated in general herpetology works of the day (e.g., Shaw, 1802) was the northern leopard frog, while the one discussed in those same works was often the southern one”. Again, this statement is not substantiated by examination of Shaw’s (1802) publication. Most of the description Shaw (1802) gave for the southern species (which he called R. pipiens) was taken almost verbatim from Catesby’s (1743) description of R. aquatica (pre-Linnaean). However, the leopard frog Shaw (1802) illustrated was not the northern species as maintained by Pace (1974). Rather, Shaw’s (1802) illustration is almost an exact mirror image of the drawing of R. aquatica (= the southern species) presented by Catesby (1743). Both drawings are almost. exactly the same size but in Shaw’s (1802) figure the pitcher plant was eliminated. Catesby’s (1743) frog has narrow light green rings around the spots (quite similar to the condition frequently found in R. sphenocephala). Since Shaw’s (1802) frog was not coloured, the rings are white and the contrast is much greater, making the spot rings appear somewhat more like the condition in R. pipiens. Both frogs most certainly represent the southern species since they both have pointed snouts, lack snout spots, and are mirror images of one another. It is the method of reproduction of Shaw’s (1802) figure that makes the spot rings appear more prominent and thus somewhat more like the condition in R. pipiens. At the most, Shaw’s (1802) figure might be interpreted as being a composite. Hence it is again obvious that another premise that Pace (1974) used in support of her resurrection of R. utricularia is unmistakably erroneous. 6. Thus, for a number of reasons we can conclude that it is clear that the name A. utricularius is an unquestionable nomen dubium, unless it is construed that Pace’s (1974) arbitrary fixation of a neotype also fixes the name. Aside from that arbitrary decision, which was grossly ill-advised from the standpoint of nomenclatural stability, the name is of uncertain Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 allocation. In addition the name was an “unused senior synonym” in the most recent sense of the Code, as stated in 1974 (I.C.Z.N., Bull. zool. Nomencl., 31: 87-89)., Pace revived the name either in ignorance of the proper nomenclatural procedure, or under the assumption that substitution of utricularia for sphenocephala would not, in her judgment, “disturb stability or universality or cause confusion” (I.C.Z.N., loc. cit., p. 81). We have already provided documentation in the preceding discussion for the view here advanced that Pace’s (1974) proposed change would emphatically and overwhelmingly disturb stability and universality, and cause confusion. 7. Pace (1974) recognized two subspecies of RA. utricularia. ‘She assigned R. u. sphenocephala to peninsular Florida and A. u. utricularia to the rest of the range of the species. Her restriction of the name sphenocephala as a subspecies to peninsular Florida did very little to preserve the depth and breadth of the entrenchment of that name. Peninsular Florida is a rather small area when compared to the total range of the southerly distributed species. Former researchers associated the name sphenocephala with a frog having a much wider distribution. Furthermore, most researchers utilize specific names without subspecific designations. Thus, sphenocephala would be guaranteed obscurity if utilized only at a subspecific level. 8. In distinguishing R. u. sphenocephala from RA. u. utricularia, Pace (1974, p. 24) indicated that for the former subspecies: “Juveniles and adults of both sexes are often very dark dorsally and ventrally (Duellman and Schwartz, 1958) ...”. This was a complete misrepresentation of Duellman and Schwartz’s (1958) comments. Their study was confined to only the extreme southern tip of peninsular Florida and the Florida Keys. In describing leopard frogs from the Everglades and surrounding area they did not indicate that the frogs had very dark dorsal surfaces. Furthermore, they stated (p. 256): “The undersurfaces are white or cream ... The above description is adequate for most specimens from the mainland Me Duellman and Schwartz (1958) only indicated that darker dorsal and ventral surfaces were characteristic of leopard frogs from islands off the coast of southern Florida. Other features Pace (1974) used to characterize R. u. sphenocephala (‘“textured” vocal sacs, Mullerian ducts present in males, inwardly folding vocal sacs, large size) by her own admission (and confirmed by our examination of specimens in the Florida State Museum) distinguish only some of the peninsular Florida leopard frogs from her R. u. utricularia. We thus conclude that R. u. utricularia and R. u. sphenocephala cannot be adequately differentiated and that the designation of these two subspecies was unwarranted. 9. Dr. Richard Sage (personal communication) has_ recently accumulated interesting data of considerable relevance to the question of the validity of Pace’s (1974) subspecific designations. He used starch gel electrophoresis in a study of eleven structural gene loci of A. sphenocephala from New Jersey, North Carolina, and three localities in 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Florida (Tallahassee [not peninsular], Port St. Lucie [peninsular], and Big Pine Key [peninsular island]). The samples from the different localities were compared in regard to genetic identity by computing |-values (1 = Nei’s measure). I-values between populations ranged from .89-.95 among all possible comparisons. There was no higher similarity between the two peninsular populations than there was between the peninsular populations and the other three populations. Dr. Sage concluded: “There is no evidence of genetic distinctiveness of the peninsular Florida populations from localities away from the peninsula’. 10. A strong case can also be made against the use of the name A. virescens. The most important reason that this name should be suppressed is that Cope (1889), in the first descriptions of the subspecies of R. virescens (no types designated), indicated (p. 398) that R. virescens virescens “is the Rana utricularia of Harlan”, and again (p. 403), “The Rana virescens virescens is the R. utricularia of Harlan”. The phraseology and context make it clear that virescens was not adopted as a nomenclatural replacement for utricularia, but merely as the earliest name (under Cope’s assumption that it was already available) for a taxon of his own concept that included utricul/aria. The distinction is a fine but important one, for if simply a nomenclatural substitute, the replacement name ipso facto has the same type as the name substituted for, whereas if proposed as a new name which embraces but is not limited to another, it has its own type. The present situation is complicated by the fact that Cope was not intentionally creating a new name, although in fact he did. We conclude that it should not be interpreted as a replacement name in the strict sense. AR. virescens is alsoa . forgotten name that went out of general usage in the early part of this century. The name has been used in the primary zoological literature only once (Wyburn and Bacsich, 1948) in the last fifty years. It is apparent that Cope’s (1889) description of R. v. virescens encompassed several species. Firstly, he indicated that the subspecies has its spots “margined with bright yellow” (p. 402) - acharacteristic common to RA. pipiens. Secondly, the frog in Cope’s fig. 100 (p. 402) is most similar to R. sphenocephala in the shape of its snout. Thirdly, the described call “chock, chock, chock” (p. 402) is similar to that of R. b/airi Mecham et al., 1973, but the mating calls or other vocalizations of most species of leopard frogs in the United States could be described in that manner. Fourthly, the distribution that Cope gave for A. v. virescens (p. 403) encompasses parts of the ranges of the leopard frog species RA. pipiens, R. sphenocephala, R. berlandieri Baird and R. bilairi. It is thus obvious that R. v. virescens is anomen dubium. 11. In conclusion, the interest of nomenclatural stability is best served by the suppression of the names utricu/arius and virescens, and the conservation of R. sphenocephala. Lack of suppression would only encourage the perpetuation of forgotten names with confusing nomen- clatural histories and applications in a complex of frogs where stability is particularly important. It is consequently pertinent at this point to mention Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 that one of the pararnount objectives of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is to promote the stability of scientific names (see Preamble, p. 2,3). In para. 2 and 3 above we have complied with the basic requirements of the Code (Il.C.Z.N., 1974: 87-89) for suppression of unused senior synonyms, viz.: “a prima facie case that Stability is threatened will be made if it can be shown that the senior name is not known to have been used during the immediately preceding fifty years and that the name it would replace has been applied to a particular taxon, as its presumably valid name, by at least 5 different authors and in at least 10 Publications during the same period”. The usage of the name sphenocephala in the period 1924-1974 far exceeds the above minimum requirement. There was no usage at all of utricu/aria over that period (except for Pace, 1974) and only one of virescens. In our opinion the latter two exceptions do not justify refusal to Suppress either name. 12. Accordingly, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to Suppress the species-group name uUtricularius, as published in the combination Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826, for the Purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to use its plenary powers to Suppress the species-group name virescens, as published in the combinations Rana virescens Cope, 1889, and Rana virescens virescens Cope, 1889, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (3) to place the specific name sphenocephala, as published in the binomen Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; and (4) to place the names Suppressed in (1) and (2) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ANDREWARTHA, H.G., & BIRCH, L.C., 1954. The distribution and abundance of animals. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago. xvi + 782 pp. BOULENGER, G.A., 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia S. Ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum. 2nd Ed. London. xvi + 503 pp. BROWN, L.E., 1973. Speciation in the Rana pipiens complex. Amer. Zool., vol.13: 73-79 & BROWN, J.R., 1972. Call types of the Rana pipiens complex in Illinois. Science, vol. 176: 928-929 CATESBY, M., 1743. The natural history of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands: ..... London. Vol. 2, 100 Pp. (+ 20 pp. appendix) COCHRAN, D. M., & GOIN, C.J., 1970. The new field book of reptiles and amphibians. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. xxii + 359 pp. COMSTOCK, A.B., 1939. Handbook of nature-study. 24th Ed. Comstock Publ. Assoc., Ithaca, New York. xxii + 937 pp. CONANT, R., 1958. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of the United States and Canada east of the 100th meridian. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. xviii + 366 pp. 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COPE, E.D., 1886. Synonymic list of the North American species of Bufo and Rana, with descriptions of some new species of Batrachia, from specimens in the National Museum. Proc. amer. phil. Soc. vol. 23: 514-526 1889. The Batrachia of North America. Bul/. U.S. nat. Mus. vol.34: 1-525 COTT, H.B., 1957. Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen & Co., London. xxxii + 508 pp. CUELLAR, H.S., 1971. Levels of genetic compatibility of Rana areolata with southwestern members of the Rana pipiens complex (Anura: Ranidae). Evolution vol. 25: 399-409 DAUDIN, F.M., 1802. Histoire naturelle des rainettes, des grenouilles et des crapauds. Levrault, Paris. 71 pp. DICKERSON, M.C., 1906. The frog book - North American toads and frogs with a study of the habits and life histories of those of the northeastern states. Doubleday, Page and Co., New York. xviii + 253 pp. DUELLMAN, W.E., & SCHWARTZ, A., 1958. Amphibians and reptiles of southern Florida. Bull. Fla. State Mus. vol. 3: 181-324 FOOTE, C.L., 1952. Response of gonads of frog larvae to chorionic gonadotropins and synthetic androgens. Trans. Ill. Acad. Sci. vol. 45: 163-169 GARMAN, H., 1892. A synopsis of the reptiles and amphibians of Illinois. Bu//. I//. State Lab. nat. Hist. vol. 3: 215-389 GARMAN, S., 1884. The North American reptiles and batrachians. A list of the species occurring north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, with references. Bull. Essex Inst. vol. 16: 3-46 GOIN, C.J., & GOIN, O.B., 1971. Introduction to herpetology. 2nd Ed. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. xiv + 353 pp. GUNTHER, A.C.L.G., 1900 [1885-1902]. Reptilia and Batrachia. In: (F.D. Godman, ed.) Biologia Centrali-Americana; or contributions to the knowledge of the fauna and flora of Mexico and Central America. R.H. Porter, and Dulau & Co., London. xx + 326 pp. HALLOWELL, E., 1857 [1856]. (No title). Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. vol.8: 141-143 HARLAN, R., 1826. Descriptions of several new species of batracian reptiles, with observations on the larvae of frogs. Amer. J. Sci. Arts vol. 10: 53-64 1827-1829. Genera of North American Reptilia, and a synopsis of the species. Jour. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. vol. 5 (2): 317-372; vol. 6 (1): 7-38 1835. Medical and physical researches: or original memoirs in medicine, surgery, physiology, geology, zoology and comparative anatomy. Philadelphia. xxxix + 653 pp. HERALD, E.S., 1949. Effects of DDT-oil solutions upon amphibians and reptiles. Herpetologica vol. 5: 117-120 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 1964. International code of zoological nomenclature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology. London. xx + 176 pp. 1974. Amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted since the XVI International Congress of Zoology, Washington, 1963. Bul/. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 31: 77-89 KALM, P., 1761. En resa til Norra America. Stockholm. Vol. 3, 538 pp. KUDO, R.R., 1954. Protozoology. 4th Ed. C.C. Thomas, Publ., Springfield, Illinois. xii + 966 pp. LITTLEJOHN, M.J., & OLDHAM, R.S., 1968. Rana pipiens complex: Mating call structure and taxonomy. Science vol. 162: 1003-1005 MECHAM, J.S., 1969. New information from experimental crosses on genetic relationships within the Rana pipiens species group. Jourexptl. Zool. vol. 170: 169-180 , LITTLEJOHN, M.J., OLDHAM, R.S., BROWN, L.E., & BROWN, J.R., 1973. A new species of leopard frog (Rana pipiens complex) from the plains of the central United States. Occ. Pap. Mus. Texas tech. Univ., no. 18, 11 pp. MINCKLEY, W.L., 1963. The ecology of a spring stream Doe Run, Meade County, Kentucky. Wildlife Monographs No. 11, 124 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 NACE, G.W., CULLEY, D.D., EMMONS, M.B., GIBBS, E.L., HUTCHISON, V.H., & McKINNELL, R.G., 1974. Amphibians - Guidelines for the breeding, care, and management of laboratory animals. National Acadey of Sciences, Washington, D.C. x + 153 pp. NOBLE, G.K., 1931. The biology of the Amphibia. McGraw-Hill Book Co. (1954 Dover reprint). 577 pp. PACE, A.E., 1974. Systematic and biological studies of the leopard frogs (Rana pipiens complex) of the United States. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich., no. 148, 140 pp. SCHMIDT, K.P., 1953. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. 6th Ed. Amer.Soc.ichth. & Herpet., Chicago. viii + 280 pp. SCHREBER [no first name listed], 1782. Beytrag zur Naturgeschichte der Froesche. Der Naturforscher, vol. 18: 182-193 SHAW, G., 1802. General zoology, or systematic natural history - Amphibia. Printed for G. Kearsley, London. Vol. 3, Part 1, viii + 312 pp. : SMITH, P.W., 1961. The amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Bull. Ilinois nat. Hist. Sur., vol. 28: 1-298 STEJNEGER, L., & BARBOUR, T., 1917. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. [First Edition]. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 125 pp., 2nd Ed., 1923, x + 171 Pp.; 3rd Ed., 1933, xiv + 185 pp.; 4th Ed., 1939, xvi + 207 pp.; 5th Ed., 1943, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., vol. 93: xx + 260 pp. THORSON, T., & SVIHLA, A., 1943. Correlation of the habitats of amphibians with their ability to survive the loss of body water. Ecology vol. 24: 374-381 WRIGHT, A.A., & WRIGHT, A.H., 1933. Handbook of frogs and toads - The frogs and toads of the United States and Canada: Comstock Publ. Co., Ithaca, New York. xii + 231 pp.; also 1942, xii + 286 pp.; 1949, Wright, A.H., & Wright, A.A., xiv + 640 pp. WYBURN, G.M., & BACSICH, P. 1948. Grafting of animal tissues. Endeavour vol. 7: 165-169 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LEPTOTYPHLOPS AND RAMPHOTYPHLOPS. FITZINGER, 1843 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2155. By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London, SW7); Joan Robb (Department of Zoology, University of Auckland, New Zealand) and Garth Underwood (Department of Biological Sciences, City of London Polytechnic) The present note deals with the names of two genera of burrowing snakes, one in the family TYPHLOPIDAE, the other in the family LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE. 2. Robb (1966) split the genus Typh/ops Oppel (1811: 54) on the basis of the structure of the male reproductive organs. Those species with hollow, eversible male organs were left in the genus Typh/ops, while species with solid, protrusible male organs and blind pouches opening from the wall of the cloaca were placed in a separate genus. Robb selected Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger (1843: 24, type-species by original designation Typhlops multilineatus Schlegel, 1839: 40), as being the oldest available nominal genus whose type-species qualified for inclusion in the newly defined genus. 3. McDowell (1974: 20) accepted Robb’s splitting of Typh/ops into two genera, but rejected the name Ramphotyphlops on the grounds that it is antedated by Typhlina Wagler (1830: 196). McDowell believed that the type species of Typhlina was Acontias lineatus Schlegel (1839: 39) by subsequent designation (Fitzinger 1843: 24). 4. The genus Typhlina, when first erected, was based on two species, viz: Acontias lineatus Reinw. Typhlops sentemstriatus Schneid. Acontias lineatus was at the time a nomen nudum. It had previously been published only by Fitzinger (1826: 54), Schlegel (1827: 291), and Boie (1827: 563) and these authors, like Wagler, had given no valid indication as defined in Article 16 of the Code. Thus it was an unavailable name in the sense of Article 68(c) and its designation as type-species of Typhliina is invalid. The only other originally included species, “Typhlops sentemstriatus Schneid”. (a lapsus or an unjustified emendation of Anguis septemstriatus Schneider, 1801: 341) had at the time an available name and is therefore the type of Typhlina by monotypy. 5. Thus McDowell’s claim that Typhlina antedates Ramphotyphlops cannot be substantiated, as the type-species of Typhlina (septemstriatus) does not come within the ambit of the genus Ramphotyphlops. EE eee eee Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 6. This raises another problem. Anguis septemstriatus has long been considered a member of the genus Leptotyphlops Fitzinger (1843: 24, type species by original designation Typhlops nigricans Schlegel, 1839: 38). Typhlina is therefore a senior subjective synonym of Leptotyphlops and would replace that name if the Law of Priority were applied. 7. After its original description Leptotyphlops was unused as a valid name for 48 years, being universally treated as a junior synonym of Stenostoma Wagler (in Spix 1824: 68; non Stenostoma Latreille, 1810: 217). When Stenostoma was found to be preoccupied (Boulenger, 1890: 243), there followed some 40 years of instability. Stejneger (1891: 501) resurrected Leptotyphlops while Boulenger (1892: 10), in the belief that Leptotyphlops was a nomen nudum, preferred to use G/auconia Gray (1845:139). For three decades G/auconia was more widely used than Leptotyphlops, but during the late twenties the use of the latter name became increasingly popular, so that by 1930 very few specialists were still using Glauconia. Since 1930 G/auconia has appeared in print no more than half adozen times, while Leptotyphlops has been employed in well over 300 publications including the well known faunal lists and textbooks of Ditmars (1939: 171), Smith & Taylor (1945: 20), Parker (1949: 19), Schmidt (1953: 154), Witte (1953: 152), Loveridge (1957: 245), Wright & Wright (1957: 36), FitzSimons (1962: 77), Roze (1966: 39), Peters & Orejas Miranda (1970: 165), Goin & Goin (1971: 301), Mertens (1971: 76), Leviton (1971: 149), Porter (1972: 211) and Pitman (1974: 65). After 50 years of stability it is felt that no useful purpose would be served by replacing Leptotyphlops with Typhlina, a name unused in its correct sense since its original description. 