ty aus ; i tir Nit x fy satay capestatetT tt a { ato eet yy taly ie PSSA ls eteee stylet ’ ) iy ety) We d -) ) eat Data LT) Lye yoo RAP vy Mi Lease aS tat i PEDO DA? adhd Sas wa a : a ae 7 A= sf a pA oy ; . . Th dp aay? bale Wt eats ow y 4 PLY j o? oF "1 * us Say Puy 4 ‘ } bia Se? fee = s THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 35 LONDON: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD 1979 (All rights reserved) TABLE OF CONTENTS Financial Help for the Commission wu stew ke Kerwl aikake) CMO Geena, Or 8 Oe, O84 0y 6 Notice of Draft Third Edition of the International Code see ee ew wene Publicity for the work of the Commission Pee eC) ae ee en eee et) Oe ee Obituary s Henning Lemenes.. gra aa icp ass « eye) s4ays noes ous es ee ss Further Comments on the Family Name ATTACIDAE (Insecta: Lepidoptera) (R.S. Peigler, C. Lemaire and reply by I.W.B. Nye, DS Pletcher’éc A. WatSOn) . «wo. 528+ se wsteus tess oe ate Correction to the application to designate a type species for Glyphipterix Hobres, (1S 751 (4. Diskqngtty. so cs sce se os aa ss ee Comment on the proposed addition of Bonelli’s “Tabula Synoptica” to the Official List.(R-B. Madge)... a. as egteats oo ois eietsn Ss a ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Mammalia): supplement to proposal to suppress this name (L.G. Marshall, W.A. Clemens, R.J. Hoffstetter, Rosendo Pascual, Bryan Patterson, R.H. Tedford & W.D. Turnbull). Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for the type species of Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886 (M.J. Benton) .......... Comment on Microform as Publication (The Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)..............-- Comment on the proposed neotype-designation for Calymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita) (Y. Howells, P.D. Lane, C.P. Hughes, AT: Thomasand R-M>Owens). 32 22 See foes ce via (oo tauonsnen Comment on the application to conserve Acidaspis coronata Salter, 1853 (Trilobita) (A.W:A..Rushton) 25.2... 0502+. cee eee Comment on request for suppression of Haliplanella Treadwell (Polycha- eta) in favour of Haliplanella Hand (Anthozoa) (R.B. Williams) . . Comments on the proposed validation of the generic name Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, and the specific name P. belgica (Pallas, 1766) and P. koreni (Malmgren, 1866) (L.B. Holthuis, Torleif Holthe, M.H. Pettibone, The Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, D. Nielsen and J.B. Kirkegaard) ..... International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report and Accounts for 1976 iil 14 15 15 16 17 IV Page Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Dictuoptera, Blattodea): proposal to conserve and to designate it as type species of Blattella Caudells 19037 (DK UMcE Kevan)... 3 os etssecegsues caters «x cere 34 Proposed addition of Pulteney’s Dorset Catalogues, 1799, to the Official List of Available Works, with a request for clarification of the Status of Preprints (D: Heppell).’. ... cists rorcece atlahe a Oe toes 40 Proposal to conserve the specific name tenebricola, as published in Linyphia by Wider, 1834, but in the sense of Kulczynski, 1887 (Arachnida). (G.H. Locket, A.F. Millidge and P.J.van Helsdingen) . 44 Steindachneri (Trionyx) Siebenrock, 1906: proposed validation (Reptilia: Pestudines); (RG. WebUy.. .... 2. ee tee - co ens 47 Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida): proposed designation of a type species. (5. COMWAY MOIS) . foto cn on we cote Pe eee eee 49 Litosoma wite Krepkogorskaya, 1933 (Nematoda): proposed correction to Litosoma viteae (O.Bain, A.Chabaud, B.O.L. Duke, K Kouznetzoy. R-L: Muller and’P. Wenk)*. 22 "ss: sv. cw tete 51 HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): request for addition to the. Official List. (C-P.'Cowan) 2... - ec. ccc Py) CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898, and PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Mammalia): proposed conservation. (L.G. Marshall and Reb vReaqrOray) | cise ccs fo cle e arte ate tenets care ale rer eat 58 Impending Vacancies on the Commission ...........--.--+.---+: 66 Fimancial Help forthe Commission” <2... 2 ee = 2 3 ee ees 67 Obituary: Professor Sylvester-Bradley 0. 2. co cs see Seuc eo siren eres 68 Comment on the proposal to conserve COLOBIDAE Blyth, 1875 (Primates); (Djurandon-JOnes) ....- -..c St sei e os ae ee ees 69 Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for the nominal genus Glyphipterix Hiibner [1825] (Lepidoptera, _GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE) (J.D. Bradley and 1 SERS 1 C9) VR tae ne eres are men i = Seana aed ens, a Comment on the proposed suppression of Haliplanella Treadwell (Polychaeta) in favour of Haliplanella Hand (Anthozoa) (J.C. den Hartog). Reply to Dr. Williams and Drs. Den Hartog by D-F. Brae anit ©, TAGE Soon nese ot om 0 bo chee oe ene eeeeneee nee 73 Comments on application concerning Simia syndactyla Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, HYLOBATIDAE). (J. Fooden, C. Groves)! fiers Further amendments proposed to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. (The