8. This. undesirable nomenclatural change could be prevented by suppressing Typhilina and placing it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. However, it could be argued, since the synonymy of this name with Leptotyph/lops is subjective, that to suppress Typhlina would create problems should some future worker decide that Anguis septemstriatus and Typhlops nigricans are not congeneric. Fortunately Saigonodon (Peters, 1881: 71, type-species by original designation Anguis septemstriatus Schneider), a junior objective synonym of Typhlina, is available and could be utilised in such an eventuality. In fact we feel that the use of the name Saigonodon is to be preferred since, unlike Typhlina, it has been used several times since its original description (Bocourt 1882 in Dumeéril, Bocourt & Mocquard, 1870-1909:507; Van Denburgh, 1897:150 & 1912:153; Stejneger & Barbour (1917:73 and 1923: 79); Schmidt, 1922: 682; Klauber, 1931: 336; and Tanner, 1935: 267). 9. The Commission is therefore requested (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Typhlina Wagler, 1830 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the generic names (a) Leptotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, Typhlops nigricans Schlegel, 1839, and (b) Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, Typhlops multilineatus Schlegel, 1839, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (3) to place the specific names (a) nigricans Schlegel, 1839, as published in the binomen Typhlops nigricans (specific name of type-species of Leptotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843), and (b) multilineatus Schlegel, 1839, as published in the binomen Typhlops multilineatus (specific name of type-species of Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Typhlina Wagler, 1830, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BOIE, F., 1827. Bemerkungen uber Merrem’s Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Ite Lieferung: Ophidier. /sis, Jena 20: 508-566 BOULENGER, G.A., 1890. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Batrachia. London. xviii + 541 pp. ————__ 1892. Zoo/. Rec. 28 (Rept. Amph.): 1-24 DITMARS, R.L., 1939. A field book of North American snakes. New York. xii + 305 pp. DUMERIL, A., BOCOURT, F. & MOCQUARD, F., 1870-1909. Mission scientifique au Mexique et dans !'Amérique centrale. Recherches Zoologiques. Part 3. Sect. 1. Etudes sur les Reptiles. Paris. 1012 pp. FITZINGER, L., 1826. Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren naturlichen Verwandschaften. Vienna, 66 pp. 1843. Systema Reptilium. Vienna. 106 + vi pp. FITZSIMONS, V.F.M., 1962. Snakes of southern Africa. London. 423 pp. GOIN, C.J. & GOIN, O.B., 1971. Introduction to Herpetology. 2nd edition. San Francisco. xi + 353 pp. GRAY, J.E., 1845. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum. London. 289 pp. KLAUBER, L.M., 1931. Notes on the worm snake of the Southwest, with descriptions of two new subspecies. Trans. S. Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 6: 333-352 LATREILLE, P.A., 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes; avec un tableau méthodique de /eurs genres, disposés en familles. Paris. 444 pp. LEVITON, A.E., 1971. Reptiles and amphibians of North America. New York. 250 pp. LOVERIDGE, A., 1957. Check list of the reptiles and amphibians of East Africa (Uganda; Kenya; Tanganyika; Zanzibar). Bul/. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. 117: 153-362 McDOWELL, S.B., 1974. A catalogue of the snakes of New Guinea and the Solomons, with special reference to those in the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Part 1. Scolecophidia. J. Herpeto/. 8: 1-57 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 MERTENS, R., 1971. Die Herpetofauna sudwest-Afrikas. Abh. senckenb. naturforsch. Ges. 529: 1-110 OPPEL, M., 1811. Die Ordnung, Familien und Gattungen der Reptilien als Prodrom einer Naturgeschichte derselben. Munich. xii + 86 pp. PARKER, H.W., 1949. The snakes of Somaliland and the Sokotra Islands. Zool. Verh. Leiden 6: 1-115 d PETERS, J.A. & OREJAS MIRANDA, B.R., 1970. Catalogue of the neotropical Squamata: Part 1. Snakes. Bu//. U.S. natn. Mus. 297 1: 1-347 PETERS, W., 1881. Uebersicht der zu den Familien der Typh/lopes und Stenostomi gehorigen . Gattungen oder Untergattungen. Sber. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berl. 1881: 69-71 PITMAN, C.R.S., 1974. A guide to the snakes of Uganda. Revised edition. Codicote. 290 pp. PORTER, K.R., 1972. Herpetology. Philadelphia, London and Toronto. xi + 524 pp. ROBB, J., 1966. The generic status of the Australasian Typhlopids (Reptilia: Squamata). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9: 657-679 i ROZE, J.A., 1966. La Taxonomia y Zoogeografia de los Ofidios en Venezuela. Caracas. 362 pp. SCHLEGEL, H., 1827. Erpetologische Nachrichten. /sis (Jena), 20: 281-294 1837-1844. Abbildungen neuer oder unvolistandig bekannter Amphibien, nach der Natur oder dem Leben entworfen. Disseldorf. xiv + 141 pp. [pp. 1-32, 1837; pp. 33-80, 1839; pp. 81-141, 1844] SCHMIDT, K.P., 1922. Scientific results of the expedition to the Gulf of California in charge of C.H. Townsend, by the U.S. fisheries steamship ‘Albatross’, in 1911. Commander G.H. Burrage. U.S.N., commanding. VIIl. The amphibians and reptiles of Lower Californiaand neighboring islands. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 46: 607-707 1953. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. 6th edition. Chicago. 280 pp. SCHNEIDER, J.G., 1801. Historiae Amphibiorum naturalis et literariae. Jena. Vol. 2. vi + 364 pp. SMITH, H.M. & TAYLOR, E.H., 1945. An annotated checklisé and key to the snakes of Mexico. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. 187: 1-239 SPIX, J. de. 1824. Serpentum brasiliensium species novae ou Histoire naturelle des espéces nouvelles de serpens, recueillies et observées pendant le voyage dans |'intérieur du Brésil dans les années 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, Exécuté par Ordre de sa Majesté le Roi de Baviere. Monachii. 75 pp. STEJNEGER, L., 1891. Notes on some North American snakes. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 14: 501-505 & BARBOUR, T., 1917. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Cambridge, Massachusetts. iv + 125 pp. 1923. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. 2nd edition. London. x + 171 pp. TANNER, V.M., 1935. The worm snake, Saigonodon humilis (Baird & Girard) found in Utah. Proc. Utah. Acad. Sci. 12: 267-270 ; VAN DENBURGH, J., 1897. The reptiles of the Pacific coast and Great Basin. Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. 5: 1-236 1912. Notes on a collection of reptiles from Southern California and Arizona. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 3: 147-156 WAGLER. J., 1830. Natudrliches System der Amphibien mit vorangehender Classification der Saugethiere und Vogel.Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie. Munich, Stuttgart and Tubingen. vi + 354 pp. WITTE, G.F. de, 1953. Reptiles. Explor. Parc natn. Upemba Miss G.F. de Witte 6: 1-322 WRIGHT, A.H. & WRIGHT, A.A., 1957. Handbook of the snakes of the United States and Canada. London. 2 vols. 1105 pp. 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THE TYPE-SPECIES OF GON/IURELLIA HENDEL, 1927 (INSECTA: DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2157. By A. Freidberg and J. Kugler (Department of Zoology, The George S. Wise Center for Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Israel) Goniurellia was created by Hendel (1927) as a subgenus of Trypanea [sic], properly Trupanea Schrank, 1795, without giving sufficient characters to differentiate it from Trupanea s. str. Munro (1955, 1957) considered Goniurelliaadistinct genus, and gave (1957: 1038-1039) detailed characterizations for Trupanea (= Trypanea), Goniurellia and his new genus, Dectodesis (1957: 1044). 2. When creating Goniurellia (1927:198), Hendel designated as its type-species, what he believed to be Trypeta augur Frauenfeld, 1856, described it and figured its wing. A comparison of Hendel’s figure and description of Trypanea (Goniurellia) augur with the original description and wing figure of Frauenfeld’s Trypeta augur, shows that the two authors dealt with different species, and that Hendel misidentified the type-species of Goniurellia. Fraunfeld’s species is characterized in his description and figure as follows: the brown subapical wing spot has in the basal cell a rounded hyaline indent; the brown ray which crosses the discal cell, although sometimes interrupted, ends on the fifth vein (Appendix 1, Fig. 1). Hendel’s description and figure differ from Frauenfeld’s in lacking a rounded hyaline indent in the basal cell, and in the shorter brown ray of the discal cell (Appendix 1, Fig. 2). Ss Frauenfeld’s types are probably lost (Hardy, 1968:107 -108 per. commun. 1975, and our investigations). Fifteen specimens collected at A-Tur (Sinai Peninsula), the type locality of augur Frauenfeld (in the collection of the Department of Zoology, Tel Aviv University) fit Frauenfeld’s description. They are also characterized by a very long geniculate proboscis, the haustellum and labella of which are each longer than the head, and by four scutellar bristles - characters not used by Frauenfeld in his description of TEPHRITIDAE. Goniurellia augur sensu Hendel (1927) has a short proboscis and only two scutellars. In 1927 (: 200) Hendel included in Goniurellia his new species G. ensina, among other species; in 1931 (: 11) he added his new species G. rostrata. Steyskal and El Bialy (1967) considered these two species as synonyms of Trupanea kingi (Bezzi, 1924). We agree with Steyskal and El Bialy, because the differences given by Hendel (1931) to separate rostrata from ensina and kingi do not warrant specific differentiation. Moreover, having checked the holotype of ensina and the type series of kingi, we conclude that all three are synonyms of augur Frauenfeld. The differences mentioned above between augur Frauenfeld and augur sensu Hendel necessitate their separation into different genera. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoojogical Nomenclature 209 We agree with Munro’s opinion (per. commun.) that augur Frauenfeld, which is distributed in Israel, Egypt and the Sudan, belongs to the African genus, Dectodesis Munro, which is characterized by a very long geniculate proboscis. 4. Hendel’s concept (1927) of what he thought to be augur Frauenfeld applies to at least two hitherto unnamed species (Freidberg and Kugler, in preparation). Hendel (loc. cit.) also included in Goniurellia the subspecies G. augur tridens (Hendel), which was described and illustrated in 1910 (: 106-7, pl. 1, fig.4) as a variation of Ure/lia augur (Frauenfeld). Checking the lectotype of tridens Hendel (in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien), as well as other specimens which fit Hendel’s descriptions, showed that in addition to its specific wing pattern, tridens has short haustellum and labella, and therefore, cannot be included in augur Frauenfeld. Based on these, as well as on additional characters, tridens is, without doubt, a distinct species. 5. We suggest that G. tridens (Hendel) should be the type-species of Goniurellia rather than augur Frauenfeld, for the following reasons:- (a) A type of G. tridens (a lectotype female designated by Hardy, 1968:127) is accessible (Recommendation 69B (6) ), whereas the types of Frauenfeld are probably lost (Hardy, 1968: 107-108). (b) When designating augur sensu Hendel as the type-species of Goniurellia, Hendel writes: “Russel relativ kurz, Labellen nur massig verlangert”. This is the case in G. tridens and the other species included by Hendel in Goniurellia, except in G. ensina and G. rostrata which are synonyms of augur Frauenfeld. The designation of augur Frauenfeld as the type-species of Goniurellia, would bring about the following unnecessary nomenclatural actions: (1) Dectodesis Munro would have to become a synonym of Goniurellia, and its three species would change their well established generic name. (2) Creating a new genus to include the species of Goniurellia except augur Frauenfeld. Whereas designating G. ftridens as the type-spe. es of Goniurellia would render these actions unnecessary. 6. In order to avoid confusion and to maintain stability of nomen- clature, it is requested that the International Commission should take the following actions:- (1) use its plenary powers to set aside Hendel’s (1927) designation of Trypeta augur Frauenfeld as the type species of Goniurellia, and having done so, designate Urellia augur tridens Hendel, 1910 to be the type-species of that genus; (c ~— 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Plate 1 Fig. 1: Trypeta augur Frauenfeld, 1856, wing. Fig. 2: Trypanea(Goniurellia) augur sensu Hendel, 1927, wing. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 211 (2) place the generic name Goniurellia Hendel, 1927 (gender: feminine) type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Urellia augur tridens Hendel, 1910 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the species-group name tridens Hendel, 1910, as published in the trinomen Urellia augur tridens (type-species of Goniurellia Hendel, 1927), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BEZZI, M., 1924. Further notes on the Ethiopian fruit-flies, with keys to all the known genera and species. — (cont.). Bul/. Entomol. Res. vol. 15: 121-155. FRAUENFELD, G., 1856. Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Trypeten nebst Beschreibung einiger neuer Arten. Sitzber. K. Akad. der Wiss. Wien, Math.-Nat. Cl. vol. 22: 523-557. HARDY, D.E., 1968. The fruit fly types in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien (Tephritidae - Diptera). Ann. Naturhistor. Mus. Wien. vol. 72: 107-155. HENDEL, F., 1910. Uber acalyptrate Musciden. Wien. Entomol. Ztg. vol. 29: 105-127. 1927. Trypetidae. In: Lindner, E. Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, Heft 49. Stuttgart. 221 ap. 1931. Nachtrag zu den palaearktischen Trypetiden (Neue aegyptische Arten, von Prof. Efflatoun Bey gesammelt). Bull. Soc. Roy. Entomol. Egypt vol. 15: 1-13. MUNRO, H.K., 1955. The influence of two Italian entomologists on the study of African Diptera and comments on the geographical distribution of some African Trypetidae. Bull. Lab. Zool. Gen. Agraria Portici vol. 33: 410-426. 1957. Trypetidae. In: British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Ruwenzori Expedition vol. 2, No. 9: 853-1054. STEYSKAL, G.C. and EL-BIALY, S., 1967. A list of Egyptian Diptera with a bibliography and key to families. UAR Minist. Agr. Tech. Bull. No. 3, 87 pp. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ACYONIDAE AMEGHINO, 1889 (MAMMALIA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2159. By Larry G. Marshall, and William A. Clemens (Department of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley), Robert J. Hoffstetter (/nstitut de Paléontologie, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France), Rosendo Pascual (Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina), Bryan Patterson (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge), Richard H. Tedford (Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York) and William D. Turnbull (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago). 1. The family-group name ACYONIDAE was formally established by Ameghino (1891, Rev. Arg. Hist. Nat. 1:147n) for the marsupial genera Acyon and Sipalocyon. The name first appears as a nomen nudum in a list of families in Ameghino (1889, Actas Acad. Cienc. Cordoba 6: 894). 2. Trouessart (1898, Cat. Mamm. 5: 1215) later recognized the taxon as a subfamily, ACYONINAE, and included it within the family BORHYAENIDAE which was established by Ameghino (1894, Bol. Acad. Cienc. Cordoba 13: 371). 3. The last use of the family-group name ACYONIDAE as a valid name was by Trouessart (1904, Cat. Mamm., Supp!/. 1: 176) who recognized it as denoting a distinct taxon from BORHYAENIDAE and Palmer (1904, Index Gen. Mamm. 23: 877) who included it as a synonym of the family-group name BORHYAENIDAE. Palmer (ibid. 877n) noted “Acyonidae has priority of five years merely by publication in a nominal list, but as Borhyaenidae has come into more general use it is here adopted provisionally”. 4. The family-group name ACYONIDAE has remained unused as a senior synonym in all zoological literature for the last seventy years. During this period of time the family-group name BORHYAENIDAE has always been used, and ACYONIDAE ignored by everyone working on members of this family: Cabrera (1927, Revta. Mus. La Plata 30: 273), Gromova (1959, Fundamentals of Paleontology: Mammals 13: 48,70), Patterson (1965, Breviora 217:6), Patterson and Pascual (1968, Quart. Rev. Biol. 43: 419), Paula Couto (1952, Amer. Mus. Novit. 1559: 23; 1961, An. Acad. Brasil. Ciénc. 33(3/4): 329), Piveteau (1961, Traité de Paléontologie 6(1): 605), Riggs (1934, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. 24(1):8), Romer (Vertebrate Paleontology, all editions, 1933: 264; 1945: 319; 1966: 204), Simpson (1930, Foss. Cat. 1(47): 42; 1941, Amer. Mus. Novit. 1118:1; 1945, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 85: 42,172; 1948, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 91(1): 38), Thenius (1969, Handbuch der Zoologie 8(47), 2(1): 75), Viret (1955, Traité de Zoologie 17(1): 174), and many others. 5. The genus Acyon Ameghino 1887 is a junior synonym of Cladosictis Ameghino 1887 (Cabrera, 1927, Rev. Mus. La Plata 30: 288). Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 6. 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 ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1889 for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place this family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PSAMMOPHIS MONILIGER var. BILINEATUS PETERS, 1867 (REPTILIA: COLUBRIDAE): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF P. SIBILANS SUBTAENIATA PETERS, 1882. Z.N.(S.) 2165. By Donald G. Broadley (Umtali Museum, Umtali, Rhodesia) The purpose of this application is to suppress a name, not used in the literature during the last hundred years, which has proved to be a senior synonym of Psammophis_ subtaeniatus subtaeniatus Peters, 1882. 1. In 1867 W.C.H. Peters erected the name Psammophis moniliger var. bilineatus for asand snake from Otjimbingue, South West Africa (Mber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin: 237) and he used the name for the second and last time in 1869 (Oefvers. Vet. Akad. Forhand!.: 661). The type specimen is No. 5758 in the Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin. The name has never since then been used as a valid name. 2. In 1882 Peters applied the name Psammophis sibilans var. subtaeniata to specimens from Tete and Boror, Mogambique (Reise nach Mossambique, vol.3:121); the type locality was subsequently restricted to Tete (Broadley, 1966, Arno/dia Rhodesia, vol. 2 (36): 7). 3. In 1895 Boulenger (Proc. zoo/. Soc. Lond. :538) presented a key to the genus Psammophis, in which the name subtaeniatus Peters was applied to the eastern populations of the species, which normally have eight supralabials with the fourth and fifth entering the orbit. A new name, Psammophis bocagjii (type locality: Benguela, Angola) was applied to the western populations of Psammophis subtaeniatus, which have nine supralabials with the fourth, fifth and sixth entering the orbit. 4. In 1940 Loveridge revised the African species of Psammophis (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol. 87: 12-69) and applied the name subtaeniatus Peters to the western race of Psammophis subtaeniatus, using sudanensis Werner 1919 (Denks. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 96: 504) for the eastern race. This nomenclature has been used by all subsequent authors (see Loveridge, 1953, Bull Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol.110:276; Mertens, 1955, Abh. senckenb. naturforsch. Ges. vol. 490:98 and 1971, ibid vol. 529: 89; Broadley, 1959, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol. 120: 47; 1962, Occ. Pap. natn. Mus. Sth. Rhod., Ser. B, vol. 4: 833; 1966, Arno/dia Rhodesia vol. 2: (36) 7; 1971, Puku, vol.6:88; V. FitzSimons, 1962, Snakes of Southern Africa; 223, and 1966, Ann. Transv. Mus. vol. 25: 60; Wilson, 1965, Puku, vol. 3:163; Pienaar, 1966, Reptiles of the Kruger National Park: 186). These references satisfy the requirements of Art. 79b of the Code. 5. Mertens (1955, op. cit.) examined the type of Psammophis moniliger var. bilineatus Peters, 1867 and found it to belong to the form currently known as Psammophis subtaeniatus subtaeniatus Peters; this Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 identification has been confirmed by the present author. Mertens retained the established nomenclature in the interest of stability and subsequent authors have treated bi/ineatus as anomen oblitum. 6. | have recently examined the syntypes of Psammophis sibilans var. subtaeniata Peters, 1882, which are Nos. 2470 (Boror) and 9992 A and B (Tete) in the Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin. The material is composite, the Tete specimens representing the western race with nine supralabials, while the Boror specimen is an example of the eastern race with eight supralabials. | hereby select No. 9992 A as lectotype, in conformity with my earlier restriction of the type-locality. 7. Strict application of the Law of Priority would result in the name of the taxon which for the past 36 years has been known as Psammophis subtaeniatus subtaeniatus Peters being changed to Psammophis bilineatus bilineatus Peters. 8. In the circumstances, maximum stability in nomenclature can best be achieved by suppressing the name bilineatus Peters under the plenary powers. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to take the following action:- (1) to use the plenary powers to suppress for the purpose of the Law of Priority, but not for the purpose of the Law of Homonymy, the trivial name bilineatus Peters, 1867, as published in the combination Psammophis moniliger var. bilineatus; (2) to place the trivial name subtaeniata Peters, 1882, as published in the combination Psammophis sibilans var. subtaeniata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with ZMB 9992 A from Tete, Mogambique as lectotype; (3) to place the trivial name bilineatus Peters, 1867, as published in the combination Psammophis moniliger var. bilineatus, on the Official lndex of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PHILODRYAS NATTERER!I STEINDACHNER, _ 1870 (REPTILIA: SERPENTES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 2166. by Robert A. Thomas (Dept. of Biology, Texas A. & M. University, College Station, Texas, 77843) Boulenger (1896: 134) mentioned in a footnote that he had examined the type specimen of Psammophis molochina Berthold (referred to Philodryas Wagler, 1830, and unjustifiably emended to mol/orchina by Jan, 1863: 84) and found it to be an example of Philodryas nattereri Steindachner, 1870. He additionally stated that he was not aware of a valid description of this species. 2. | have recently found the proper description presented by Berthold (1846: 143-144; [reprints: 21-22]) and have examined the type specimen (Zoologisches Institut und Museum, Universitat Géttingen no. 272a) and corroborate Boulenger’s identification. Thus, Berthold’s name antedates that proposed by Steindachner for the same species by 24 years. The species-group name molochina has received mention only by the aforementioned footnote of Boulenger (1896) since Jan (1863). Philodryas nattereri, on the other hand, has been consistently used for this species since 1870 in at least 32 publications including Amaral (1927: 67, 1929: 213, 1935: 189, 1973: 3), Dowling (1969: 2-4), Hoge (1952: 220), Pessoa (1967: 50-52), Pessoa et a/. (1974), Peters and Orejas-Miranda (1970: 243), and Schmidt and Inger (1951: 462). 3. In view of the above, Psammophis molochina Berthold qualifies as a nomen oblitum (Article 79b, as amended in Bull. zoo/. Nomencl. vol. 31: 87-89). In the interest of nomenclatural stability, Article 23a-b of the aforementioned amendments to the 1964 Code is invoked in the present request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the species-group name molochina Berthold, 1846, as published in the combination Psammophis molochina, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; and (2) place the species-group name molochina of Berthold, 1846, as published in the binomen Psammophis molochina, and as suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES AMARAL, A. do., 1927. Ophidios sul-americanos do Museu Carnegie e especies novas de Griffin. Rev. Mus. Paulista vol. 15: 65-73. 1929. Estudos sobre ophidios neotropicas XVIII. Lista remissiva dos ophidios da regiao neotropica. Mem. Inst. Butantan vol. 4: 126-271. Bull. zool. Nomencli. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 AMARAL, A. do., 1935.Collecta herpetologica no nordeste do Brasil. Mem. Inst. Butantan vol. 8: 185-194. 1973. Ofionimia Amerindia na ofiologia Brasiliense. Mem. Inst. Butantan vol. 37: 1-15. BERTHOLD, A.A., 1846. Verzeichniss der ausgestellen Reptilien. Mitt. dber das Nachr. v.d.G.A. Univ. und d.K. Ges. Wiss. zu G6ttingen vom Jahre 1846, Zool. Mus. Géttingen. No. 8, pp. 124-128, 22 June; No 9, pp. 129-144, 13 July; No. 10, pp. 145-151, 3 Aug. 1846 (Reprint, pp. 1-28]. BOULENGER, G.A., 1896. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History). Vol. 3. London, British Museum (Natural History). DOWLING, H.G., 1969. The hemipenes of Philodryas Gunther [sic]: a correction (Serpentes, Colubridae). Amer. Mus. Novitates No. 2375: 1 -6. HOGE, A.R., 1952. Notas erpetoloégicas. la. Contribuicao as conhecimento dos ofidios do Brasil Central. Mem. Inst. Butantan vol. 24: 179-214. JAN, G., 1863. Elenco sistematico degli ofidi descritti e disegnati per L'lconografia Generale. Milano, A. Lombardi. PESSOA, S.B., 1967. Notas sobre hemogregarinas de Serpentes brasileiras. Il. Hemogreg- arinas de algumas especies de serpentes dos familias Colubridae e Boidae. Rev. Bras. Biol. vol. 27: 49-56. , BIASI, P. and PUORTO, G., 1974. Nota sobre a frequéncia de hemoparasitas em serpentes do Brasil. Mem. Inst. Butantan vol. 38: 69-118. PETERS, J.A. and OREJAS-MIRANDA, B., 1970, Catalogue of the Neotropical Squamata. Part 1. Snakes. Bu//. U.S. Nati. Mus. vol. 297: i-viii + 1-347. SCHMIDT, K.P. and INGER, R.F., 1951. Amphibians and reptiles of the Hopkins-Branner Expedition to Brazil. Fieldiana Zool. vol. 31: 439-465. STEINDACHNER, F., 1870. Reptilien gesammelt wahrend einer Reise in Senegambien (October bis December 1868). Sitz. Math-Naturwiss. KI. Akad. Wiss. Wien. (abt. 1) vol. 62: 326-350. WAGLER, J., 1830. Natdrliches System der Amphibien mit vorangehender Classification der Saugethiere und Vogel. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie. Munchen, Stuttgart, und Tubingen, J.G. Cotta’schen. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THE STATUS OF SIPHONOPHORA FISCHER, 1823 (BRYOZOA) AND THE VALIDITY OF SIPHONOPHORA BRANDT, 1837 (DIPLOPODA, POLYZONIIDA) Z.N.(S.) 2168 By C.A.W. Jeekel (/nstitute of Taxonomic Zoology (Zoological Museum), University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands) The present case concerns the validation under the plenary powers of the generic name Siphonophora Brandt, 1837, currently in use for a genus in the diplopod order Polyzoniida (= Colobognatha) embracing over 80 nominal species. Until recently the validity of Siphonophora Brandt was no point of discussion. Some years ago, however, it was discovered that its status might be menaced by the existence of what seems to be an available name in Bryozoa, Siphonophora Fischer, 1823 (Jeekel, 1971: 45). 2. The name Siphonophora was proposed by Brandt (1837: 179) fora monotypical genus of diplopods, which was briefly diagnosed. Its type- species, S. portoricensis Brandt, 1837, from the island of Puerto Rico, was mentioned by name only. The proposal of the generic and specific names satisfies the provision of the Code as regards availability (Art. 12 and 16a (vi) ). 3. Later, especially in the course of this century, many species were described in the genus, which now has become perhaps the largest in the order Polyzoniida. Today Siphonophora is used as the valid generic name for over 80 species occurring in the Oriental, Australian and Neotropical regions. 4. The characteristic features of Siphonophora soon led to the proposal of a separate family for the genus by Newport (1844: 195). The name SIPHONOPHORIDAE has found general acceptance ever since. 5. Prior to the proposal of Siphonophora by Brandt, the name was introduced in literature by Fischer de Waldheim (1823:11) as a generic name in Bryozoa. The relevant passage in the cited, apparently very rare publication may be quoted as follows:- Famil. IV. Celleporae. Cellulis non irritabilibus, singulis aut collectis. Siphonophora. Fisch. Tubulipora. Lam. Cellepora. Fabr.~ 6. In the context of the publication the use of the name Siphonophora, with the citation of Tubulipora Lamarck as a synonym, can be interpreted in two ways: it is possible that Fischer proposed Bull. zool. Nomencli. vol 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 Siphonophora merely as a substitute for Tubulipora for some obscure, though obviously invalid, reason. In this case Siphonophora Fischer is an available name, in accordance with Art. 16a (iii) of the Code, although, of course, a junior objective synonym of Tubulipora. 7. On the other hand, Siphonophora might have been proposed to serve aS a generic name for a part of the contents of Tubulipora Lamarck. Evidence for such an intention would have been the appearance of Tubulipora as a valid genus elsewhere in Fischer’s publication. In that case the name Siphonophora Fischer, published without diagnosis and without the citation of the valid name of any originally included species, could be easily disqualified as a nomen nudum. However, nowhere in Fischer's publication can a second citation of the name Tubulipora be found, so that we have to face the consequences of the first alternative, that Siphonophora Fischer, is an available name, and a senior homonym of Siphonophora Brandt. 8. In his Nomenclator, Neave (1940: 206) lists Siphonophora Fischer as anomen nudum, and it is therefore important to know the current status of the name in literature on Bryozoa. | put this question to Dr. F.M. Bayer, Miami, U.S.A., who passed it on to Dr. Richard Boardman, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.. From his answer | concluded that, whereas Tubulipora Lamarck, 1816, is an important name in Bryozoa which is in wide current usage, and which has a family name based on it, Siphonophora Fischer seems to be completely unknown or forgotten. 9. Considering the above, and as nothing is gained by the discontinuation of the use of Siphonophora Brandt and SIPHONO- PHORIDAE Newport, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Siphonophora Fischer, 1823, for the purposes of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the name Siphonophora Brandt, 1837 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Siphonophora portoricensis Brandt, 1837, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the name portoricensis Brandt, 1837, as published in the binomen Siphonophora portoricensis (type-species of Siphonophora Brandt, 1837) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name SIPHONOPHORIDAE Newport, 1844 (type-genus Siphonophora Brandt, 1837) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the name Siphonophora Fischer, 1823, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES BRANDT, J.F., 1837. Note sur un ordre nouveau de la classe des Myriapodes et sur "'établissement des sections de cette classe d’animaux en général. Bull. sci. Acad. imp. Sci. St.-Pétersb. vol. 1 (23): 178-179 FISCHER DE WALDHEIM, G., 1823. Enchiridion generum animalium, pp. 1-32. Moscow. JEEKEL, C.A.W., 1971. Nomenclator generum et familiarum Diplopodorum. Monografieén Ned. ent. Veren. vol. 5: i-xii, 1-412 (1970). LAMARCK, J.B. de, 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 2: 1-568. NEAVE, S.A., 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 4, Q - Z and Supplement: 1-758. NEWPORT, G., 1844. (Monograph on the Myriapoda Chilopoda). Proc. linn. Soc. Lond. vol. 1: 191-196. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 PIERIS CASTORIA REAKIRT, 1867 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA, PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2170 By Arthur M. Shapiro (Departments of Zoology and Entomology, University of California, Davis, California 95616, U.S.A.) Recent biological investigations have indicated that Californian populations of the Pieris napi Linnaeus, 1758 complex (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE) are differentiated into two subspecies: a coastal, bivoltine, seasonally diphenic one for which the oldest valid name is Pieris venosa Scudder, 1861 and an interior, univoltine, monophenic one whose name is at issue in this petition. The oldest unambiguous name for this subspecies, and the one in current use, is Pieris napi microstriata J.A. Comstock, 1925. Evidence is presented which suggests that the name Pieris castoria Reakirt, 1867, which has been used almost exclusively as an infrasubspecific “form” name (as a junior subjective synonym of Pieris venosa) for 99 years, is applicable to the interior subspecies. Since transferring the name castoria to the interior subspecies would cause intolerable confusion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to suppress it under the Plenary Powers, an action which would preserve current usage. 2. Reakirt, (1867, p. 238) described Pieris castoria, apparently on the basis of amale received from Lorquin (Brown, 1964, p. 212 and /n /itt.). The description is brief but adequate for recognition. It is reproduced below as its wording is vital to the matter at issue: 2. PIERIS CASTORIA, nov. sp. Size and form of Pieris oleracea, Harris. Male, upper side pure white, inner half of costa of primaries, and base of both wings, strewn with a few dark atoms; a rounded black spot in the medio-superior interspace of the fore wings, situate as in the preceding species; no other markings; fringes white, expanse 2-2.12 inches. Underneath immaculate white; a faint yellowish tinge on the apex of the primaries, and along the costa of the secondaries. Body black, with whitish hairs below; antennae black, with incomplete white annulations interrupted above. Club yellowish, or yellowish brown at tip. Hab — California. Coll. Tryon Reakirt. Bull. zool. Nomencli. vol. 33. parts 3/4. March 1977 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. Scudder (1861, p. 182) described Pieris venosa from San Mateo and Mendocino city, California, both coastal localities in the summer-fog belt. The description is unambiguously of the first-brood phenotype of coastal populations, characterized by heavy black veining on the ventral hindwing and apex of forewing. This is the oldest valid name for any coastal Californian population of the Pieris napi complex. 4. Strecker (1877, p. 62) first suggested that castoria might be the second-brood phenotype of venosa, by analogy to napaeae Esper in Europe. W.H. Edwards (1881, p. 94) in a review of the complex world-wide, echoed the same idea. The name castoria has been used in this sense by most of the subsequent major writers on Californian butterflies: Comstock, 1927; Tilden, 1941; Tilden, 1965; Opler and Langston, 1968; Warren, 1968; and Howe, 1975, are examples. In a work notorious for its errors, Wright (1906) figured three typical venosa as ‘‘castoria’’, a usage followed by a few writers in the next five years, relying on Wright’s book (Coolidge, 1908; Coolidge and Newcomer, 1908; Williams, 1910). Tilden (1975) corrected this and many other misdeterminations by Wright. Since venosa is six years older than castoria and the specimens figured by Wright look nothing like Reakirt’s description of castoria, there is no rationale for this benighted use as a “senior synonym”. The next use of castoria was by Seitz (1924), who listed it as a variety of napi found in California, but also listed venosa as a separate species, also from California (pp. 59-60)! Holland (1932) ignored the California taxa altogether. Langston (1975) suggested (pp. 85-86) on phenological grounds that castoria might be a distinct species - a suggestion disproved experimentally by Shapiro (1975). Thus, since 1877 the name castoria has been generally identified as a junior subjective synonym of venosa and used informally as a seasonal “form” name for the second brood in venosa populations; throughout this period it has never been used as a senior synonym nor applied in any sense other than Strecker’s, except for the misdetermination by Wright. 5. J.A. Comstock (1925, p. 125) described Pieris napi microstriata from Eldredge, Sonoma County, inland from the fog belt in a locality where the population is normally univoltine and monophenic. Aside from Comstock’s (1927) book, this name received virtually no use since the validity of a subspecific distinction was not generally recognized. C. dos Passos (1964) treated microstriata as a junior subjective synonym of venosa. Garth and Tilden (1963) noted that Sierran napi were more lightly marked than typical venosa, but failed to connect them to Comstock’s name and concluded that no subspecies name was available for them. When the magnitude of the biological differences between coastal and _ interior California P. napi became apparent, | resurrected microstriata (Shapiro, 1975; 1976a, b) as the oldest name for the latter. At that time | (like everyone else) was unaware that the name Pieris castoria might have any application other than the established usage (i.e., that of Strecker 1877). Thus the name microstriata has not received sufficient use to constitute a prima facie case Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 that de-stabilization of nomenclature would occur were it superseded by az unused senior synonym (Article 79). 6. Wild second-brood Pieris napi venosa almost never match Reakirt's description of castoria. They differ consistently in having more or less black pattern on the veins of the hindwing ventrally and at the dorsal forewing apex. Langston (in /itt.) reports that in twenty years of collecting in northern and central California he has taken only one second-brood napi matching Reakirt’s description, a single male in Contra Costa County at an Inner Coast Range locality out of the fog belt, i.e. in microstriata habitat. James Bruce Walsh, who has studied in detail the phenology of P. n. venosa in Monterey County, reports (pers. comm.) that he has never seen a specimen there matching Reakirt's description. There are no such specimens in the collections of the University of California at Berkeley and Davis or in the California Academy of Sciences. The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County contains several. Among these are two _ labelled “Oakland / May 8, 1930” and two labelled “Bear Valley, Marin Co. / April 15, 1931” which are pinned from a Riker mount and which | judge to be mislabelled. Accurately labelled specimens matching Reakirt’s description in pattern (but not in size) are from Mill Valley and Bear Valley, both Marin County. 7. Both coastal and interior Pieris napi, when reared under environmental conditions which inhibit pupal diapause, give rise to a second brood which is more lightly marked than the first. Coastal (venosa) stocks produce their usual second-brood phenotype under these conditions with fewer than 10% of reared males matching Reakirt’s description. Interior (microstriata) stocks produce a more lightly-marked second-brood phenotype which matches Reakirt’s description in 75-100% of males. Could Reakirt’s type have been from an interior rather than a coastal population? (See Shapiro, 1975, 1976a). 8. Wild second-brood specimens occur very sporadically in interior (microstriata) populations, most frequently in the Coast Ranges and around the Napa Valley in areas subject to some maritime influence in summer, and mostly in cool, wet years. Most California collectors have never seen one.Populations in these localities are transitional from venosa to microstriata, and show the greatest phenotypic variability under our experimental regimes (Shapiro, unpublished data). Second-brood Sierra Nevada specimens are essentially unknown. No wild-collected ones exist in any of the institutional collections cited under (6) above. A partial second brood, males of which match perfectly Reakirt’s description and our reared material, is produced fairly regularly in two cool, moist box canyons in the American River gorge below Auburn, Placer County (180m) (Shapiro 1976a). At Lang Crossing in the Yuba River gorge, Nevada County (1365m) ! have taken one male of the same phenotype. Despite enquiries to experienced Sierran collectors, | have found no other records. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9. The putative syntypes of castoria are in the Strecker collection at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Strecker, in his MS catalogue of his collection, identified “specimen a” as the model of his figure 4 (Strecker 1877, plate viii) and the “type” of castoria. This individual, bearing a label “Orig. Type/Coll. Reak.” in Strecker’s handwriting, and matching closely the figure cited, was examined and photographed for me by Lee D. Miller and F. Martin Brown in 1975. It differs from Reakirt’s description in having dark scaling along the vein tips of the forewing both dorsally and ventrally and along the veins of the hindwing ventrally. All of these are ruled out by Reakirt’s assertion: “no other markings”. The specimen, which must be considered a pseudotype, is an “average” second- brood coastal specimen (e.g. from San Mateo or Marin Counties) and conforms to the usage which dates from Strecker. At my request Brown examined all other Pieris napi in the Strecker collection; none matches the description well enough to qualify as lectotype of castoria. Reakirt’s original specimen must be assumed lost, perhaps even before his collection passed into Strecker’s hands. 