Secretary) #4... Lcisid elk sav dro annie ao ome Comments by zoologists on Draft Third Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (O. Kudrna; B. Bolton; Z. Bouéek; B.H. Cogan; R.W. Crosskey; M.C. Day; M.G. Fitton; D.S. Fletcher; L.A. Mound; A.C. Pont; R.D. Pope; D.R. Ragge; K.S.O. Sattler; K.G.V. Smith; R.T. Thompson; A. Watson; P.E.S. Whalley; R.I. Vane-Wright; The Secretary, ICZN; BIRR Ps Sine ce ioe, ok, sa Ee ee Opinion 1107. Conservation of Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, 1908 (A carina AMODIDAE) setter. Saccgrme 4 iisiews bec ease tacts ease: Opinion 1108. Conservation of Marstonia Baker, 1926 and of Amnicola lustrica Pilsbry, 1890 (Mollusca, GASTROPODA) j.5063 Gok. Opinion 1109. Cerithium Bruguiére [1789] (GASTROPODA): designation of type species under plenary powers ........... Opinion 1110. Microterys Thomson, 1875 (Hymenoptera, CHALCIDO- IDAE): conserved under the plenary powers: xc)... sae Opinion 1111. Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera, LEUCOSPIDAE) conserved under the plenary powers ........ Opinion 1112. Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Diptera, MILICHIIDAE): designation of a type species under the plenary powers ....... Opinion 1113. Alpheus neptunus Dana, 1852 (Crustacea, ALPHEIDAE): Status of a neotype confirmed ........................ Opinion 1114. Cornuspira Schultze, 1854 (Foraminifera): conserved under the plenary powers S Sere ie) 2) OP Ee «Saas Ce mesial abled Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Hemiptera): designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. (T.T. Macan and D. Leston) Revived application in the case of the names for South American Rodents published by Brants (1827). (A. Langguth) Pa 77 82 88 94 97 29 101 104 106 108 seh dt Page IOTONCHIDAE Goodey, 1953 (Nematoda, Tylenchida) and IOTONCHIDAE Jairajpuri, 1969 (Nematoda, Mononchida): proposals to eliminate homonymy. (M. Shamim Jairajpuri)..... 121 Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 (Mammalia, Insectivora): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. (G.B. Corbet). . 123 Sorex dzinezumi Temminck, [1844] (Mammalia, Insectivora). (GBy Corbet}e oS | DAE pene? SE cite ELE ede UE 125 Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (Bivalvia, CUCULLAEIDAE): request for determination of type species (S.R.A. Kelly) .............. 27 Draft Third Edition of the Code: closure of comments period ....... 131 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: Financial Report and Accounts for 1977................. 132 Comments from zoologists on Draft Third Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (R.B. Clark; G.C. Steyskal; B. Bolton and others; H. Silfverberg; M. Mroczkowski and others; K FL. Key; T.J/Spiman:f-W.BoNye) ore a. Aa 136 Proposal to adopt the concept that types are types of names (W.D.L. Ride & C.W.Sabrosky; K.H.L. Key; D.H.Colless, C.W. Wright; EW Melville). Gtavererete chs slate eis 2 aah shal eee tna s fae eean Shaan 156 Gender of substantivated adjectives; with proposed simplification of Article:30a:(1) (G:C. Steyskall) 2... 20s. 5'se abe oc e's © cw does 168 Opinion 1115. Nysson Latreille, (Hymenoptera, SPHECIDAE): VELLA ALS CaS EROTI mH Ce «uae Shar os wy an rcivar Soo bv Wcoten we ancl sere op wh OS 175 Opinion 1116. Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia); validated under the plenary powers ..............2-.205- 180 Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802 (Reptilia, Serpentes); revived proposal for suppression under the plenary powers (H.M. Smith and RD. Soith) 2s Oe Soe TOA, OS 3 SO ASee.. 184 Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840 (Aves): proposed conservation under the plenary powers (M.D. Bruce, D.T. Holyoak and J.-C. Thibault) . . 187 Conus fergusoni G.B. Sowerby, III, 1873 (Gastropoda, CONIDAE): proposed conservation under the plenary powers (J.K. Tucker) .. 189 Financial Help for the Commission Comment on the proposal to remove the homonymy of TETHYIDAE in gastropods, sponges and ascidians. (L.B. Holthuis)......... Comment on the proposal to place Hylobates lar (Linnaeus, 1771) (Mammalia: Primates) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (L.B. Holthuis. Reply by C.P. Groves) ............ Cataphractus punctatus Bloch, 1794 (Pisces). Comment on proposed invalidation of neotype. (R.V. Melville) ................. Further comment on SATURNIIDAE vs. ATTACIDAE (Insecta: Teens CCW MY, ae 2 a. sare cpap ow Su saare a aaah Report of the Committee on Typification of Species of Protozoa Opinion 1117. Refusal of request for two rulings concerning the names of species of Sphaerodactylus (Reptilia Lacertilia) .......... Opinion 1118. Conservation of Tribolbina carnegiei Latham, 1932 (GSES) STG) US geen GOMER een Ota Bats Fay ok Rene nN ber amet Opinion 1119. Amaurobius C.L. Koch, 1837, and Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 (Araneae): conserved under the plenary powers ........ Opinion 1120. Noctua armigera Hiibner, [1808] (Lepidoptera) COTISET VEE 8 sec yeiiaii esta cess etLamerie Sue. line Stee hen ay ee eek eeetieeneie Opinion 1121. Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, designated under the plenary powers as type species of Chanda Hamilton- Buchanan 1'S22 (Pisces)! ssc. 22sec ech oes shaw Bree slic Ba vaeits Opinion 1122. Loligo opalescens Berry, 1911, given nomenclatural precedence over Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (Cephalopoda) . Opinion 1 123. PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897, given nomenclatural precedence over PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887, (Mammalia) Opinion 1124. Lichia Cuvier, 1817 (Pisces) conserved ............ Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Insecta, Hemiptera, BELOSTOMATIDAE): proposed conservation in place of Jliastus Gistel, [1847]. (Arnold Menke) lacernetiona Frcs oe Sinai ical Macc aedtidiiy. «ss 6» Toxostoma crissale “Henry” [= Baird], 1858 (Aves: MIMIDAE); proposed conservation in place of Toxostoma dorsale; with a proposed addition to Article 32 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. (John P. Hubbard) ed VII Page 197 198 199 . 200 209 212 216 221 223 227 229 233 236 Vill Page Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863: proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers (Diptera; TACHINIDAE). KEWESASIOSEV 9S .). Pre oe Soke s bo ate oe ete ener e esis eile 243 Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782 (Crustacea, Decapoda); request for the use of the plenary powers to validate a neotype. GESB HOMMUIS) «ay< ccs e's spare Smee oe ere eceus Sie ee eee 248 Chromodoris californiensis Bergh, 1879 (May): proposed conservation over Chromodoris glauca Bergh, 1879 (March) (Mollusca: Gastropoda). (H. Bertsch and R. Burn) .................. 253 Volume 35, Part | pp. | - 64. SIst JULY, 1978. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LONDON: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD ISSN 0007-5167 Price Four Pounds (All rights reserved) Kos mw USE NAT. HIST 8 AUG 1978 3 PURCHASED = BR, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE a <2, OGy Wy ’ A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. 1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History ) 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.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (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 Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin - cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Instituto Miguel Lillo, S.M. de Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 45A, 16141, Genova, Italy ) (30 September 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Nicene, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzer- land) (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, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) 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, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972). Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut 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) Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W.D.L. RIDE /C.S.J.R.O., Division of Land Use Research, P.O. Box 1666 Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) (President) 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. Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Mon. J. Forest Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Mr. N.D. Riley, C.B.E. Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G.F. deWitte B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M. Sc. (Scientific Controller) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 35, part 1 (pp. 164) 31 July, 1978. 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) Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Dictuoptera, Blattodea): proposal to conserve and to designate it as type- species of Blattella Caudell, 1903. Z.N.(S.) 680. (2) Proposed addition of Pulteney’s Dorset Catalogues, 1799, to the Official List of Available Works, with a request for clarification of the status of Preprints. Z.N.(S.) 2110. (3) Proposal to conserve the specific name tenebricola, as published in Linyphia by Wider, 1834, but in the sense of Kuclzynski, 1887 (Arachnida). Z.N.(S.) 2143. *(4) ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Mammalia): supplement to proposal to suppress this name. Z.N.(S.) 2159. *(5) steindachneri (Trionyx) Siebenrock, 1906: proposed validation (Reptilia, Testudines). Z.N.(S.) 2162. (6) Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida): proposed designation of a type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2171. (7) Litosoma wite Krepkogorskaya, 1933 (Nematoda): proposed correction to Litosoma viteae. Z.N.(S.) 2203. (8) HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): request for addition to the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2213. *(9) CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898, and PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Mammalia): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2214. (c) The following new applications have been received since the publication of Vol. 34(4) on 28th February 1978. Those gaa an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b an : 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2238 (A. Warén). (2) Conus fergusoni G.B. Sowerby III, 1873 (Gastropoda, CONIDAE): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2239 (J.K. Tucker). (3) Anaspis Miller, 1764, Luperus Miller, 1764, Lampyris Miller, 1764, Clerus Miller, 1764 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designations of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2240 (H. Silfverberg). (4) Tarpon atlanticus (Valenciennes, 1847): proposed - conservation of, and Tarpon giganteus Shaw, 1804: suppression of: (Pisces, MEGALOPIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2241 (L. Saldanha). (5) Calamoecia australica, Sars, 1908 and Calamoecia australis (Searle, 1911) (Crustacea Copepoda): proposals to remove the confusion. Z.N.(S.) 2242 (1.A.E. Bayly). *(6) Mugil curema Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Pisces, MUGILIDAE): proposal to validate. Z.N.(S.) 2243 (L. Alvarez—Lajonchére, JM. Thomson & E. Trewavas). (7) Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 and Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2244 (H. Silfverberg). (8) PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, 1803: proposal for revision of the Official List and for the correction of entries for names published by Latreille (1803) “Hist. Nat. Gen. Partic. Crus. Ins.” Vol. 3. (Insecta: Lepidoptera): Z.N.(S.) 2245 (C.F. Cowan). (9) Chrysomela flavicornis Suffrian, 1851, and C. tibialis Suffrian, 1851 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of these junior primary homonyms. Z.N.(S.) 2246 (H. Silfverberg). (10) Eulima Risso, 1826 and Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Prosobranchia): proposed designations of type- species. Z.N.(S.) 2247 (A. Warén). *(11) Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928: proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2248 (R.M. Stainforth, K. Sztrakos & R.M. Jeffords). *(12) Diademodon Seeley, 1894 and D. tetragonus Seeley, 1894 (Reptilia): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2249 (F. Grime). (13) Comments by zoologists on Draft Third Edition of the International Code. Z.N.(S.) 2250. *(14) Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda): proposed conservation. Z.N(S.) 2251 (B. Baturo). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Ww (15) Dexia Meigen, 1826 (Insecta, Diptera, TACHINIDAE): proposed designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2252 (L. Mesnil, D. Wood & B. Herting). *(16) Hypselodoris californiensis (Berg, 1879b): proposal to grant nomenclatural precedence over Chromodoris glauca Bergh, 1879a (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2253 (H. Bertsch & R. Burn). (17) Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921, and Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): proposed designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2254 (C.W. Wright & M.R. Cooper). *(18) Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta: Diptera: TIPULIDAE): proposal to conserve, and to suppress Tipula ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2255 (G.W. Byers). (19) Ochtera exsculpta Loew, 1862 (Insecta, Diptera, EPHYDRIDAE): proposal for invalidation of neotype and validation of a rediscovered holotype. Z.N.(S.) 2256 (P.J. Clausen). (20) Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (Trilobita): proposal for designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2257 (A.T. Thomas & R.M. Owens). *(21) Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of type-species; Nephanes Thomson, 1859, conservation of. Z.N.(S.) 2258 (O. Bistrém). (22) Article 30(i) (2) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: proposed simplification. Z.N.(S.) 2259 (G.C. Steyskal). (23) Helix incei (Gastropoda, Pulmonata): proposal for determination of authorship. Z.N.(S.) 2260 (M.J. Bishop). SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS FINANCIAL HELP FOR THE COMMISSION It is a pleasure to announce that the Federal Republic of Germany and the Zoological and Entomological Societies of Switzerland have agreed to make annual donations to the Trust calculated on the IUBS formula; that a donation in accordance with this formula has been received from the Royal Society of New Zealand; and that private donations have been received from Mr. E.H. Rulton and Solex (Gauges) Ltd., of Richmond, Surrey, U.K.. DEATH OF A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION The death is announced of Dr. Boris Rohdendorf, one of the Soviet members of the Commission since 1972. It is hoped to publish an obituary notice in the Bulletin in due course. 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES Under Bylaw 2c, announcement is hereby made of two vacancies on the Commission due to the deaths of Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) and Dr. Boris Rohdendorf (U.S.S.R.). Nominations for candidates to succeed them should be sent to the Secretary, I.C.Z.N., 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, and who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature. Nominations must state the name, address, date 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. ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL Under Bylaw 13, Mr. D.W. Heppell (U.K.) and Dr. LB. Holthuis (Netherlands) have been elected Members of the Council of the Commission as from November 1977. DRAFT THIRD EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE Readers are reminded that the draft Third Edition of the Code is still available, price £2.50 by ordinary mail, £5.00 by air mail. Comments will be welcomed and should be sent in as soon as possible, and in any case before February 1979. Copies of a paper explaining the major changes proposed by the Editorial Committee are also available, price SOp. PUBLICITY FOR THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION In February 1978 the Secretary took part in a BBC radio programme in “The Living World” series. The subject of discussion was ‘“‘What’s in a name?” and was chosen to help lay naturalists understand why scientific names exist, what they mean, and how they are regulated. He has also been invited to address the Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland in 1979 on the Code and the Commission and how they are of service to zoologists. It is hoped that all members of the Commission will take opportunities to explain the work of the Commission to professional and amateur zoologists and encourage them to support te c/o British Museum (Natural History), R.V. MELVILLE Cromwell Road, Secretary London SW7 5BD, International Commission on United Kingdom. Zoological Nomencla a tn Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBITUARY : HENNING LEMCHE Dr Henning Lemche was born in 1904. He graduated from Copenhagen University in 1927 and in 1928 was employed as an assistant to Professor M. Thomsen at the zoological laboratory of the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural College. In 1949 he obtained a position at the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen University where, in 1958, he became head of the newly created Department of Malacology, and played a major role in the planning of the present museum building (opened in 1963). He retired in 1974, but remained an active worker in the museum until a few weeks before his death on 4 August 1977. Henning Lemche was an unusually broad-minded zoologist. Molluscan systematics were probably always his favourite field of research, but he had strong interests in general problems of evolutionary theory, morphogenesis and high-level phylogeny. and his scientific production deals with many provinces of the animal kingdom. His first publications concerned subfossil molluscs and Faroe Islands opisthobranchs. However. soon after he started work at Professor Thomsen’s laboratory he started genetic and physiological studies on wing pattern formation in Lepidoptera. influenced by his chief’s interest in industrial melanism, the evolutionary implications of which were much debated in those days. The investigations were eventually extended to the comparative morphology of wing patterns of Lepidoptera and other insects as well as to considerations of the development of the insect wing in ontogeny and phylogeny. Some of his papers on these topics are still often cited, although his concept of a diphyletic origin of winged insects never won general acceptance. Parallel with his studies of the insect wing Lemche continued to work on opisthobranchs, a line of research which culminated in 1956 with the publication of an impressive anatomical and histological treatise on the genus Cylichna. Some years previously he had taken part in the ‘Galathea’ deep-sea expedition, and in 1957 he could announce the discovery of Neopilina among the material then collected. If this was a landmark in systematic zoology (in his well-known textbook A. Kaestner called it ‘eine der bedeutendsten Entdeckungen auf dem Gebiete der speziellen Zoologie im 20. Jahrhundert’), it was also a landmark in Lemche’s scientific life. His preliminary account of the animal was followed by the rightly renowned monograph (in collaboration with Professor K.G. Wingstrand) in 1959, and eventually by a proliferation of writings and speculations on_ invertebrate morphology and relationships. During the last decades of his life. Lemche worked on two comprehensive treatises, one on the North 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Atlantic opisthobranchs (for which he produced a unique material of superb watercolours and colour slides of living specimens) and one on Metazoan phylogeny. Both remain unfinished, but it is hoped that the most valuable parts can be published by some of the younger colleagues with whom he spent much time discussing his findings. Henning Lemche was a member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature from 1948 until his death and devoted much of his time, energy and enthusiasm to his task. Anyone browsing through the later volumes of this Bulletin will appreciate his interest in nomenclatural problems and his personal attitude towards their solution. Lemche had an unusual and colourful personality, with a capacity for deep