10. There is little information available on Lorquin’s travels to help us decide where he collected the type of castoria. F.M. Brown, who is trying to reconstruct his itineraries, advises me in /itt.: “By the 1860s he had travelled in the interior of northern California, but little or no collecting on the northern coast.” Boisduval (1868) sketches Lorquin’s travels; he says that prior to 1857 Lorquin had explored “tous les environs de San Francisco, puis les bords du Sacramento et de la Plume ... dans la chaine de la Sierra- Nevada ... jusque dans les foréts de I'intérieur”. This includes both venosa and microstriata habitats. 11. According to Gudde (1969, p.115), a town called Castoria existed in California from 1850 to 1859, precisely when Lorquin was collecting. This place is now French Camp, San Joaquin County. The site had been the headquarters of French beaver trappers on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, hence both names. Given Lorquin’s nationality it seems likely that he would have made it a point to visit there, perhaps regularly. In the same paper in which he describes castoria, Reakirt (1867, p. 238) also names Pieris yreka. Yreka, Siskyou County, was named in 1852 (Gudde 1969, p. 371). These towns can thus be inferred to be the localities of Lorquin’s specimens, subsequently Reakirt’s types. Castoria = French Camp is on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley at an elevation of less than 3m. In Lorquin’s day it lay in a region of marshland and dense riparian cottonwood-willow-alder forest, now largely eradicated. Pieris napi ssp. occur today in riparian habitats in canyons in both the Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada, but not on the floor of the Sacramento - San Joaquin Valley. Reconnaissance of riparian habitats in 1972 through 1976 has failed to turn up any Pieris napi anywhere on the Valley floor. | judge it impossible to obtain strictly topotypical material for a neotype designation. If Lorquin used “Castoria” loosely to refer to a large area around the camp, foothill populations may be extant. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 12. Populations in the foothills both east and west of Castoria = French Camp would be expected to be univoltine, monophenic microstriata like other known ones; on climatic grounds it thus seems safe to assume that the postulated, presumably extinct Valley animals were also of this subspecies. The probability of producing a second brood may have been distorted by the unusual weather which obtained in central California during Lorquin’s sojourn. Moist years favour second-brood emergences, and the water years 1852/53, 1859/60, 1861/62, 1864/65 and 1866/67 all saw more than 110% of mean annual rainfall (based on 1849-1969) at Sacramento, with 200% in the great flood year of 1861/62. 13. Based on the inferred type locality, castoria is the oldest name applicable to the interior subspecies, antedating microstriata by 58 years. Ordinarily the failure of the latter name to qualify for conservation under Article 79 would end the matter here. However, the apparently erroneous usage of castoria dating from Strecker, 1877, documented in paragraph (4) above, is so well established that were it upset, great confusion would result — it has been used with complete consistency for well over 50 years. In addition, there are three complicating circumstances arguing against transferring the name castoria to the interior subspecies: (i) the subspecies would be based on a phenotype almost never produced in nature and unknown to collectors familiar with the populations; (ii) the applicability of the name to the subspecies, as noted in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, is based on inferences about an apparently extinct, hence unverifiable, population; and (iii) the type-locality would have to be interpreted very broadly to obtain a neotype to fix the usage. We do not know whether nap/ populations exist at all in the closest foothills of either range, and as noted in (8) second-brood specimens of interior populations are altogether very rare so that it might require many years’ surveillance before a single one is taken in any nearby population! 14. Two major volumes on California butterflies are in preparation, and it is thus desirable to fix the nomenclature of these entities at this time. Moreover, studies in our laboratory indicate that the Pieris napi complex is important in paleoclimatological and biogeographic inference, and its subspecific nomenclature is thus likely to appear with increasing frequency in the literature of those disciplines. The taxonomy of the entire complex world-wide is in flux as a result of radical proposals advanced by B.C.S. Warren in several publications. Although Warren’s work does not touch on the present problem directly, it increases the likelihood of a global revision of the complex in the near future. The biological problems presented in this petition, bearing on the identities of the California taxa, would not be known by a reviser based anywhere else, particularly if working only with museum material. 15. If the Commission elects to suppress the name Pieris castoria, that name may still be used informally, infrasubspecifically for the second- brood phenotype of Pieris napi venosa as it has been for 99 years. As the * * 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature conspecificity of all the entities involved (venosa, castoria, and microstriata) is established beyond question in our experiments (Shapiro, 1975, 1976a, b and unpublished) there is no possible loss to future revisers if this name is formally invalidated. 16. An alternative approach would be to designate as neotype of castoria one of the few known second-brood coastal (venosa) males which matches the original description, thus attaching the name to the organism for which it is commonly used. As noted in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the type locality of castoria is apparently not in venosa territory at all; thus such an action would violate Article 75 and would require an action by the Commission under the Plenary Powers. In my opinion the proposed suppression of castoria is the preferable alternative since it is consistent with the Code, but the Commission can of course opt for an irregular neotype designation at its discretion, and a suitable specimen from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County is available. 17. Therefore, in the interest of stability and uniformity in butterfly nomenclature, | hereby request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (i) apply its plenary powers to suppress the name castoria, as published in the binomen Pieris castoria Reakirt, 1867 for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and to place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; and (ii) place the name microstriata, published as Pieris napi microstriata Comstock, 1925, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED (* indicates a publication in which the name castoria is used in the sense of Strecker, 1877.) BOISDUVAL, J.B.A. de., 1868. Lepidoptéres de la Californie. Preface. Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. vol. 12: 5-10. BROWN, F.M., 1964. Tyron Reakirt (1844 — ?). J. Lepid. Soc. vol. 18: 211-214. COMSTOCK, J.A., 1925. Butterflies of California. The Whites and Allies. Genus Pieris. Bull. Soc. Calif. Acad. Sci. vol. 23: 124-125. _— 1927. The Butterflies of California. Los Angeles, author. 335 pp. COOLIDGE, K., 1908. The Rhopalocera of Santa Clara County, California. Canad. Entomol. vol. 40: 425-431. and NEWCOMER, E.J., 1908. The life-history of Pontia castoria Reakirt. Entomol. News vol. 19: 314-315. dos PASSOS, C.F., 1964. A synonymic list of the nearctic Rhopalocera. Mem. Lepid. Soc. vol. 1: 145 pp. EDWARDS, W.H., 1881. On Pieris bryoniae Ochsenheimer and its derivative forms in Europe and America. Papilio vol. 1: 83-99. GARTH, J.S. and TILDEN, J.W., 1963. Yosemite butterflies. J. Res. Lepid. vol. 2: 1-96. GUDDE, E.G., 1969. California Place Names. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Univ. of Calif. press 416 pp. HOLLAND, W.J., 1932. The Butterfly Book, revised edition. New York, Doubleday Doran. 424 oo. Bulltin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 *HOWE, W.H., 1975. The Butterflies of North America. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday and Company. 633 pp. *LANGSTON, R.L., 1975. Extended flight periods of coastal and dune butterflies in California. J. Res. Lepid. vol. 13: 83-98. *OPLER, P.A. and LANGSTON, R.L., 1968. A distributional analysis of the butterflies of Contra Costa County, California. J. Lepid. Soc. vol. 22: 89-107 REAKIRT, T., 1867. Descriptions of some new species of diurnal Lepidoptera. Proc. Acad Nat. Sci. Philad. vol. 18: 238-239. SCUDDER, S.H., 1861. Notice of some North American species of Pieris. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. vol. 8: 178-185 SEITZ, A., 1924. The Macrolepidoptera of the World. Vol. 5, the American Rhopalocera Stuttgart. A. Kernen. 1137 pp “SHAPIRO, A.M., 1975. Developmental and phenotypic responses to photo-period in uni - and bivoltine Pieris napi in California. Trans. Roy. ent. Soc. London vol. 127: 65-71 ‘ 1976a. The role of watercress, Naturtium officinale, as a host of native and introduced Pierid butterflies in California. J. Res. Lepid. vol. 14: 158-168. 1976b. Seasonal polyphenism. Evo/. Bio/., in press. *“STRECKER, H., 1877. Lepidoptera, Rhopaloceres and Heteroceres, indigenous and exotic with descriptions and colored illustrations. Reading, Penna., author. 143 pp “TILDEN, J.W., 1941. Preliminary list of the butterflies and skippers of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California. Entomo/. Exchange News vol. 6(4): 1-6. *—___—- 1965. Butterflies of the San Francisco Bay Region Berkeley. Univ. of Calif press. pp. 51-53 * ——_—_—_———_ 1975. An analysis of the W.G. Wright butterfly and skipper plesiotypes in the collection of the California Academy of Sciences. Occ. Papers Calif. Acad. Sci vol. 118: 1-44. “WARREN, B.C.S., 1968. On the Nearctic species of the bryoniae - and oleracea - groups of the genus Pieris. Entomol. Rec. vol. 80: 61-66. WILLIAMS, F.X. 1910. The butterflies of San Francisco, California. Entomol. News vol. 21: 30-41. WRIGHT, W.G., 1906. The Butterflies of the West Coast of the United States. San Francisco, author. 257 pp. 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CULEX LOEW! GIEBEL, 1862 (INSECTA: DIPTERA: CULICIDAE): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS SO AS TO CONSERVE TOXORHYNCHITES BREVIPALPIS THEOBALD, 1901 (OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES No., 1341; OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES, NO. 1615). Z.N.(S.) 2173. By G.B. White (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London, SW7 5BD) Opinion 548 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Opin. Decl. int. Commn zool. Nom., vol. 20: 167-173) ruled in 1959 that the name Toxorhynchites Theobald, July 1901, is valid and that T. brevipalpis Theobald, November 1901, is the type-species of that genus, by subsequent monotypy. The name Toxorhynchites Howard, June 1901, ex Theobald MS, was suppressed simultaneously under the plenary powers for purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy. 2. At present the genus Toxorhynchites Theobald is generally regarded as forming a monobasic subfamily of the CULICIDAE, for which the name TOXORHYNCHITINAE Theobald, 1905: 5, has priority. As type-species of the nominate subgenus of Toxorhynchites, T. brevipalpis is pivotal to the definition of the whole subfamily TOXORHYNCHITINAE. Most workers divide the genus Toxorhynchites into three subgenera: Ankylorhynchus Lutz, 1904, and Lynchiella Lahille, 1904, in the New World and Toxorhynchites sensu stricto in the Old World. A minority of authors follow Lima, Guiton & Ferreira, 1962, in maintaining generic rank for each of these three groups. Latest summaries of information on the TOXORHYNCHITINAE are the biosystematical review by Steffan (1975) and relevant entries in the revised edition of ‘““A synoptic catalog of mosquitoes of the world” by Knight & Stone (in press). 3. T. brevipalpis is an ornate, conspicuous but non-biting mosquito species with a natural range covering most of the Ethiopian faunal region. The holotype female is deposited in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K. Since the work of Edwards (1941) it has been accepted that the nominate form of brevipalpis inhabits eastern and southern Africa, Zanzibar and Malagasy, while subspecies conradti Grunberg, 1907, has darker adults and occupies western and central Africa. One or other subspecies of T. brevipalpis has been reported from at least 29 of the 38 mainland countries in the Ethiopian region. 4. The carnivorous behaviour of Toxorhynchites larvae has repeatedly attracted the interest of applied entomologists seeking agents of biological control. In this capacity T. brevipalpis, which breeds in flooded tree-holes, motor-car tyres and so forth, is regarded as an important predator of certain medically important mosquito species in the genus Aedes Meigen, 1818. For - Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 this reason, the bionomics of 7. brevipalpis have been investigated by Bonnet & Hu (1951), Muspratt (1951), Corbet (1963), Corbet & Griffiths (1963), Correia (1967), Sempala & Ssenkubuge (1971), Trpis (1972, 1973a, b) and Trpis & Gerberg (1973). As an extension of this biological control interest, strains of T. brevipalpis have been introduced to Hawaii (Bonnet & Hu, 1951; Nakagawa, 1963), to American Samoa (Peterson, 1956) to Tahiti (Bonnet & Chapman, 1956) and to Sint Maartens in the Leeward Islands (Gerberg, in /it., 4. iv. 1976). With a view to its further exploitation for larval control of vectorially active species of mosquitoes, T. brevipalpis is currently under colonisation in several African and American laboratories. Considerable literature dealing with the experimental study of this species has consequently been added to the primary and secondary taxonomic publications in which T. brevipalpis has been described, redescribed and its distribution recorded in great detail. In all, 7. brevipalpis is documented in over 100 books, papers and other reports. 5. Hennig (1966: 5) published a determination by Mattingly (in /itt. 16. xii.1965) that Culex /Joewi Giebel, 1862, belongs to the 7. brevipalpis species group. In Mattingly’s view the female holotype of /oew/ appeared to belong to one or other of the subspecies known as brevipalpis and conradti. | have also now examined this specimen, No. 4179, in the Naturwissenschaftlichen Museum der Coburger Landesstiftung in Coburg. It was kindly made available to me by the Director through the courtesy of Professor Dr. Willi Hennig, and in my opinion, despite the relatively denuded scale patterns, there can be little doubt that it is marked as in brevipalpis and not like conradti, the pale scaling of the second fore tarsomere being particularly diagnostic when seen from below. This implies that /joewi Giebel, 1862, should be regarded as a senior subjective synonym of Toxorhynchites brevipalpis Theobald, 1901. However, in view of the way that Article 23 (a-b) of the Code was redrafted in 1972 at the 17th International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco, it seems desirable to request the Commission to use its plenary powers to promote nomenclatural stability by upholding validity of the much used junior synonym in this case. 6. Culex /oewi was originally described and named on the supposition of it being a fossil embedded in amber of unknown origin. Other specimens in the same collection and also described in the same paper were a Gekko and 16 species in 6 Orders of Insecta. Klebs (1910) later realised that this collection consisted of material not in fossil amber but in modern copal. On the strength of Klebs’s opinion, Edwards (1932) listed Culex loewi in Fascicle 194 of the “Genera Insectorum” as _ being “Quaternary [?? = Aedes fulgens Edw.]. Gum Copal (? E. Africa)”. Evidently Edwards had not seen the specimen which so obviously resembles T. brevipalpis, so he guessed at its age, identity and origin. ‘Similarly, in the first edition of “A synoptic catalog of the mosquitoes of the world” (Stone et al, 1959: 286) the entry for C. /oewi indicates “Quaternary (Gum Copal. Type-locality: ? East Africa’. Following the publication of 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Hennig’s (1966) review of Giebel’s copals, Stone (1967: 218) emended the World Catalog entry to ‘“Toxorhynchites loewi (Giebel)” but left the species listed as a Quaternary fossil form. The literature appears to lack any further usages of this name /oewi/. 7. Several authors have attested to the modernity of Giebel’s copals and the specimens therein. Giebel’s names therefore stand as available for contemporary taxa. One of these names has already been accorded priority. Crosskey (1966) synonymised Tachina succini Giebel, on which the genus Palexorista Townsend had been founded, with Prosturmia solennis (Walker, 1859), so sinking Prosturmia Townsend, 1927, under Palexorista Townsend, 1921 (Insecta: Diptera: TACHINIDAE). In another case, Wermuth (1966) identified Platydactylus minutus Giebel, 1862, as most probably being a specimen of Hemiphyllodactylus typus Bleeker, 1860 (Reptilia: Sauria: GEKKONIDAE); in this case Giebel’s name did not take priority. Both Crosskey (1966) and Wermuth (1966) apparently were influenced by Klebs’s suggestion that at least some of the copals in the Coburg collection may have been of Oriental origin. In fact Klebs (1910) tentatively identified Giebel’s Gekko as an Oriental species. On the other hand, Edwards (1932), with characteristic serendipity, had suggested East Africa as the probable source at least of C. /oewi, although he guessed its identity wrongly. Hennig (1966) identified nine of Giebel’s insect taxa and reported them all to be definitely or possibly African in origin. For two specimens belonging to taxa that could have originated from either the Ethiopian or the Oriental regions Hennig (in /it., 21.vi.1968) was able subsequently to furnish the results of spectroscopic analysis of the copals performed at the University of California, Santa Cruz, by Dr. Jean H. Langenheim (in /it.,16.v. 1968): “it is clear that the samples of copal containing Lomatia and Tachina ... are from a leguminous source. In fact, the resin probably is from a species of Trachylobium which occurs in East Africa ... It is somewhat similar to Copaifera which produces the West African copals. However, resin from Trachylobium appears more similar than those from Copaijfera’’. In the light of this technical information, there can be no doubt as to the correct synonymy of C. /oewi Giebel with the common African mosquito that has always been known as Toxorhynchites brevipalpis Theobald. 8. For the above reasons and in the interest of nomenclatural stability the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the specific name loewi Giebel, 1862, as published in the combination Culex loewi, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy. (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific name /oewi Giebel, 1862, as published in the binomen Culex /oewi and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above. ————————— eC Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 9. This case would have been impossible to formulate without the generous access to personal correspondence allowed me by Or. R.W. Crosskey, Prof. Dr. W. Hennig and Dr. P.F. Mattingly. Their assistance and the spectroscopic information on copals supplied by Dr. J.H. Langenheim of California is gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES BONNET, D.D & CHAPMAN, H., 1956. The importance of mosquito breeding in tree holes with special reference to the problem in Tahiti. Mosquito News vol. 16: 301-305. & HU. S.M.K., 1951. The introduction of Toxorhynchites brevipalpis into the Territory of Hawaii. Proc. Hawaii ent. Soc. vol. 14: 237-242. CORBET, P.S., 1963. Observations on Toxorhynchites brevipalpis conradti Grunb. (Diptera, Culicidae) in Uganda. Bull. ent. Res. vol. 54: 9-17. & GRIFFITHS, A., 1963. Observations on the aquatic stages of two species of Toxorhynchites (Diptera: Culicidae) in Uganda. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) vol. 38: 125-1355 CORREIA. M.G , 1967 Ill — Contribuigao para Oo conhecimento dos Wurcidae da Guine Portuguesa (Ilha de Bissau). Estudo morfoldgico das larvas preparadoras e suas evolugoes até ao estado adulto Bolm cult Guiné port vol 22° 329-371 CROSSKEY, R.W., 1966. The putative fossil genus Pa/exorista Townsend and its identity with Prosturmia Townsend (Diptera: Tachinidae). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) vol. 35: 133-137. EDWARDS, F.W., 1932. Diptera Fam. Culicidae. Genera Insectorum Fasc. 194. 258 pp. Tervuren. P. Wytsman. 1941. Mosquitoes of the Ethiopian Region. Ill. — Culicine adults and pupae. viii + 499pp. + 3pl. London, British Museum (Natural History). GIEBEL, C., 1862. Wirbelthier und Insektenreste im Bernstein. Z. ges. Naturw. Berl. 1862: 311-321. HENNIG, W., 1966. Einige Bemerkungen Uber die Typen der von Giebel 1862 angeblich aus dem Bernstein beschreibenen Insektenarten. Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk. No. 162: 7pp. HOWARD, L.O., 1901. Mosquitoes. xv + 241pp. New York, McLure, Phillips & Co. 1.C.Z.N. 1959. Opinion 548. Validation under the plenary powers of the generic name “Toxorhynchites” Theobald (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), as published in 1901 in the “Journal of Tropical Medicine’. Opin. Decl. int. Commn. zool. Nom. vol. 20: 167-173. KLEBS, R., 1910. Uber Bernsteineinschlisse im allgemeinen und die Coleopteren meiner Bernsteinsammlung. Schr. phys.-6kon. Ges. Konigsb. vol. 51: 217-242. LIMA, A.M. DA COSTA, GUITON, N. & FERREIRA, O., 1962. Commentarios relativos as espécies da tribo Toxorhynchitini (Megarhinini) com a descricao de uma espécie nova de Lynchiella (Diptera, Culicidae). Mem. Inst. Osw. Cruz vol. 60: 225-252. MUSPRATT, J., 1951. The bionomics of an African Megarhinus (Dipt., Culicidae) and its possible use in biological contro|. Bu//. ent. Res. vol. 42: 355-370. NAKAGAWA, P.Y., 1963. Status of Toxorhynchites in Hawaii. Proc. Hawaii ent. Soc. vol. 18: 291-293. PETERSON, G.D., 1956. The introduction of mosquitoes of the genus Toxorhynchites into American Samoa. J. econ. Ent. vol. 49: 786-789. SEMPALA, S.D.K. & SSENKUBUGE, Y., 1971. Studies on tree-hole breeding mosquitoes. Rep. E. Afr. Virus Res. Inst. No. 21: 70-75. STEFFAN, W.A., 1975. Systematics and biological contro! potential of Toxorhynchites (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics vol. 7: 59-67. STONE, A., 1967. A synoptic catalog of the mosquitoes of the world, supplement III. (Diptera: Culicidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. vol. 69: 197-224. , KNIGHT, K.L. & STARCKE, H., 1959. A synoptic catalog of the mosquitoes of the world (Diptera, Culicidae). The Thomas Say Foundation, vol. VI, 358pp. Washington, Entomological Society of America. 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THEOBALD, F.V., July 1901. The classification of mosquitoes J. trop. Med. vol. 4: 229-235. November, 1901. A monograph of the Culicidae or mosquitoes. vol. |. 424pp. London, British Museum (Natural History). 1905. Diptera Fam. Culicidae. Genera Insectorum Fasc. 26. 50pp. Brussels, P. Wytsman. TRPIS, M., 1972. Development and predatory behaviour of Toxorhynchites brevipalpis (Diptera: Culicidae) in relation to temperature. Envir. Ent. vol. 1: 537-546. 1973 a. Interaction between the predator Toxorhynchites brevipalpis and its prey Aedes aegypti. Bull. Wid H/th Org. vol. 49: 359-365. 1973b. Adult population estimate of Toxorhynchites brevipalpis. Bull. Wid HIth Org. vol. 48: 756-757. & GERBERG, E.J., 1973. Laboratory colonization of Toxorhynchites brevipalpis. Bull. Wid H/th Org. vol. 48: 636-637. WERMUTH, H., 1966. Der Status von Platydacty/us minutus Giebel 1862 (Reptilia, Sauria, Gekkonidae). Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk. No. 163: 6pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 STROMATOPORELLA NICHOLSON, 1886 (FOSSIL ORDER STROMATOPOROIDEA): PROBLEM OF THE TYPE—SPECIMEN OF THE TYPE—SPECIES, STROMATOPORELLA GRANULATA (NICHOLSON), 1873, Z.N.(S.)2177 By Joseph St. Jean, Jr. (Department of Geology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27514, U.S.A.) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby petitioned to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the original syntype specimens of Stromatoporella granulata (Nicholson), 1873, from the “Corniferous Limestone (Devonian) of Port Colborne and Savage’s Quarry, Wainfleet, on the north shore of Lake Erie, Canada West” (Nicholson, 1873, p.94, pl. 4, figs. 3, 3a) in favor of a specimen later used by the original author to redescribe and to re-illustrate Stromatoporella granulata. Nicholson’s later described specimen came from younger strata, the Middle Devonian Hamilton “Formation” (now considered a stratigraphic group) and was collected from Arkona, Ontario, a substantial distance--208 km (130 mi)--from the original type locality (Nicholson, 1886a, pl. 1, figs. 4, 5, 15 [not fig. 14] pl. 7, figs. 5, 6; 1891, p. 202; 1892, p. 203, 204, pl. 26, figs. 1, 1a, 1b). This Arkona specimen is specimen number 329, accompanied by microscope slides 329a-329f, in the H.A. Nicholson Stromatoporoid Collections in the Department of Invertebrate Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History), London. The Commission is petitioned to designate the above mentioned Arkona specimen as a neotype under its plenary powers, because the specimen does not meet the qualifications of a neotype [Art. 75(c) (5) ] — it does not come from the type locality, the type stratigraphic horizon, or the original type collection. 2. H.A. Nicholson, in 1873, described and illustrated a new species, Stromatopora granulata from the “Corniferous Limestone” (now called the Onondaga Formation) of Port Colborne and from Savage’s Quarry, Wainfleet, Ontario, Canada. The description is brief, it dwells mostly on surface coenostial characters and gives a general description of the gross coenostial reticulation formed by laminae and pillars. The figures consist of a crude illustration of a fragment of a coenosteum at natural size and a slightly enlarged lateral view of a fragment which only poorly illustrates the reticulum of the coenosteum. No mention is made of ring-pillars or skeletal tissue structure (which are diagnostic generic characters of the genus Stromatoporella) nor are ring-pillars or tissue illustrated. The original description and illustrations are inadequate to determine either the generic or the specific stromatoporoid characteristics in terms of present-day concepts. Nicholson did not indicate whether the figured specimens came from Port Colborne or Wainfleet, but the two localities are only about Bull. zool. Nomenci. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 10.4 km (6.5 miles) apart. The whole area is underlain by bedrock of Onondaga age. Some stratigraphers currently place the Onondaga Formation at the top of the Lower Devonian, others place it at the base of the Middle Devonian. 3. In 1874, Nicholson (p.10,11) described a fragment of a new specimen he assigned to Stromatopora granulata from the Hamilton Group in Bosanquet Township, Ontario, Canada, which is located in Lambton County, on Lake Huron, and includes the towns of Thedford and Arkona. As the Hamilton Group(middle Middle Devonian) is younger than the Onondaga Formation from which the original material came, the new specimen extended the stratigraphic range of the species from basal Middle to middle Middle Devonian. Nicholson augmented the original description by noting “oscula” and pores. These could be axial tubes of mamelons and the hollow centers of ring-pillars, but the description is too inadequate to be certain and no figures were included. 4. Nicholson and Murie, 1878 (pl. 1, figs. 12, 13) published the first figures of thin-sections of Stromatopora granulata. The figures illustrated ring-pillars for the first time. Nicholson subsequently considered ring-pillars to be one of the diagnostic characteristics of the genus Stromatoporella. Nicholson and Murie also illustrated a portion of the surface of a specimen with a single astrorhiza (op. cit., pl. 1, fig. 11). This figured specimen of Stromatopora granulata by Nicholson and Murie is not from type material, but comes from the Hamilton Group of Ontario, Canada, with no precise locality given. No description was included in the article, therefore the presence of ring-pillars is determinable only by examination of the illustrations. 5. In 1886, Nicholson (1886a, p. 92-95) named the new genus Stromatoporella and designated S. granulata (Nicholson), 1873 as the type species (op. cit., p. 94). He mentioned that S. granulata is “...abundant in the Hamilton and Corniferous formations of Western Canada”. Nicholson considered ring-pillars, which he called zodidal tubes, “peculiar” to the genus and noted (p. 93) that zodidal tubes were characterized in tangential section by “complete or incomplete rings”. The fact that ring-pillars are present is also indicated in the supporting illustrations of a specimen from the Hamilton Group of Ontario (op. cit. , pl. 1, figs. 4, 15, pl. 7, figs. 5, 6). 6. In another work published the same year (1886b, p. 10, 11) Nicholson redescribed S. granulata and noted “...close-set tubercles of various sizes, the smaller of these being imperforate, while the larger ones are perforated at their apices by distinct circular apertures”. Nicholson noted pillars, often in the form of a ring, which he interpreted as the perforate tubercles he described on the coenostial surface. He did not illustrate any specimens in this work, but he noted again the occurrence of the species from the Hamilton beds at Arkona, Ontario and the “Corniferous” limestone of Port Colborne. Only gallery height was given, so that the diagnostic species-characteristics are insufficient to establish the nature of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 S. granulata, but it is clear from his description that what Nicholson then considered to be S. granulata from the type area and horizon must have had ring-pillars, and a skeleton composed of minute pores and an incomplete reticulum. 7. Attention must be drawn to Nicholson’s diagnostic generic emphasis on the ring-like structure because several modern authors have overlooked this important generic structure noted in Nicholson’s original generic and subsequent descriptions and illustrations of Stromatoporella. Most authors in the past have considered Stromatoporella to possess ring-pillars (i.e. Parks, 1936, p. 39; Yavorsky, 1943, p. 369; 1950, p. 243; 1962, p. 163; Galloway, 1957, p. 436; Stearn, 1966, p. 93; Kazmierczak, 1971, p. 86; 1971, p. 51; Zukalova, 1971, p. 51; etc.). However, a few authors have disregarded ring-pillars as a generic character and have included some species in Stromatopore/la which would be better placed in other genera (i.e. Lecompte, 1951, p. 152; 1956, p. F131; Sleumer, 1968; 1969, p. 37-42). We must rely, however, on the intention of the original generic description. Part of the confusion concerning the generic character of Stromatoporella is based on the morphological interpretations of specimens which do not belong to the type-species. (a) For example, in 1936, Parks (p. 94, 98, 99) interpreted ring-pillars in Stromatoporella as inflected laminae in vertical section and as large pores in tangential section. However, Parks complicated the issue (p. 77) by naming anew genus, Stictostroma based on “‘cogenotypes”. One genotype, Stromatopora mammillata Nicholson, 1873 proved to be a homonym of Stromatopora mammilata Schmidt, 1858. Stictostroma mammillatum of Parks has a microtissue like Stromatoporella, but lacks ring-pillars. Parks’s s3cond “cogenotype” was a new species, Stictostroma eriense, with extremely well developed ring-pillars (op. cit., p. 81-83, pl. 5, figs. 1-4). Later, Galloway and St. Jean (1957, p. 124) renamed Nicholson’s species Stictostroma mammilliferum, and selected it as the type species of Stictostroma placing S. eriense Parks in the genus Stromatoporella. (b) Lecompte (1951, p. 152-158) wrote a detailed historical account of Stromatoporella in which he concluded that ring-pillars were not of ‘generic importance. As a consequence, he placed Stictostroma in synonymy with Stromatoporella, thereby including many forms without ‘ ring-pillars in Stromatoporella. His interpretation was in part based on Parks’s inclusion of ring-pillar-bearing and non-ring-pillar-bearing species in Stictostroma as well as on Parks’s interpretation of ring-pillars as inflected laminae. (c) Finally, Sleumer (1968; 1969, p. 37-42, pls. 24-27) following Lecompte, placed specimens clearly belonging to three or four other genera in the species Stromatoporella granulata. In his re-evaluation of S. granulata Sleumer paid little attention to the type description of either the genus Stromatoporella or the species S. granulata in his interpretations. 8. The real problem concerning the nature of the type-specimen, and therefore the nature of the type-species of the genus, is that later Nicholson 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1891-1892, p. 202-204) re-evaluated his species Stromatoporella granulata. He selected and illustrated a specimen of Hamilton age from Arkona, Ontario (British Museum (Natural History), Nicholson Collection, specimen number 329) to represent the species. He then implied that S. granulata was restricted to the Hamilton Group, even though the original type-material came from older beds of Onondaga age in the Port Colborne area, about 208km (130 mi) from Arkona. He called the specimens of Stromatoporella from the Port Colborne area (i. e. from the original type locality and horizon of S. granulata) a new species, Stromatoporellaselwynii (1892, p. 205, 206, British Museum (Natural History), Nicholson Collection, Specimen Numbers 330 and 331) whose distribution is “not uncommon in the Corniferous Limestone of Port Colborne, Ontario”. His restriction of Stromatoporella granulata to the Hamilton beds thus deprived the type specimens (from the Onondaga Formation) of their original taxonomic designation. Such an arbitrary nomenclatural exclusion of the type- specimens is contrary to the present-day International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 9. The location of the original type-material of Stromatoporella granulata is not now known. During the time from the first publication of S. granulata until his death, Nicholson was associated with the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada and St. Andrews and Aberdeen Universities in Scotland. A large portion of Nicholson’s collections was placed in the British Museum (Natural History) in London. Dr. John Monteith of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Dr. N.H. Trewin of the Department of Geology and Mineralogy, University of Aberdeen Marischal College, and Dr. A.R. MacGregor of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland have all searched their collections for the original type specimen of Stromatoporella granulata (Nicholson), without success. A possibility exists that the type specimen of S. granulata was later used by Nicholson for the type specimen of S. selwynii, because they both came from the same geographic area and the same stratigraphic horizon. | have examined the slides of both S. granulata (Nicholson), as redesignated in 1891-1892, and S. se/wynii Nicholson, in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History) as well as Nicholson’s notebook, written in his own hand. The slides, the accompanying labels, and Nicholson’s notebook contain no indication that the type-specimen of S. se/wynii was the original type-specimen of S. granulata. Further, Mr. Richard F. Wise, of the British Museum (Natural History), made a recent search of Nicholson’s unsectioned specimens and could not find the type-specimen. He found no evidence that S. se/wynii is one and the same specimen as the type of S. granulata. Also, in comparing the type figure of S. granulata (Nicholson, 1873, pl. 4, fig. 3) with the specimens in the Museum’s collections, Mr. Wise could not find any specimen to match the original figure. In view of the above, we can consider the original type-material of S. granulata (Nicholson) lost. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 10. In my own collections from the Port Colborne area, the majority of specimens belong to different species of Stromatoporella and Stictostroma, but most of them do not agree specifically with Nicholson’s identifications from the Hamilton group at Arkona. | found only one specimen of S. granulata from the type-horizon and locality at Port Colborne (St. Jean, 1960, p. 276, text-fig. 2). The problem is that, even though some of the newly collected material may indeed be conspecific with the original type specimens of S. granulata from the Onondaga Formation at Port Colborne, there is no way of actually knowing because Nicholson never described or illustrated in sufficient detail a specimen from the type-horizon and locality which he himself assigned to S. granulata. In addition, no subsequent author who may have seen the original type-specimens has described S. granulata from the type area and horizon. 11. Obviously in naming the new genus Stromatoporella with the subsequently restricted and redesignated S. granulata as the type, Nicholson had in mind the Arkona specimens rather than the type-specimens from Port Colborne, for the Arkona specimens were used to illustrate the genus (1886, pl. 1, figs. 4, 5, 15, pl. 7, figs.5, 6) with the exception of the coenosteum of one Port Colborne specimen (op. cit., pl. 1, fig. 14) which Nicholson later assigned to S. se/wynii (1891, p. 202). By 1891 and 1892, five or six years after the publication of Stromatoporella, he thought of S. granulata as being restricted to the Hamilton Formation (i.e., 1892, p. 203) “Having now fully examined my available material, | have come to the conclusion that the Devonian rocks of North America contain two allied but nevertheless really distinct species of Stromatoporella, which up till now | have included under the single name of S. granulata. One of these — the true S. granulata — occurs in the Hamilton formation, and | have supplemented the figures of its microscopic structures with a drawing of an actual specimen (Plate XXVI, fig. 1). The other form in question occurs in the Corniferous Limestone of Canada; and | shall briefly describe it under the name of S. Se/wynii, Nich.”. 12. With regard to the problem of the type-specimen of the type-species of Stromatoporella, three courses of action are possble. (a) The simplest action would be to select a specimen from the type area and stratigraphic horizon, and designate it a neotype. In view of the fact that a wide variety of interpretations have been placed on Stromatoporella recently (see 7 above) and in view of the fact that several species of both Stictostroma and Stromatoporella, as well as other genera occur in the area, a neotype would reflect the subjective interpretations of the collector rather than Nicholson’s original intent. (b) One could take some of the unsectioned specimens in the Nicholson collection at the British Museum (Natural History), have sections prepared, and designate one of them as the type. However, due to the fact that the internal characters of these specimens have never been known, not even to Nicholson, the same prejudicial judgements would come into play. 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) The best alternative is to have the Commission suppress the original type-specimensof Stromatoporella granulata and recognize the specimen no. 329 (slides 329 a-f) in the British Museum (Natural History) as the neotype. This specimen was used by Nicholson to describe Stromatoporelia for the first time and it reflects the author's original intent with respect to at least generic-level considerations. 13. The request to suppress the type-specimens even though they are lost is due to the fact that morphological details of specimen number 329 are well known. The important characteristics of the type-specimens have never been known, except perhaps to Nicholson, and perhaps not even very well known to him. If for some unexpected reason the type-specimens are located, a knowledge of their detailed generic and specific characters would be apt to upset a nomenclatural stability which has existed at least from Nicholson’s re-evaluation of the species in 1891 and 1892. 14. In making the decision the Commission should keep in mind the following factors: (a) In 1873 Nicholson named a new species Stromatopora granulata from Onondaga deposits near Port Colborne, Ontario. (b) In 1874, Nicholson described Stromatopora granulata from the younger Hamilton beds near Arkona, Ontario. (c) In 1886, Nicholson named the new genus Stromatoporella and designated Stromatoporella granulata as type-species. (d) In 1891, Nicholson split off a new species, Stromatoporella selwynii (Onondaga, Port Colborne, lower Middle Devonian) and retained the name Stromatoporella granulata for the Arkona specimens, restricting Stromatopora granulata to Hamilton age deposits (middle Middle Devonian). (e) The original type specimens from Onondaga were eventually lost. Their descriptions and illustrations are inadequate for generic and specific identifications. Recent collections have been made from the type-area and horizon(Onondaga) but it is impossible to determine if any are conspecific with the original Stromatopora granulata. (f) The existing confusion in-morphological interpretations reflects the need and urgency to designate a new type specimen of Stromatopora granulata about whose legitimacy there can be no doubt. The validation of the proposed neotype number 329, in the Nicholson collection in the British Museum (Natural History) should clear up some of the confusion about the genus Stromatoporella and its type species Stromatopora granulata. (g) The proposed neotype specimen reflects the author’s original intent better than any other specimen available. (h) The proposed neotype specimen has been for nearly a century in a famous repository, under exceptionally competent curatorial care, and is accessible to the majority of world scientists who may be interested in the genus and species in question. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 15. The Commission is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress all designations of type- specimen for the nominal species Stromatopora granulata Nicholson, 1873 hitherto made and to designate specimen No. 329 in the British Museum (Natural History), London, with the slides 329a-329f prepared from it as neotype of that species; (2) to place the generic name Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Stromatopora granulata Nicholson, 1873 (as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name granu/ata Nicholson, 1873, as published in the binomen Stromatopora granulata, and as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above (specific name of type-species of Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED GALLOWAY,J.J., 1957. Structure and classification of the Stromatoporoidea. Bul/ American Paleont. vol. 37, no. 164: 345-480, pls. 31-37 and ST. JEAN, J. 1957. Middle Devonian Stromatoporoidea of Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, Bul/. American Paleont. vol. 37, no. 162: 29-308 KAZMIERCZAK, J., 1971. Morphogenesis and systematics of the Devonian Stromatoporoidea from the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Palaeonto/ogia Polonica vol. 26: 1-150, pis. 1-41 LECOMPTE, M., 1951. Les stromatoporoides du Dévonien moyen et supérieur du bassin de Dinant. Inst. Roy. Sci. Nat. Belgique vol. 116: 1-215, pis. 1-35 1956. Stromatoporoidea. in MOORE R.C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate pale- ontology. Geo/. Soc. America and Univ. Kansas Press F: F107-F144 NICHOLSON, H.A., 1873. On some new species of Stromatopora. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (4) vol. 12: 89-95, pl. 4 1874. On the affinities of the genus Stromatogora, with descriptions of two new species. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (4) vol. 13: 4-14 1886a. A monograph of the British Stromatoporoids. Part 1. - General introduction. Palaeontogr. Soc. vol. 39: 1-130, pls. 1-11 1886b. On some new or imperfectly-known species of stromatoporoids. Part Il. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5) vol. 18: 8-22, pls. 1-2 1891. A monograph of the British stromatoporoids. Part Ill.. - Description of species. Palaeontogr. Soc. vol. 44: 159-202, pis. 20-25 1892. A monograph of the British stromatoporoids. Part |V. — Table of contents, description of species, supplement, appendix, index, and general title-page, with directions for binding. Palaeontogr. Soc. vol. 46: 203-234, pls. 25-29 and MURIE, J., 1878. On the minute structure of Stromatopora and its allies. Jour. Linnean Soc., Zool. vol. 14: 187-246, pls. 1-4 PARKS, W.A., 1936. Devonian stromatoporoids of North America. Part |. Univ. Toronto Stud., Geol. Ser. vol. 39: 1-125, pis. 1-19 ST. JEAN, J., 1960. The widespread distribution of characteristic Devonian stromatoporoid microstructures and their stratigraphic significance. Int. Geol. Congr., Rep. 21st Session, Norden, pt. 21: 239-250 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SCHMIDT, F., 1858. Untersuchungen Uber die Silurische Formation .von Esthland, Nord- Livland und Oesel. Archiv. fiir die Naturkunde Liv-, Est- und Kurlands. (1) vol. 2: 1-248 SLEUMER, B.H.G., 1968. Gross structure and microstructure of Stromatoporella granulata (Nicholson, 1873) and their consequences on the definition of some Devonian stromatoporoid genera. Leidse Geo/. Mededelingen vol. 43: 9-40 1969. Devonian stromatoporoids of the Cantabrian Mountains (Spain). Leidse Geo/. Mededelingen vol. 44: 1-136, pls. 1-41 STEARN, C.W., 1966. The microstructure of stromatoporoids. Palaeontology vol. 9: 74-124, pls. 14-19 YAVORSKY, V.1., 1943. Devonian Stromatoporellidae and their role in the study of the strati- graphy of the Kuznetsk Basin. Dok/. Akad. Nauk U.S.S.R. (in Russian) 39, vol. 9: 369-370 - 1950. Devonian Stromatoporelia and their stratigraphic significance. Voprosy Paleont. (in Russian) vol. 1: 243-263, pis. 1-6 1962. Gruppa Stromatoporoidea. in ORLOV, YU. A. ed., Osnovy paleontologii Spravochnik dlya paleontologov i geologov SSSR. /zdatelstvo Akad. Nauk. U.S.S.R. (in Russian) vol. 2: 157-167, pls. 1-9 ZUKALOVA, V., 1971. Stromatoporoidea from the Middle and Upper Devonian of the Moravian Karst. Rozpravy Ustredniho ustavu geo/. Prague vol. 37: 1-143, pls. 1-40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 REVISED PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE VALIDATION OF DITYLENCHUS FILIPJEV, 1936 (NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.) 1955 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In December 1971 Dr. P.A. Loof (Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen, Netherlands) and Dr. S.A. Sher (University of California, Riverside) published an application for the validation of the generic name Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 (Nematoda) by the suppression of Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 28: 112-113). Ditylenchus is widely used, not only in taxonomic, but also in agricultural and economic literature, for nematodes of economic importance: D. dipsaci (the type-species), the stem nematode; D. destructor, the potato-rot nematode; D. angustus, causing ufra disease in rice. Chitinotylenchus has been used for four species only doubtfully referred to the genus, of which the type-species, C. paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922, has never been reported since its first description. The synonymy of the two generic names is based on a re-examination by Sher, 1970 (UJ. Nemato/. vol. 2: 236-238) of the holotype female of C. paragracilis which, though flattened, is in fair condition. ' 2. In 1974 (Bull. 31: 110-111) Dr. Lemche added a clause to complete the detailed proposals to the Commission; and Dr. Loof provided 12 references to works by different authors since 1969 in which Ditylenchus had been used as a valid name. The application was suppoted by Dr. David Hooper (Rothamsted Experimental Station). 3. In June 1975, the Commission was invited to vote on this application and supported it by 19 votes to1. The Opinion has not been prepared because Dr. Dupuis, who voted for postponing a decision on the following grounds, said: “La nécessité de conserver Ditylenchus ne fait aucun doute, mais la proposition de supprimer Chitinotylenchus ne repose que sur une synonymie subjective, établie par un helminthologiste. Avant de décider cette suppression, j’'estime qu’il faut consulter d’autres spécialistes des nematodes des plantes et notamment: Michel Luc, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris; M.R. Siddiqui, Commonwealth Institute of Helminthology, St Albans; |. Andrassy, Egyetemi Aillatrendszertani Intezet, Budapest.” Dr. Mroczkowski, who abstained from voting, also thought that the case for regarding the respective type-species of Ditylenchus and Chitinotylenchus as congeneric had not been sufficiently made. 4. | accordingly wrote to the gentlemen named by Dr. Dupuis and asked for their advice on whether the Commission should preserve Ditylenchus by suppressing Chitinotylenchus, or by ruling that the junior name should be given precedence over the senior one by any zoologist who held both names to denote one taxon. My letter made it clear that advice was sought not on the end to be attained, but on the better of two alternative routes to it. The following replies were received: Bull. zool. Nomencli. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; Dr. Siddiqui: “| think the two genera are not synonymous for reasons given below. It should be noted here that the holotype specimen is the only known specimen of Chitinotylenchus paragracilis and is flattened although in fair condition, and that Sher (1970) based his proposed synonymy on the examination of this specimen only when he said: ‘appears to me to belong in the genus Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, as the only known specimen exhibits all the characters (as far as can be seen) of that genus’. “(a) The genus Ditylenchus (type-species D. dipsaci (Kuhn, 1857), ‘Filipjev, 1936) is a large group of species requiring a careful revision. Golden (1971, in Plant Parasitic Nematodes, vol. 1, edit. Zuckerman, Mai & Rohde, Academic Press) expresses his opinion about the type-species as ‘Many of the 30 or more synonyms of D. dipsaci may prove to be valid species when further studied’. “A revision of the group may reveal that the species in Ditylenchus represent more than one genus. A recently proposed genus, Diptenchus Khan and others, 1969, has been differentiated from Ditylenchus by its (1) differently shaped posterior oesophageal bulb, and (2) absence of a post-vulval uterine sac. Khan and others placed Diptenchus under TYLENCHIDAE (near Ditylenchus), Siddiqui (1971, Indian J. Nemato/. vol. 1: 25-43) under ANGUININAE next to Ditylenchus, and Golden (1971) placed it in his new subfamily DITYLENCHINAE. “In D. dipsaci a long post-vulval uterine sac ending in a rudiment of a posterior gonad is present. This feature has not been commented upon by Sher (1970) for C. paragracilis, but his illustrations A and C on: 237 show that a post-vulval sac is absent. In this respect, Chitinotylenchus resembles Diptenchus and differs from Ditylenchus. “(b) Chitinotylenchus paragracilis has, according to Sher (1970) ‘Stylet moderately developed; knobs elongated, sloping and separated distally’. This description of the stylet is closest to ‘stylet with furcate base’ which is depicted in Shers figure 1B and can be regarded as a generic character for Chitinotylenchus, as has been done for a long time. The stylet in Ditylenchus dipsaci is also moderately developed, but it has rounded, non-sloping basal knobs which are placed close together without even a notch at the base. The stylet in Diptenchus, on the other hand, is weakly developed, with inconspicuous knobs in the form of slight thickenings. Thus the stylet base is of a different type in each of the three genera. “(c) The holotype of C. paragracilis has, according to Sher, ‘ovary single, details obscure’. Thus it is not clear whether the ovary is of the Ditylenchus- type (simple with a row of oocytes) or of the Anguina-type (multiple rows of oocytes arranged about a rachis). “(d) The tail of the holotype of C. paragracilis as illustrated by Sher (1970) shows a long, hyaline, non-protoplasmic terminal portion which is unusual for Ditylenchus. “(e) It is difficult to identify Chitinotylenchus with Ditylenchus when information on the following is lacking: (i) Head-on view, and (ii) Male tail, for differentiation from insect-parasites Sychnotylenchus and Neoditylenchus; (iii) Uterus, spermatheca, ovary and sperms, to ascertain its relationship Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 with Ditylenchus and members of TYLENCHIDAE. Geraert & Kheiri (1970, Nematologica vol. 16: 197-202) have shown that Pseudhalenchus Tarjan, 1958, is very similar to Ditylenchus. Its type-species, P. anchilisposomus has a female gonad which is structurally similar to that of Ditylenchus, whereas its other species, P. minutus,has a gonad which resembles that of Tylenchus (TYLENCHIDAE); (iv) Cuticular lateral fields, number of incisures, presence of deirids, etc. These are always helpful in ascertaining the taxonomic position of tylenchid genera. “For these reasons it seems justified to reject Shers (1970) proposed synonymy of Chitinotylenchus with Ditylenchus and to recognise them as separate genera. The genus Ditylenchus will then not be threatened and there will be no need to apply for its protection. Chitinotylenhchus, it is urged, should not be suppressed by the Commission but should continue to be used by those zoologists who believe that it denotes a different genus from Ditylenchus. “| propose, as a result of your letter, to publish a note to the effect that Sher’s proposal to classify C. paragracilis as Ditylenchus is unacceptable.” Monsieur Luc: “L’examen du travail de Sher montre que, sans ambiguité, les deux genres Ditylenchus et Chitinotylenchus sont identiques. D’autre part, le nom du premier étant de loin le plus connu et, surtout, s’appliquant a plusieurs espéces €conomiquement importantes et mondialement répandues, il est 2mon avis essentiel de le conserver. Je suis donc tout a fait en faveur de la protection du nom de genre Ditylenchus. Je pense de plus que la situation serait beaucoup plus claire si le nom de Chitinotylenchus était complétement supprimé, suivant en cela |’opinion de Sher et de Loof.” Professor Andrassy: “| know well the paper of Sher in which he proposed to synonymise Chitinotylenchus with Ditylenchus. Sher - who is a very eminent scientist indeed - investigated the type-specimen (a single female) of C. paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922 and found it to be very similar to species of Ditylenchus. He said: ‘The holotype specimen of C. paragracilis appears to me to belong in the genus Ditylenchus.... The bifurcated stylet is not too different from stylets seen in the genus Ditylenchus’ (the bifurcation of the stylet would be the most important generic character differentiating the two genera). “What does this mean? And what can we see in Sher’s drawings? Only that C. paragracilis is similar to the species of Ditylenchus and probably belongs to them, but not more. The conclusion is not certain. First, Micoletzky’s specimen is only in a relatively fair condition (it is flattened and cleared), secondly, it is a single female and we do not know any males of this species, although the characteristics of the male would be of great importance precisely in the systematics of this group of Tylenchida. “My standpoint is therefore as follows: from the original description and the single flattened holotype, and from the lack of males, we cannot characterise the species C. paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922 as a valid species, or the genus Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 as a valid genus. Until the species has been redescribed on the basis of both male and female topotypes, we can regard Micoletzky’s species and genus only as species inquirenda and genus inquirendum, with a possible note that they belong perhaps to Ditylenchus. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “It is worth mentioning that the other four species described in or transferred to Chitinotylenchus are, in Sher’s opinion, species inquirendae.” 5. In the face of these three independent pieces of advice, it seems to me clear that the Commission ought to reconsider the question, and to vote, first, ° whether or not to use the plenary powers in this case. If the Commission declines to use its plenary powers, Chitinotylenchus will become the valid name for the genus now known to taxonomists and agricultural scientists as Ditylenchus - the opposite of the end sought by all who have contributed to the discussion so far. 6. If the Commission decides to use the plenary powers, it should then be offered a choice between two alternatives: either A, to reaffirm its former decision and suppres Chitinotylenchus (i.e. to adopt the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 28: 112-113 and vol. 31: 110), or, B: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the generic name Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 is to be given precedence over the generic name Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922, by any zoologist who believes both names to denote the same taxon; (2) to place the generic name Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 (gender: masculine), type-species, by original designation, Anguillula dipsaci Kuhn, 1857, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the endorsement specified in (1) above; (3) to place the generic name Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922, (gender: masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Filipjev, 1936, Chitinotylenchus paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with an endorsement that it is not to be given precedence over the generic name Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, by any zoologist who believes that both names denote the same taxon; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dipsaci Kuhn, 1857, as published in the binomen Anguillula dipsaci (specific name of type-species of Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936); (b) paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922, as published in the binomen Chitinotylenchus paragracilis (specific name of type-species of Chitinotylen- chus Micoletzky, 1922). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 REQUEST THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION RULE TO SUPPRESS FOWLER’S LECTOTYPE DESIGNATIONS OF ALBURNOPS PLUMBEOLUS COPE, 1865 AND HYPS/LEPIS CORNUTUS CERASINUS COPE, 1868 (PISCES, CYPRINIDAE) Z.N.(S.) 2154 By Carter R. Gilbert (The Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.) Recently (1971, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., vol.28 (5-6): 173-175), | submitted a petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, asking that various lectotype designations (mostly involving species of North American cyprinid fishes) proposed by Fowler (1909, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. [1908], vol. 60: 517-553; 1910, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad., vol..62: 273-293, pls. 15-21; 1918, Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, vol. 60: 1-51, pls. 1-13) be suppressed. The reasons for this request centred both around the ambiguous nature of these designations and the fact that for two species (A/burnops plumbeolus and Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus) the lectotypes selected represent species obviously different from those upon which the Original descriptions were based. 2. Collette and others (1972, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., vol. 29 (4): 198) subsequently recommended that this petition be denied on the grounds that each case should be evaluated on its own merits, and that wholesale rejection of Fowler's lectotypes would serve no useful purpose in those situations in which nomenclatural complications were not involved. They further stated that they likely would support a well-documented request to suppress those lectotype designations resulting in unwarranted name changes, and specifically mentioned Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus in this regard. A letter was received by me from the Secretariat of the Commission, indicating that Collette et al’s recommendation would be followed. The present petition, which is intended as a substitute for the above, is to request that Fowler’s lectotype designations for Alburnops plumbeolus Cope, 1865, and Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus Cope, 1868, be suppressed. The dates of publication of these names were analysed by Gilbert, 1971, Copeia (1971), No. 3: 474-479. 3. Of the seven specimens comprising the syntypic series of A/burnops plumbeolus Cope, 1865, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad, for 1864, vol. 16: 276-285 (ANSP 2055-2061), six are Notropis chrysocephalus (Rafinesque, 1820), and the seventh is Notropis heterodon(Cope, 1865). It is important to note here that the latter species was first described (as A/burnops heterodon) in the same paper as A. plumbeolus (Cope, 1865, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad., vol. 16: 276-285). The original description of A. plumbeo/us stressed pharyngeal-tooth and anal fin-ray counts (2,4-4,2 and 9, respectively), both of which are diagnostic of Notropis chrysocephalus but not N. heterodon (for which the same counts are usually 1,4-4,1 and 8). No mention was made of a distinct black lateral stripe, a feature characteristic of N. heterodon but not N. chrysocephalus, although this character was prominently mentioned in the original description of A/burnops heterodon. There can be no doubt that Cope’s description of A/burnops plumbeolus was based on the species now called Notropis chrysocephalus. —— Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. Fowler’s (1910: pl. 18, fig. 30) drawing of the “type” of A/burnops plumbeolus is calculated to be 44.2 mm standard length, which is very close to the actual length (43.7 mm SL) of the largest syntype (i.e., the specimen of Notropis heterodon), and several millimetres longer than any of the remaining syntypes (all Notropis chrysocephalus), the largest of which is 40.5 mm SL. This becomes especially significant when one considers that (a) Fowler habitually drew the largest specimen in a series, and (b) the illustrations appearing in Fowler's 1910 paper are remarkably accurate so far as body length is concerned. Furthermore, the figure of A. p/umbeolus clearly shows eight anal rays, whereas all six specimens of N. chrysocephalus in the syntypic series have nine. It seems obvious that the drawing in question was based on the individual of N. heterodon. 