personal engagement in the most diverse problems, scientific and human, and a passionate commitment to his chosen causes. He will be affectionately remembered by a wide international circle of colleagues. N. P. KRISTENSEN Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature | FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE FAMILY NAME ATTACIDAE (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1997. (see vol. 32: 149-153, vol. 33: 137-142) (1) By R.S. Peigler (Texas A & M University, Texas, U.S.A.) A year ago I received a separate from Douglas C. Ferguson entitled “A challenge to the family name ATTACIDAE .. .”, but I was delinquent in not expressing an opinion to the Commission about this paper. I have now seen another paper in the Bulletin by Nye, Fletcher, and Watson (March 1977, pages 137-139). This paper disturbs me enough to bring my remarks. 2. I have reviewed carefully both papers mentioned above and have referred to the Code and am of the following opinions: (a). Ferguson is right about the type-species of Saturnia being pyri. I do not consider the pyri/atlantica group to be congeneric with the pavonia/spini group. The name Eudia or Calosaturnia will serve well for the latter. To follow the suggestion of Nye et al. will leave pyri without a generic name and cause unnecessary confusion and require a new name. I say there are already more generic names available in this group than we need (i.e., Rinaca, Eriogyna, Caligula, etc.). (b). For similar reasons of stability I do not wish to see the name pyri sink as a synonym of major. (c). The type-species designation by Westwood for Saturnia is invalid. I agree with Ferguson and Sabrosky and disagree with Nye et al. (d). Although I have published my papers on Callosamia using the family-group name SATURNIIDAE, I am afraid that Lemaire is correct in using ATTACIDAE. However, I hope that the name SATURNIIDAE will prevail and soon be the one name everyone will agree to use. (2) By Claude Lemaire (c/o Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France) Having studied the “Comments on a challenge to the family name ATTACIDAE” by Nye, Fletcher, & Watson (1977, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33: 137-139) I entirely agree with their proposal that Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775, should be given nomenclatural precedence over Phalaena Pavonia major Linnaeus, 1758. 2. I do not, however, agree that the type-species designation by Westwood, 1840, of Phalaena pavonia minor Linnaeus, as the type-species of Saturnia Schrank, can be accepted. My reasons are as follows: (a). The Westwood designation entirely disagrees with Articles 67h and 69a(i) of the Code since pavonia was not “one of the originally included nominal species’ when the nominal genus was established by Schrank (it was included in a distinct work, not “‘actually cited by name in the newly established nominal genus”). Such provisions must evidently be rigidly construed. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b). If pavonia was designated as the type-species of Saturnia, then Eudia would become a junior objective synonym of Saturnia and there would be no valid genus-group name for species such as pyri and atlantica that specialists have considered generically or subgenerically distinct from pavonia and spini for more than 60 years. (c). Action that would make Eudia a junior synonym of Saturnia would certainly disturb stability for no useful purpose, whereas the type- species designation of pyri by Grote is in accord with well established usage for over 60 years. REPLY TO R.S. PEIGLER AND TO C. LEMAIRE, AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS By I.W.B. Nye, D.S. Fletcher, and A. Watson (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) In the comments published above, Mr Peigler and Dr Lemaire have both pointed out that the type-species designation by Westwood, 1840, for Saturnia Schrank, is not valid under the Code. We have hitherto accepted this designation but having reexamined the works concerned we now agree that West wood’s designation does not conform to the provisions of the Code Article 69a(i). We accordingly withdraw our objection to proposal (1) by Sabrosky and Ferguson, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 152, and now support their proposals (1), (3), and (4). 2. Concerning Sabrosky and Ferguson’s proposal (2) to place on the Official List Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major Linnaeus, 1758; this name is the unused (for over 50 years) senior subjective synonym of Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, a name in general current use and the nominal species that we now agree is the type-species of Saturnia. The problem has already been discussed by us in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33: 138, paragraphs 2 and 3. In the interests of stability and universality we still consider that pyri should be given precedence over major. We note that Mr. Peigler and Dr Lemaire in their Comments above both support us in this view. 3. Because of the first paragraph above our earlier proposals require amending so we now ask the Commission to approve the following as alternatives to the original proposals by Sabrosky and Ferguson: (1) as the original proposal (1) in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 152; (2) (a) to use its plenary powers to rule that the species-group name pyri as established in the combination Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, is to be given precedence over the species-group name major as established in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major Linnaeus, 1758, if the two names are applied to the same taxon. Having done so, (b) to place the species-group name pyri, as established in the combination Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the ruling that it has been granted precedence over Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major Linnaeus, 1758, if both names are applied to the same taxon; Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 (c) to place the species-group name major, as established in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the ruling that it is not to be used in place of Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, if both names are applied to the same taxon; (3) as the original proposal (3) in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 152; (4) as the original proposal (4) in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 152. CORRECTION TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR GLYPHIPTERIX HUBNER, [1825]. Z.N.AS.) 2115 (see vol. 34: 81-84) By A. Diakonoff (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, the Netherlands ) An earlier use has been found than that given in the application of the spelling “GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE” of the family-name GLYPHIPTERYGIDAE Stainton, 1854, namely by Rosenstock, 1885, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5), vol. 16: 421-442. The entry ‘““GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Inoue, 1954” in paragraph 10(6) of our proposal should therefore be changed to “GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Rosenstock, 1885”. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF BONELLI’S TABULA SYNOPTICA TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 2135. (see vol. 34: 61-62, 201-202) By R.B. Madge (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, c/o British Museum (Natural History ), London SW7 SBD, U.K.). The application by Mroczkowski (1977) to have the Tabula Synoptica of F. - A. Bonelli approved for use in zoological nomenclature was made in the belief that the Tabula was not published in the sense of the Code. Evidence that I have found, however, suggests that the Tabula was validly published with the separate of Part I of Bonelli’s Observations Entomologiques. This was probably in the second quarter of 1810, not 1811 as proposed by Mroczkowski. Mroczkowski derived his belief that the Tabula was not published from Horn and Schenkling (1928:106). They in turn appear to have been summarizing the work of Andrewes who had concluded (1919: 92) that the Tabula “was annexed to the separates . .. which Bonelli distributed among his entomological friends.” However, the Tabula Synoptica was actually an integral part of the separate of Part I. This is evident from an irregularity in the printing of the separate, viz the second signature contains only four pages, 9 to 12, instead of the usual eight. As the Tabula immediately follows page 12 it See Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature seems clear that the reduction in pages of the second signature is directly associated with the Tabula’s presence. Bonelli had stated in the introduction to Part I (p.3 of the separate, p.23 of the Mémoires) “je donnerai en téte de chaque famille . . . un tableau synoptique de tous les genres qu’elle contient”’ and this determined that the Tabula had to follow page 12 where the carabid section started. Unfortunately, the printer’s reasons for reducing the second signature are unknown although it may have had something to do with the Tabula’s very large size. That the separate of Part I of Bonelli’s Observations was published within the meaning of the Code also seems clear for, in addition to copies given away by Bonelli, there appear to have been copies for sale. Germar, when he reviewed the separate of Part I (1817: 301), noted that “Bonelli’s Werkchen in Deutschland kaum in den Buchladen gekommen ist”. This certainly suggests that copies were for sale, even if uncommon. Also, Sturm (1815:7) had a separate of Part I but he did not say that he had received it from Bonelli. He simply stated that Bonelli had provided, through a friend in Turin, a clarification of the Tabula. One is left to assume that Sturm purchased his copy. Finally, the August 20, 1813, issue of the bibliographic journal Bibliographie de l’Empire Francais, which recorded the separate of Part II of Bonelli’s Observations, gave both the number of copies printed, 350, and their price, 3—O [francs]. That Part II definitely was for sale supports the inferences from Germar and Sturm that Part I also was for sale. Mroczkowski in