5. Forty-three syntypes of Hypsi/epis cornutus cerasinus Cope, 1868, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. for 1867: 159 (ANSP 3791-3833) are present, of which nine are Notropis cerasinus (as presently understood), and the remaining 34 are closely related Notropis albeolus. Despite the predominance of the latter species in the type-series, Cope’s original description obviously applies to N. cerasinus, as indicated by his reference to a form of “rather small size” (the largest known specimen of N. cerasinus is only 87.5 mm standard length, versus a maximum size of 130mm for N. albeo/us); the deep rose and brilliant crimson colour on the body and lower fins, respectively (these colours are much more subdued in N. a/beo/us); and 16 scales in front of the dorsal fin (usually from 20 to 22 in N. albeolus). The specimen illustrated by Fowler (1910: pl. 18, fig. 31) is calculated to be 99 mm standard length, which is close to the size of the largest specimen of N. a/beolus in the type series (97.5 mm SL), but substantially larger than the largest syntype of N. cerasinus (73 mm SL). Fowler's drawing of Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus clearly was based on a specimen of N. a/beolus. 6. Fowler's (1910) treatments and illustrations of A/burnops p/umbeolus and Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus fulfil the requirements for lectotype designations, according to Article 74b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Should these lectotypes be allowed to stand, unfortunate and unnecessary name changes would result. The specific name cerasinus, which has long been associated with the Crescent shiner (see Bailey et al, 1970, Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ., No. 6: 21), would now apply to the White shiner, Notropis albeolus Jordan, 1889, and a new name would be required for the former. Inasmuch as A/burnops plumbeolus and Alburnops heterodon were described in the same paper, it is conceivable that the former name could supplant the latter, depending upon the action of the first reviser. 7. In 1964 (Bull. Fla. St. Mus. biol. Sci. vol. 8(2): 95-194) | designated lectotypes for both Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus (p.137) and Al/burnops plumbeolus (p.160), this being done before the implications of Fowler's 1910 paper were apparent. Although different lectotype speciments from Fowler’s obviously are involved, the catalogue numbers are the same (H. c. cerasinus, ANSP 3791; A. plumbeolus, ANSP 2055). Because Fowler's designations appeared first, the above numbers logically should be reserved for his specimens, and new numbers must necessarily be assigned to mine. | therefore Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 propose that the 73.0 mm SL specimen selected by me as lectotype of H. c. cerasinus be recatalogued as ANSP 3833; the paralectotypes would retain the catalogue numbers ANSP 3792-3799, and the remaining syntypes, which are recatalogued as Notropis albeo/us, would be assigned the numbers ANSP 3791 (97.5 mm specimen) and 3800-3832. For A. plumbeolus, the 40.5 mm SL specimen selected by me should be recatalogued as ANSP 2061, the paralectotypes would retain the numbers 2056-2060, and the specimen of Notropis heterodon (Fowler's lectotype) would become ANSP 2055. 8. In summary, evidence is presented to show that lectotypes designated by Fowler (1910) for two forms of North American cyprinid fishes (A/burnops plumbeolus and Hypsilepis cornutuscerasinus)represent species different from those on which the original descriptions were based. Should these designations be accepted, specific name changes would be required for two species (Notropis cerasinus and Notropis albeolus), and a third species (Notropis heterodon) would be subject to change, depending upon the action of the first reviser. Inasmuch as such changes are totally unnecessary and inappropriate, and are not in line with presently accepted taxonomic practices, | hereby request the International Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the lectotype designation made by Fowler (1910) for the nominal species-group taxa A/burnops plumbeolus Cope, 1865and Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus Cope, 1868; (2) to place the following species-group names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements specified: (a) plumbeolus Cope, 1865, as published in the binomen A/burnops plumbeolus and as defined by the lectotype designated by Gilbert, 1964; (b) cerasinus Cope, 1868 as published in the combination Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus and as defined by the lectotype designated by Gilbert, 1964. 9. This application is supported by Dr. B.B. Collette and Dr. W.R. Taylor, co-chairmen of the nomenclature committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature’ CHLOROPHIS CARINATUS ANDERSSON, 1901, PROPOSED NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER PHILOTHAMNUS NIGROFASCIATUS BUCHHOLZ AND PETERS, 1875, ITS SENIOR SUBJECTIVE SYNONYM. (REPTILIA; COLUBRIDAE) Z.N.(S.) 2174. By Barry Hughes (University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana) The harmless African Green Snakes of the genus Phi/Jothamnus were last reviewed by Loveridge (1958) who listed nigrofasciatus Buchholz and Peters in the synonymy of Philothamnus semivariegatus nitidus (Gunther, 1863). In the course of a new revision of Philothamnus Smith, 1840 (with which Chlorophis Hallowel, 1857, was synonymised by Loveridge, 1951: 189), the type of nigrofasciatus was studied in the Zoologisches Museum, Humboldt Universitat, Berlin (where it is numbered 8320) and found to agree with the description of Buchholz and Peters except that the anal scale is entire, not divided. However, the type of nigrofasciatus is not a specimen of nitidus Gunther nor of semivariegatus Smith (1847), but of Chlorophis carinatus Andersson, 1901. Since Andersson established the name, carinatus has been used in the combination Chlorophis carinatus on 27 occasions in 18 journals by 15 different authors (cited by Loveridge, 1958: 60), and since Loveridge (1951a) in the. combination Philothamnus heterodermus carinatus on 8 occasions in 5 journals by 6 authors. In accordance with Article 79(b) of the Code approved by the XVII International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, in 1972, the following are a selection of “-at least 5 different authors and in at least 10 publications --” in which carinatus has been used during the past 50 years: HECHT, G. 1929 Zool. Anz. vol. 81: 331. WERNER, F. 1929 Zool. Jahrb. Syst. vol. 57: 100. WITTE, G.F. de 1933 Ann. Mus. Congo belge, Zool: (1) vol. 3: 80. SCHWETZ; J.1934 Rev. zoo/. bot. Afr. vol. 25: 380. LOVERIDGE, A. 1936 Fid Mus. nat. hist. (zool. ser.) vol. 22: 28. ——$——_—_——. 1936 Bull. Mus. comp. zool. Harv. vol. 79: 243. PITMAN, C.R.S. 1936 Uganda J. vol. 3: 274. BOGERT, C.M. 1940 Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 77: 51. MERTENS, R. 1941 Zool. Anz. vol. 135: 278. MONARD,A. 1951 Mem. Inst. fr. Afr. noire (1): 150. SOMNAHRONS —_— 2. Since its establishment nigrofasciatus Buchholz and Peters has been used on three occasions: by Matschie (1883: 212), Sjostedt (1897: 35) and Werner (1898: 209), but not once in this century. According to the Code, Article 23(a-b), nigrofasciatus should be referred to the Commission for a decision. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked:- (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name carinatus, as published in the combination Chlorophis carinatus Andersson, 1901, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name nigrofasciatus, aS published in the combination Philothamnus nigrofasciatus Buchholz & Peters, 1875, by any zoologist who considers that those names apply to the same zoological taxon. Having done so, (2) to place the specific name carinatus, as published in the combination Chlorophis carinatus Andersson, 1901, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the ruling that it has been granted nomenclatural precendenceover Philothamnus nigrofasciatus Buchholz & Peters, 1875; (3) to place the specific name nigrofasciatus Buchholz & Peters, 1875, as published in the binomen Philothamnus nigrofasciatus, onthe Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with an endorsement that it is not to be used in preference to the specific name carinatus Andersson, 1901, as published in the binomen Chlorophis carinatus by any zoologist who considers that both names apply to the same taxon. 4. | wish to acknowledge the advice and assistance generously given me by Dr. |.W.B. Nye, Member of the Commission. LITERATURE CITED ANDERSSON, L.G. 1901. Some new species of snakes from Cameroon and South America, belonging to the collections of the Royal Museum in Stockholm. Bih. K. svenska Vet. Akad. Handl. vol. 27(5): 1-26. BUCHHOLZ, R. & PETERS, W. 1875. Ueber die von Dr. R. Buchholz in Westafrika gesammelten Amphibien. Monatsb. Akad. Wiss. Berlin: 196-212. HUGHES, B. & BARRY, D.H. 1969. The snakes of Ghana: achecklist and key. Bull. Inst. fr. Afr. noire (A) vol. 31: 1004-1041. LOVERIDGE, A. 1951. On reptiles and amphibians from Tanganyika Territory collected by C.J.P. lonides. Buli. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol. 106: 177-204. 1951a. Synopsis of the African Green Snakes (Philothamnus inc. Chlorophis) with the description of a new form. Bull. Inst. R.Sci. nat. Belg. vol. 27 (37): 1-12. 1958. Revision of five African snake genera. Bul/. Mus. comp. zool. Harv. vol. 119(1): 1-198. MATSCHIE, P. 1893. Die Reptilien und Amphibien des Togogebietes. Mitt. Forschreis. Gelehrt. dt. Schutzgeb. vol. 6: 207-215. SJOSTEDT, Y. 1897. Reptilien aus Kamerun, West-Afrika. Bihang. t. k. Svenska Vet. Akad. Hand. vol. 23 (4): 1-36. WERNER, F. 1898. Ueber Reptilien und Batrachier aus Togoland, Kamerun und Tunis aus dem kgl. Museum fur Naturkunde in Berlin Il. Verh.Zoo/. -bot. Ges. Wien vol. 48: 191-213. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CALYMENE VARIOLARIS BRONGNIART, 1822 (TRILOBITA) : PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE IN HARMONY WITH CURRENT USE. Z.N.(S.) 2189. By R.P. Tripp (British Museum (Natural History), London), J.T. Temple (Brikbeck College, London) and K.C. Gass (Milwaukee, U.S.A.) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to designate the specimen figured by Murchison in 1839 (: 655, pl. 14, fig. 1) as neotype of Ca/ymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822 (: 14-15, pl. 1, figs. 3a-c). History of the case 1. Brongniart in 1822 (: 14-15, pl. 1, figs. 3a-c) figured two trilobites under the name Ca/ymene variolaris. Pl. 1, fig. 3a is of an extended dorsal shield of an encrinurid with fixigenal spine clearly visible. Fig. 3b is a right lateral view of an enrolled dorsal shield: that it belongs to the suborder Phacopina and not to the family ENCRINURIDAE is indicated by the large eye, in which the lenses are distinguishable. Fig. 3c is an enlargement of the lenses of the eye of the same specimen as fig. 3b. Brongniarfs diagnosis ends “angulis externo-posticis in mucrone productis”. The description states “sur leur angle extérieure une sorte d’appendice qui se prolonge sur les cotes de abdomen, jusque vers la sixiéme articulation”. 2. Murchison in 1839 (: 655, pl. 14, fig. 1) figured a dorsal exoskeleton of a trilobite under the name Ca/ymene variolaris Brong. (var. ?) pointing out that it differed from Brongniart's figure [3a] in lacking what would now be called fixigenal spines, and stating that it might represent a distinct form. 3. Burmeister in 1846 (: 114) restricted Brongniart’s variolaris to his figures 3a, c only (although these do not represent the same species) and quoted Murchison’s pl. 14, fig. 1 in synonymy. Further on (p. 115) he wrote “I propose. however, to retain the name of Ca/ymene variolaris for Murchison’s species so-called, this being probably distinct; but | shall transfer the still older name C. punctata to the Calym. variolaris of Brongniart, which at an earlier period was certainly known by that name”. 4. Salter in 1848 explicitly referred Brongniart’s fig. 3b (not 3a) and Murchison’s pl. 14, fig. 1 to Cybele variolaris (Brongniart). 5. Fletcher in 1850 (: 403-404) listed Brongniart’s pl. 1, fig. 3a in the synonymy of ‘Cybele punctata Wahlenberg’, and Brongniart’s fig. 3b in the synonymy of ‘Cybele variolaris Brongniart, sp.’. 6. All subsequent authors have applied the name variolaris to the encrinurine species represented by Murchison’s pl. 14. fig. 1, even though the species was not figured by Brongniart. No lectotype or neotype of variolaris has yet been designated. 7. Brongniart’s pl. 1, fig. 3a is from a drawing by [Charles] Stokes of a Dudley specimen in the Johnson Collection but the specimen is now not to be Bull. zool Nomencli. vol 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 found in any of the museums known to hold parts of this collection. Brongniart himself stated that he did not know the whereabouts of the original of his figs. Bb; C: 8. The species figured in Brongniart’s pl. 1, fig. 3a was re-figured by Buckland in 1836 (p.74, pl. 46, fig. 6) and named Asaphus tuberculatus. This figure probably represents Brongniart’s specimen. Encrinurus tuberculatus (Buckland) has been recognised by Tripp (1962, p. 467) as a valid name for a species in the group of Encrinurus punctatus (Wahlenberg, [1818]) (for the suppression of Trilobus punctatus Brinnich, 1781, and the validation of Wahlenberg’s specific name, see Opinion 537, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. vol. 20: 41-56). 9. If Brongniart’s species were to be restricted to his fig. 3a (a procedure that would be in accordance with Brongniart’s original interpretation as indicated by his diagnosis) the name variolaris would apply to a different encrinurine species from that for which it has been used for over a century, and Buckland’s name would become a junior objective synonym. 10. If, on the other hand, Brongniart’s species were to be restrreted to his figs. 3b, c the name variolaris would apply to an unidentified member of the Phacopina. 11. The trilobite to which the name Encrinurus variolaris (sensu Murchison) has been applied is the well known “strawberry-headed” trilobite of Dudley, familiar to the early collectors, and widely represented in museum collections. The following is a selection of references in the literature: 1846 Calymene variolaris Brongn.; Burmeister, pp. 114-115. 1848 Cybele variolaris Brongniart (part); Salter, p. 344. 1850 Cybele variolaris Brongniart sp.; Fletcher, pp. 404-405, pl. 32, figs. 6-10. 1851 Zethus variolaris Brong. sp. : MCoy, pp. 157-158. 1853 Encrinurus variolaris Brong. sp.; Salter, p. 7. pl. 4, figs. 13, 14. 1871 Encrinurus variolaris Brongniart; Baily, pp. 67-68, pl. 23, fig. 3. 1878 Cryptonymus variolaris Brongniart; Vogdes, p. 21, pl. 1, figs. 6-10; pl. 3. figs. 13, 14 (reproductions of Salter 1853, pl. 4, figs. 13, 14). 1884 Encrinurus variolaris; La Touche, pl. 10, fig. 253. 1907 Cryptonymus variolaris Brongn.; Vogdes, p. 74, pl. figs. 1-9, non fig. 10 (figs. 1-4, 7-9 reproductions of Fletcher 1850; figs. 5-6 of Salter 1853). 1917 Cryptonymus variolaris; Vogdes, pl. 3, figs. 1-9 (reproduction of Vogdes 1907. pl. 3). 1954 Encrinurus variolaris (Brongniart); Temple, pp. 315-318, text-figs. 1, 2. 1962 Encrinurus variolaris (Brongniart); Tripp, pl. 65, figs. 17-20. 1972. Encrinurus (Frammia) variolaris (Brongniart, 1822); Schrank, pl. 13, fig. 8. 1973 Encrinurus variolaris (Brongniart 1822); Clarkson and Henry, pp. 123-125 figs. 12-16. 12. In order to avoid the necessity for a change in current nomenclature, we recommend that the specimen figured by Murchison as Ca/ymene variolaris Brong. (var.?) be designated as neotype of Ca/ymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822. Since Murchison’s specimen is clearly not conspecific with either of Brongniart’s syntypes of Ca/ymene variolaris it is necessary for Plenary Powers 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to be invoked for validation of this designation. Murchison’s specimen is now preserved in Birmingham University Museum under the number BU 55. It is from the Much Wenlock Limestone Formation of Dudley, andis figured ina paper submitted to the journal Pa/aeonto/ogy by the authors of this application. A label has been affixed to the specimen stating that it has been selected as the neotype of Ca/ymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822, and that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been asked to validate this selection under its Plenary Powers. 13. In the light of the foregoing, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :- (1) touse its plenary powers to rule that Ca/ymene vario/aris Brongniart, 1822, is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype specimen designated above; (2) to place the specific name vario/aris Brongniart, 1822, as published in the binomen Ca/ymene variolaris, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with an endorsement that the neotype of the species isthe specimen designated above. REFERENCES BAILY, W.H. 1871. Figures of characteristic British fossils (Palaeozoic Division), with descriptive remarks, Part 3. London BRONGNIART, A. 1822. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés fossiles...Les Trilobites. Paris, 154 pp. BUCKLAND, W. 1836 Geology and mineralogy considered with reference to natural theology. Bridgewater Treatise 2, London, 128 pp. BURMEISTER, H. 1846. The organization of trilobites deduced from their living affinities; with a Systematic Review of the Species hitherto described. Ray Society, London, x+ 136 pp. CLARKSON, E.N.K., and HENRY, J.-L. 1973. Structures coaptives et enroulement chez quelques Trilobites ordoviciens et siluriens. Lethaia vol. 6: 105-132, figs. 1-16. FLETCHER. TW. 1850. Observations on Dudley Trilobites. Part 2. Quart. J. geo/. Soc. vol. 6: 402-405 LA TOUCHE, J.D. 1884. A handbook of the Geology of Shropshire. London. M'COY, F. 1851. Systematic description of the British Palaeozoic Fossils in the Geological Museum of the University of Cambridge. Fasc. 1. MURCHISON. R.I. 1839. The Silurian System. London, xxxii + 768 pp. SALTER, J.W. 1848. Palaeontological Appendix. Mem. geol. Surv. U.K. vol. 2, (1) : 331-352. —— 1853. Figures and Descriptions illustrative of British organic remains, Decade 7. Mem. geol. Surv. U.K. SCHRANK, E. 1972. Proetacea, Encrinuridae und Phacopina (Trilobita) aus silurischen Geschieben. Geologie vol. 21: 1-117. TEMPLE, J.T. 1954. The Hypostome of Encrinurus variolaris and its Relation to the Cephalon. Geo/. Mag. vol. 91: 315-318. TRIPP, R.P. 1962. The Silurian trilobite Encrinurus punctatus (Wahlenberg) and allied species. Palaeontology vol. 5: 460-477. VOGDES, A.W. 1878. A monograph on the genera Zethus, Cybele, Encrinurus and Cryptonymus. Charleston. 35 pp. ——— 1907. The genus Encrinurus; \ts History, Its Species, Its Proper Divisionin the Family of Trilobites. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. vol. 1: 61-83. ——1917. Palaeozoic Crustacea - The publications and notes on the genera and species during the past twenty years, 1895-1917. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. vol. 3;1-141 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 PROPOSED DIRECTION TO AMEND THE DATE OF ENTOMOSTRACITES PUNCTATUS WAHLENBERG (TRILOBITA) FROM 1821 TO [1818] (OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY No. 1595) Z.N.(S.) 2205. By The Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In Opinion 537 (1959, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. vol. 20: 41-56), the Commission validated the specific name Entomostracites punctatus Wahlenberg, 1821 [sic], designated a lectotype for that species, and designated it as type-species of the nominal genus Encrinurus Emmrich, 1844 - all by the use of its plenary powers. Yet in the accompanying application on Ca/ymene variolaris Brongniart (Z.N.(S.)2189), the applicants refer to “Encrinurus punctatus (Wahlenberg, 1818)”, and there seems little doubt that they are right todo so. The acceptance of that date involves a change in the date attributed to punctatus, Entomostracites, Wahlenberg, when it was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1595 by the ruling in Opinion 537. The evidence is as follows. 2. Wahlenberg’s Petrificata Telluris Svecanae appeared in two parts in the Nova Acta R. Soc. Sci. Upsal. vol. 8: 1-116, and (as Additamenta ad Pet. Tell. Suec. ) : 293-296. The first, and main part of the work bears no date on its title-page, although the title-page of the whole volume bears the date 1821. The Additamenta, which are dated 1821, open with the words: “Postquam anno 1818 impressa fuerat Commentatic de Petrificatis Svecanis...”. This shows that the first part was at least printed in 1818 and, since it formed part of a serial publication, the presumption must be that it was published immediately. 3. Lindstrom (1884, Ofvers. k. Vetensk. Akad. Forh. Stockh., Ny Foljd, vol. 19 (2), No. 6, 250 pp.) said in a footnote reviewing the date of Wahlenberg’s work (: 111-112): “The date of most of the species published by Wahlenberg must be changed to 1818 instead of 1821, as has so often been used. His memoir ‘Petrificata Telluris Svecana’ [sic] in the eighth volume of the ‘Acta Societatis Regiae Scientiarium’ was indeed printed already in 1818, as Wahlenberg himself says in the beginning of the ‘Additamenta’ to that memoir, p. 293 of the same volume. The statement there given is: “Postquam anno 1818 impressa fuerat Commentatio de Petrificatis Svecanis’ etc. The memoir had also been early enough distributed by its author to some geologists, as can be perceived by what Brongniart says in his ‘Crustaces fossiles’ (1822), p. 2, viz. *...M. Wahlenberg, dont le travail n’est venu a ma connaissance qu’en 1819’. But on the title page of volume VIII, containing the collected memoirs and papers, the year 1821 is printed, as it was not issued complete before that year.” 4. Vogdes (1890, Bul/. U.S. geo/. Surv., No. 63: 70), in a comprehensive bibliography of Palaeozoic “Crustacea”, gave a double reference to Wahlenberg’s work. Under the first, he said: “Wahlenberg (Geo.) Petrifcata telluris Suecana, Upsaliae 1818. This work was published and distributed in 1818 as a separate article, in advance of the Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci., vol. 8, 1821.” In the second he said “----Petrificata telluris Suecana examinata a Georgio Wahlenberg. In Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Upsal., vol. 8, 1821, pp. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 33, parts 3/4, March 1977 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1-116, pls. 1-4." Vogdes gives no source for his information, but it may be significant that he gives the spelling “Suecana’”, and that Lindstrom gave the spelling ‘““Svecana”, both in place of the original ““Svecanae”. The two men may thus have been in communication on the subject. 5. There is an undated pencil note in the British Museum (Natural History) copy of vol. 8 of the Nova Acta Soc. Reg. Sci. Upsa/. at the head of Wahlenberg’s paper: “This ‘tract’ was received by the K. Vet.-Ac. Handl. in 1819: see that volume. Vogdes quotes it as 1818, see also J. de Phys. xci.”” The receipt of Wahlenberg’s work is indeed recorded in K. Vet. Acad. Handi. for 1819, 1819: 307. Vol. 91 of the J. de Phys., 1822, contains a lengthy French translation of the work, but nothing material about the date. 6. The various bits of evidence here presented are quoted by Bassett & Cocks, 1974, Fossils and Strata, No. 3: 40 and by Hughes, C.P. and others, 1975, Phil. Trans. roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, vol. 272, No. 920: 604, but nothing new is added. 7. The two strongest bits of evidence in favour of 1818 as the year of publication are (a) Wahlenberg’s own statement that the main work was printed in 1818, and (b) Brongniart’s remark: ‘...M. Wahlenberg, whose work only came to my knowledge in 1819”, implying an earlier date. The fact that the receipt in Stockholm of a work published in Uppsala was announced in 1819 is not very weighty evidence. There seem sufficient grounds, however, for citing the date as [1818] on external evidence, and it is recommended that the Commission alter the date of Name No 1595 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, punctatus, Entomostracites Wahlenberg, accordingly. Ackery, P.R. Archer, M. Bass, A.J. Bohart, R.M. Broadley, D.G. Brooke, R.K. Brown, L.E. Cernohorsky, W.O. Clemens, W.A. Compagno, L.J. Corbet, G.B. Cornelius, P.F. Cranston, P.S. Dagg, A.|. Delson, E. Dempster, L.J. Eisenmann, E. Fletcher, D.S. Follett, W.1. Freidberg, A. Funk, R.S. Gilbert, C.R. Heppell, D. Hershkovitz, P. Higgins, L.G. Hill, J.E. Hoffstetter, R.J. Holthuis, L.B. Hubbs, C.L. Huber, J.T. Hughes, B. Hutson, A.M. Ingles, J.M. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Page 145 Jeekel, C.A. 218 127 Jeffords, R.M. 69 4 Kashin, G.N. 144 68,72 Kohn, A.J. 4 214 Kudrna, O. 145 4,8,144,192 Kugler, J. 208 195 Lea, R.N. 90 3,190 Lemaire, C. 139 212 Lemche, H. 3,72 70 ~=Lindquist, E.E. 146 136 72 Manson, D.C. 147 39 Marshall, L.G. 212 Meester, J. 149 137 Melville, R.V. 98, 105, 150, 241, 253 46, 85,149 Menke, A.S. 68 142 = Miller, D.R. 118 6,143 Napier, P.H. 46, 136, 149 Nye, |.W.B. 137 137 70,142 Pascual, R. 212 208 Patterson, B. 212 195 Peters, D.S. 10 Pulawski, W.J. 71 245 Ramsay, G.W. 147 144 Robb, J. 204 135 Robins, C.R. 90, 142 145 Riley, N.D. 145 136 Roth, B. 144 2V2 9,136,148,150 St. Jean, J. (Jr.) 233 70 Shapiro, A.M. 221 10 Siveter, D.J. 61 248 Smith, Hobart M. 73, 195 39 Smith Meyer, M.K. 147 Smith, R.B. 73 136 Smithers, R.H. 150 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Page Stimson, A.F. 204 Vane-Wright, R.|I. 39 Sylvester-Bradley, P.C. 61 Tedford, R.H. 212 Watson, A. 137 Temple, J.T. 250 White, G.B. 228 Thomas, R.A. 216 Wild, R. 124 Tortonese, E. 9 Williams, D.J. 118 Tripp, R.P. 250 Wood, S.L. 4 Turnbull, W.D. 212 Underwood, G. 204 Zimmermann, E.C. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Opinion Page 1055 Gryllus hieroglyphicus, Johannes Mueller (enyorologiat); BUppressed * .-) sc. ke ee eee penne 11 1056 Eudyptes atratus Finsch, 1875 ex Hutton MS, suppressed .... 16 1057 Donax variabilis Schumacher, 1817, suppressed ............ 19 1058 Papilio actaeon Fabricius, 1775, suppressed ............... 22 1059 Calamopora Goldfuss, 1829, suppressed .................. 24 1060 Diomedea leptorhyncha Coues, 1866, suppressed ........... 27 1061 Homoceras Hyatt, 1884, type-species for .................. métZ2Q 1062 Anobium Fabricius, 1775, Grynobius Thomson, 1859, Priobium Motschulsky, 1845, type-species for .............. 31 1063 Lechriodus Boulenger, 1882, type-species for .............. 34 1064 Ptenura Templeton, 1844 and crystallina, Podura, Me Ie OaSUDDICSSEG so ccc ssye 6 acavajemm pumce apeuni t Sea ee a peiids 36 1065 Polyzonium germanicum Brandt, 1837, conserved: Platyulus audouinii Gervais, 1836, suppressed ............. 151 1066 Lyda a/ternans Costa, 1859, given precedence over Lydainanis Kiuig,.1808 iezwee, Sept e Po) STS PO 155 1067 Delphinus pernettensis de Blainville, 1817 and D. pernettyi Desmarest, 1820, suppressed ................. 157 1068 LEPTOSOMATIDAE in Aves and Nematoda: resolution of MATIVONMAVINEY? Neral’ ctevera ercvorsis cas abs, lenis Ste a theta oR Te eee re 159 1069 THRAUPIDAE (Aves), correction of authoranddate ......... 162 1070 Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 given precedence over Pterodactylus crassipes von Meyer, 1857 ... 165 1071 LIOPELMATINA emendation to LEIOPELMATIDAE .......... 167 1072 Hyla crucialis Harlan, 1826, refusal of FEGHeStTorSUppression |... ....5....+5« + Sas dines eats 170 1073 RIODINIDAE Grote, 1895 (1827), validated ................. 172 1074 Murex rana bubo Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type-species of Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 .................- 174 1075 Striglina Guenée, 1877 given precedence over Daristane Walker, Se ee cao acces a ecere: o ayni's: b ioum, « RN ee es ERT ea eee 176 1076 Procyon brachyurus Wiegmann, 1837 and Procyon obscurus Wiegmann, 1837, refusal of request for suppression ........ 179 1077 Cynocephalus Boddaert, 1768, refusal of request for SUP GESSIOMN? «xia cee ne a wiei's, $m indal's m wrsyere man) els inrehisita tome ray’ eet Ree eta 182 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO KEY NAMES IN NEW AND REVIVED CASES AND COMMENTS IN THIS VOLUME Page. AGANTHOCOGGIDAE Signoret 1875.4. 283 RE... 2 GN OS. ERR. 119 Acanthacoccus Signoret,. UBS... 6 snc.2 ao teen POORER ote ers ta emeeeee hae 119 ACETIC WEITCU ROFS FAs ce anni caer da a ton cee ss Sis soesa toe ca) oo tase nr 147 aGENS,; ACANtMOCOCCUS, SIGNONEt, VOCS ot cc. act cee cate e+ cma s us eu pieinie a a su nites fe poe 121 acuta; Pieurocera, -Ratinesque; teat 2... Lire. 2 eae ae lO. SLE ee 106 AGYONIDABAmeghino, 1889 haeseetaeaiesos * oe. fo TS Deets. hue 212 Agigia Renier; (BOT: S:s5 S664 6 Pega es ec Se Oe oe Hos Late coe eee Ob ee 3 VNC] SH OY Sl 4] fo} 0} Ema lt (2 on AL: ?: 9 a. a ES Eo aN 3 ATIC VICE MULOSEMEN HO rat co Sa heat. eo mercies PORE teee te ww Sea eed ce ete oa so Sie iets eee 109 Arniiropopithecus|Blainville, 1838 Yeo. Doses | ree ee Co) ot tee. Doe URE te aes 136 APARALLAGTINAE-Bourgeoie;19G8 s.\diqecses..255.% ..c12O ee RRR Soe 74 Aparallacrus: Smith, 1849 — cst capetragissneys omieet: eek. cousins iw bebe ea aoe 82 AQRUAGIDAEIDINDONGHE! MOR S ocr acre nis tp tiegars ease pes apainus aucnsys imate on, koepa baa eeer 144 CIRGHSimgevallo1Gsa tAVES) Sse cs as ces ccs Bc eon bisa e a cl owe scales ple papers 144 GIRCOINAE Sundeyalll, UWB3G\(AVES), <5 coi. ee arcane we wets w wictinie’e la stare 5 Bobet a dhe mes os 144 CIRGINAE: Dall. 1895 (Mollusca) MR ax. Sis)... cae ekiity geasulgloeats eye. « 143 GIRCINAE SUNGEVEN: VE OG oon sie saiauke aueretuaern sine Sapasr,'s bpacin © Satta aa. «peakepysppeuneud ete 143 PNCUSILAGHROUG COO daca crartartotis cera ie) 0. ocala ees wiecauatem © 0 leo Ja,0.6 maga s'Reieretiouaeraraieie ats epee 143 COLOBIDAEBIVIN. TETa ete. arc foe en eles ei aa ewele sae s Meta s anes chien eco tena 85 GTB Br TSB US UTE acpi watts eee Sys weve secre 6 a adiar Sse rwi's fos 2701s :ig levaitalle iadalin: eRe Oe a oN de 81 GOLUBRIDAE Cone) Tai injects wristas fia 2laopa ace varais ciaacs wlalie ls ave isveebaanse @ ores ORO, Sane 74 conspicuus, Fanystropheus; Hi. von Mayer, 1852. wn... 66. aire since vine own wine © ohana 125 constricta, Sminthopsis murina var, Spencer, 1896 ........... 0.0. cece eee eee eee ees 127 constrictor, Coluber: Linnaeus, VISB oii. ajec.cc & otsterece syste 6 isle chalet niet cle, wen dpaiiere seinen 82 Corus, Bruna; ROEGING, 1798) ois 8a ic resi taa didn scare oie wishele ee erie cee » claw eiee eeneen 190 GOtvie Baie, TBLB 5.6 caso ce More wis) apchaler eal ate ei@ie Mean cane duh. dune) syel.0,e eiles(eim mbiol oo etereuciaie ars ean 192 eynocephalus, Sima; innaeus; W766 aac aie. a <= aoe ole 5 soph oe ce ties el wore mo ee oye Clete cae 49 ezizeki, Tipula, de Jong, PBS ce riere ccs aw ahs, scepeRlecs Be nace: ole erPme tai aatca aia ahees ee 44,150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 Page SRE AEST Ed CYCELU LEA LER MAI EL\ y (SOG Aenl is pls oS} as vnyou'ss's v1 a. ec davenss op oosan guaucaguual vas bedaeee, Bigaed cuota ena hes 6 244 TIS EGY, OGG oo aire tes Petes eas» civ ds << = 0: ¥stpaeipepsuegatiie taeniaedina MG aud ba bik uc ooo ake 241 SRI ae ETAT A ORC T a B Voce meatier si cisss. «'s:/c\ sv va,«. » Geaceyana uiathiaen eho meeh agetetae, on ad elainle. sla evade 3 Sa RER MO MATA CESS END) ete PORE ST aac e.coiav ofao aU hve’ «coo 2 vero cuhseumste toa epiewton iuxt cares ooh aucacwane 3 aR PEaPaEEEIMPUSE SLES ETE Sa ede TRS APE o's as eval aove, SieSs eo a 4 deeaepipe cg nah dees AGL kate Als con enianach 190 Ree REET TSEREEIETROTEAs CACC A croton ck te eT tade eee aics oo, aoc:'e «oy sce sve cle da. ovz Grote, obphopl alece See canes 10,71 EPESPSETEIONE OE Te, cc erin Perce ees io aoa) as «ou. gpitdyahnia, cis assieite. elesacaler's asare cabs aMehe Shoe 73 Pea REMETESERELTED ESL ALTA MUL Se rete re aint vi sie ono. 2y% Site ve i -e.capabchona eayn,saatentss “ap ducre ussalcusiev aiid 190 SRE ITAIENCET OU a errerers Sits < tote rys avsigs +e yd sible o ove. opémbile: Sas aleyelaciiew gas ekaneasm Ne ne oa 73 MRE SUES TIT ELITTASTICS RGN sis 5 Aghys or. 6 css Gos cw «nine gounsrk Suess 4s, «04g mle atone suctalaisueene 86 ESN SOCKONON EOS eae csc a8 dims: bie: ceive 0 wiv eehtsa eis aere © 0,07") oattadein dudseunagtiobecie 119 Pees TACO Mi VOZZERy POOR eth e iby a Heo Lener® pimpapa; anaes alauapniersneus 40 STN A IKONODKOW HO SAG 10.0.0 5 acic 10, s1a) ee ele ed ove rose) o) qudiangn ensajeeeat auc ipisitie atin oe 145 PULA IIN AE IKOTODNOV MODAN correc suse eGrecocc es ove ace 6 ealenavele sus Seca) e SMsbeIe ys ats: ycalmcene 145 geniculata, Anculosa (Lithasia) Haldeman, 1840... 2... ee eee nas: ET TEEMEL EPSOM ATV IFAP) HRM Te terete say Seliccere sorta ss eecres bay eyananers agevenelane sie vies ’aett SGMBRE Ree: ieee 90 SETA EICS Oi eet tet des -aioss s.0.d0 eel faacicrares apc avacee Doce Sark cas 4.0 eee eee 208 granulata, Stromatoporella (Nicholson), 1873 ........... cece eee eee eee eee eee eee 233 aecina, MERLE EMMMACU SHUG, sa .s. 2 c.s: ors) 0 1 6. 6's jews twa a.a' oo Sha ehepeees hoa alana aeeenebets 72 ARERR ORG en OS, Penner eae PI 0. 8 a)'5.08 sco 10 oo, & ase w arave ve) agplighina, da secgra.yh b 6-0, 5) pig akepecouagaseraie 72 momorelaps (auctorum) Boulenger, 1896 ...... 2... cece ccc cee em ane ce aun nies emes 73 MPATSSOI PI STUAN : VODON cette smn Ws a suc o.9 5, x00 bade le muere © altura > oiayaimaes peanteeMouaela cea 73 EAE HO RAEN Ate T TERI OAG. «cic. c o o,5 10.4. icra. © w aust duekpreta, armen 6 400 eh deme erayecereaeanes asi ta 82 Pea ATTOUIG, VOOM me nteicc. sv. aie acs as wee Sens wd aracdee pis bi eres (ote 6 cage nena s oewee Teta 76 MRIHE TEIIIIET. OMA TOURS dic ccc 92.5.6 +00 o-3:576 6 od weaning cia dis ben ce gibaolesauele neni aes mua 82 meer! ETETNODNOTUS, GIGHON, WOOO... 5). son's ccs ce.6.8 »cpeleess oy500 0 a ie) peers hokage 9 kloedeni, Beyrichia, M’Coy, 1846 ...................-.. Mae Ente Up eE OF. 61 PRIMM SV AGOIUDET, LINNACUS) TMOG) ss. 2s-c4.0c 0 sas om «eave Mme ue pala ae fa aged crmueeave ale 82 fammiscatus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758". . ... ......% «0 srawsses aoisis esane aude aleucec aween «aruda 75 SUPRA STAA LINES os, fare dsia isons os aw 0. + b2é:Wi via oo dws Rs Bp rouse Sie ehecare ote em aes ee 136 SEMOLVO GODS FIRZINGOG, TOSS os, 5.0ps.o.2-5:4 004-4 are) ace odie wae asanaie'y wa 4 OER een cata aoe ne ee 204 rg, Meterouerd, GOOper, 1955 .. .....'.< +s adepacce saaiama triads «patna aleiayerena a 70 SRAM OMASTON, VOOS. cist oa) cane blace ares «0 snc ee pinto dicen gs See athe bele cies eee 4 oo OEEHEN ALA CGE lM aa ene ae OE eb Coys Scie oe. 106 SPTX, CHEDE): TOOL) os 5s 6s Scialilen dsiaw ames wcicid scien Sid Oo wee MEeESee otros 228 Seuproeceresaurus, Haughton, 1918)... e206 ocinpediesta~ sams arate oleae a ehenias ck 124 Macroscelosaurus, H. von Meyer, [1852] ................eeeeeeeeeeeeetceeeeennaes 124 major, Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia, Linnaeus, 1758 ..............0 cece cece ec eees 138 PEROLMIUSIFITQEN , VE24: ois dom clay ocpnmi eS aera b's.cis, svaye: joss asd SRE. shone re aeeimeere hae ERIS 47 methwoldensis, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 ... 1... ccc cee ec ee cee eee w sees 70 guerosiriata, Pieris napi, COMStOCk, 1925 - ... .. ..... aapicuye nee YP Os « igo she oie eae 221 TS TELCOS NTE TET ai ICS Pe i a IR CE ae eR Se ee ee 73 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page. minor, Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia, PIAA SOUS, WTB oo visinns james» ones Joe ee 138 mitrata, Presbytis, ESONSNORA AOI ST n tee, en OR I es 87 molochina, Psammophis, Berthiele, FOAG ie leo. eds ee 216 moluccensis, Conus, A RN ea ee EI AN a 4 multilineatus, Typhlops; eNOS IGG oo a ain'y earned cds hate 204 SAA ON OS ee Ee ER hE 221 nattereri, Philodryas, sisindaghner, TSO (fi cae ee 216 nigricans, Genypterus, ERIND BE VERT oe. oene Sune Soc edn eee 92 nigricans, Typhlops, SOME TBS oo oe a's alclv Ses + Uls'sueme bce 206 nigrofasciatus, Philothamnus, Buchholz & PeLelS 1875 eo. caged ane eee eee 248 BE re PE VERB in cons S28 ee rN Se AEE a De 9,71 Pree RA MORBRUE STEEN Coo ose adhe hd, ee 39,150 ENON o eros ngndecaded neces, ee ee 10,71 Seg LL Se a ener fe 109 Be ONE TEI ae swnastin S60. =. co. Oe a 110 pplndose, Tipula, Fabricius, 1794 ees ne A 40 geiudosa, Tpite, Meigen, WID |. feo. Ss docstoc 40,150 PAMORGD BIB 4: Seipiogh. Yyes- < 85 PeILBeCHS. OUSMIATOST Gee y an). 75/-1 2 2 47 + +, chapagaraaiacels laleia a Nit ieee sited AUOP et ta came 85 Seno NOrPHORIDAE Newport, 1844 (Diplopoda) .... .«.ssescseny re ecayceacvenens ennepasenetthakuounsts ys 219 SRGHOD MONA Orandt Oot (I PIGPOGa), ... .. . » -. Se REeRAe 209 frogioawvies, sinvia, Blumenbachs F079) nny... ... TOS? eee Ee. Qn. ae 135 RUDE CHATS, BatiusS WMIOGEN ph 8O4i wecricsice plow lds os ss. sss. RUS ds aad ee A 61 fvpnina Vag nlSsO tact. gros wee stevie ss. cess sos Se ieee, eRe. 205 Shes Hhinigdon.: Smith 828 a468 . 2: das. aes...) 8 RRS. igeahh Ao .euletas eh oe 71 MinGde, MeCLerogelanCOOPC ODO BA: ous oa es oso o's ROE aed. Oe, ee 70 BineulanuswhapasHanans Vee Op tesms.. «cs eheul sinc <2 ss sss «so REE he gate, meee). he 195 Variolaris, Calymene, BTONOMIiai See sscns dh. . 2s ss. < PIR © sistas Mk ~ ce aeeneis a ngs 250 verrucosa, Plevrocera, Rafinesque at 820). on... . . .. . SUbgh fe speteals - erwlaee evaeL otrapels 106 virescens, RanaivitescCens, GODC, A889 ccccriu.s-. 05s -- Slee vied He -eunlia@eh une 201 WHESCENS, Mana; CODEC, 1889 oss ye ks coe es os RAD. ouneueeet els an ebeeeree = Rae 195 eenmniniaOchsenheimer, 1816) ....0)....... .etgtee® «i ceed poe Beeaen® do eek 145 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 33. Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Anobium Fabricius, 1775 Cynocephalus Boddaert, 1768 Daristane Walker, 1859 Grynobius Thomson, 1859 Heteromurus Wankel, 1860 Homoceras Hyatt, 1884 Latona Schumacher, 1817 Lechriodus Boulenger, 1882 Leiopelma Fitzinger, 1861 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology acteon, Papilio, von Rottemburg, 1775 alternans, Lyda, Costa, 1859 alveolaris, Calamopora, Goldfuss, 1829 asper, Favosites, d’Orbigny, 1850 brachyurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837 bubo, Murex rana, Linnaeus, 1758 carpini, Anobium, Herbst, 1793 crassipes, Pterodactylus, von Meyer, 1857 crucialis, Hyla, Harlan, 1826 cuneatus, Donax, Linnaeus, 1758 discolor, Cuculus, Hermann, 1783 elongatum, Leptosomatum, Bastian, 1865 excavatum, Anobium, Kugelann, 1791 germanicum, Polyzonium, Brandt, 1837 hieroglyphicus, Decticus, Klug, 1832 hochstetteri, Leiopelma, Fitzinger, 1861 Leptosomatum Bastian, 1865 Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816 Paleofavosites Twenhofel, 1914 Polyzonium Brandt, 1837 Priobium Motschulsky, 1845 Riodina Westwood, [1851] Striglina Guenée, 1877 Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 inanis, Lyda, Klug, 1808 irrorata, Diomedea, Salvin, 1883 lithographica, Archaeopteryx, von Meyer, 1861 lysippus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758 margaritarius, Heteromurus, Wankel, 1860 melanopyga, Asterophrys, Doria, 1875 obscurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837 punctatus, Ptinus, de Geer, 1774 robustus, Eudyptes, Oliver, 1953 scitaria, Drepanodes, Walker, 1862 sclateri, Eudyptes, Buller, 1888 smithii, Goniatites, Brown, 1841 tibiaria, Daristane, Walker, 1859 variabilis, Donax, Say, 1822 volans, Lemur, Linnaeus, 1758 Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology LEIOPELMATIDAE Mivart, 1869 (Amphibia) POLYZONIIDAE Newport, G.V. 1844 LEPTOSOMATIDAE Filipjev, 1916 (Nematoda) RIODINIDAE Grote, 1895 (1827) (Lepidoptera) LEPTOSOMIDAE Blyth, 1838 (Aves) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Calamopora Goldfuss, 1829 Galeopithecus Pallas, 1783 Leptosoma Bonaparte, 1850 Liopelma Ginther, 1868 THRAUPIDAE Cabanis, 1847 (Aves) Platyjulus Brandt, 1840 Platyulus Gervais, 1836 Ptenura Templeton, 1844 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology actaeon, Papilio, Fabricius, 1775 leptorhyncha, Diomedea, Coues, 1866 atratus, Eudyptes, Finsch, 1875(exHuttonMS.) Pernettensis, Delphinus, de Balinville, 1817 audouinianus, Platyulus, Gervais, 1837 pernettyi, Delphinus, Desmarest, 1820 audouinii, Platyulus, Gervais, 1836 variabilis, Donax, Schumacher, 1817 crystallina, Podura, Miller, 1776 hieroglyphicus, Gryllus, Johannes Mueller (Physiologist), 1826 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ERYCINIDAE Swainson, 1827 LEPTOSOMATINI Filipjev, 1916 LEIOPELMIDAE Turbott, 1942 LIOPELMATINA Minart, 1869 LEPTOSOMATINAE O. des Murs. 1860 LIOPELMIDAE Noble, 1924 264 Vol. 28: page 158. Vol. 31: page 112. Vol. 32: page 214. page 222. page 222. page 222. page 222. page 260. Vol. 33: page 24. page 31. page 31. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CORRIGENDA Line 1, and throughout the paper for Palaeofavosites Twenhofel, 1914 read Paleofavosites Twenhofel, 1914. Line 17, and throughout the paper for the Comment on Palaeovavosites Twenhofel, 1914 read Paleofavosites Twenhofel, 1914. Delete paragraph 3 of Ruling. This name was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 135 by the Ruling given in Opinion 291 Paragraph 7 (a) second line: for Name Number 467 read Name Number 470. Paragraph 7 (b) second line: for Name Number 468 read Name Number 471. Paragraph 7 (c) third line: for Name Number 469 read Name Number 472. Paragraph 7 (d) third line: for Name Number 470 read Name Number 473. Para (2) third line: for 1973 read 1873. Line 7, and throughout Opinion 1059 read Paleofavosites Twenhofel, 1914 for Palaeofavosites Twenhofel, 1914. : Paragraph 2 (a) line 2: for tectus read punctatus. Paragraph 3 (a) line 1: for tectus de Geer, read punctatus de Geer; and for Ptinus tectus read Ptinus punctatus. Back cover (outside) line 15: for John read Kohn. PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Contents of Part Date of publication (pages) 1-64 (I pl.) 26th June, 1976 65-128 30th September, 1976 129-264 31st March, 1977 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: T.P. I-XIl, 1-265 Note: The wrappers (covers) of the parts should be bound in at the end of the volume. : © 1977. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Norman Carter at 11 Broad Street, Teddington, Middlesex. V2 ‘FP Divs 5 . fi a ates Tee ies ni Hit hides sete) a “ii a) ED ie Bee 2 at ara erty TAs ete “ taee pHa Veta ae aif