his application to the Commission has reasoned that since Bonelli’s Tabula Synoptica was, in his opinion, not published in the sense of the Code it should, when validated, take the date of Part I of the Observations Entomologiques in volume 18 of the Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences, Littérature et Beaux-arts de Turin. This he believed to be 1811, the date on the title page of volume 18, although the Bibliographie de V’Empire Frangais did not record this volume until May 21, 1812. However, as I’ve shown above, the Tabula was an integral part of the separate of Part I which was published independently of the Mémoires. It consequently has its own date. This date is not known for certain but it is clearly prior to that of the Mémoires since one of the printing errors in the separate, the uncapitalized word “‘alpaeorum” on page 56, was corrected to ‘“‘Alpaeorum” in the Mémoires (see Gaskin and Lewis, 1956: 161). 1809 is sometimes cited as the date of the separate of Part I but this appears to be based on the date the paper was first read, April 29, 1809, and is probably too early. I have certainly found no references to support such a date. On the contrary, Latreille (1810: 158) stated that “M. Bonelli. . .s’°occupe d’un nouveau travail sur cette famille. Je connois l’exactitude scrupuleuse de ce naturaliste et je suis persuadé que ses observations seront pleines d’intérét.” Latreille, who was a friend of Bonelli and who received a separate of Part I from him (see Gaskin and Lewis, 1956: 162), obviously had not seen it by the time his own work went to press. 1811 as a date of publication for the separate is probably too late since the separate had already been noted by the end of April of that year. This was in the article “Nébrie” in volume 8, part I of the insect section of the Encyclopédie Méthodique which in turn was recorded in the Journal Général de l’Imprimeérie et de la Librairie on April 30, 1811. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1] This leaves 1810 as the most likely year of publication for the separate of Part I. Crotch (1870:223) suggested that Bonelli distributed separates on a journey through France in 1810-11. If this was so the separates must have been printed before Bonelli left in the summer of 1810. In support of such a date two points can be made. 1. One of the separates that Bonelli gave to his friends appears to have been used before Bonelli returned from his journey in France and consequently must have been given either before or during the journey. This was the copy that belonged to the French naturalist G.A. Olivier, author of the important article ‘““Nébrie” in the Encyclopédie Méthodique. As I’ve already shown this work appeared early in 1811. Bonelli apparently didn’t return to Turin until late in that year (see Gené, 1834: 136). 2. The separate of Part I that Bonelli gave to the Swiss entomologist Jurine is inscribed “‘A la digne et vertueuse Madlle. Jurine” (see Gaskin and Lewis, 1956: 159). This unexpected inscription appears to me to have been a friendly gesture made while Bonelli was with Jurine and his family in Geneva during his journey. In Part II of the Observations (p.4 of the separate, p. 436 of the Mémoires) Bonelli said of his visit to Jurine, “et rien ne pourra me faire oublier ces beaux jours que j’ai passés dans le sein de sa famille 4 parcourir son eapinet, .:...°° I also think that the separate of Part I was published later than March, 1810. In volume 22, page xxx, of the Turin Academy’s Mémoires, it is recorded that Bonelli read parts of his Observations on March 17 and 31, 1810, in addition to what was read on April 29, 1809. It also states that these were approved for publication. Although it is not possible to say that the two extra pieces of the Observations were published as part of Part I, it does seem likely. From Bonelli’s point of view the more of his work that he had to show on his journey through France the better. The only evidence that I’ve been able to find in Part I to suggest that the latter part of it could have originated a year later than the beginning is the wording of the two type designations on pages 32 and 53 of the separate, pages 52 and 73 of the Mémoires. These use the same phrase, servir de type, that Latreille used in 1810 (p.421) and are unlike the wording in Latreille’s type citations of 1809 (pp. 359, 374, and 377). In conclusion, I do not believe that the Commission really needs to validate Bonelli’s Tabula Synoptica. This was validly published as part of the separate of Part I of Bonelli’s Observations Entomologiques. Therefore, I am opposed to Mroczkowski’s petition. As an alternative proposal I would ask the Commission: 1) to place the separate of Part I of Bonelli’s Observations Entomologiques on the Official List of Available Works for Zoological Nomenclature, 2) to use its plenary powers to fix the date of this work as 1810. Literature Cited ANDREWES, H.E., 1919. Note on Bonelli’s “Tableau Synoptique.” Trans ent. Soc. London, 1919: 89-92, 467. 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BONELLI, F.-A.,, 1810. Observations Entomologiques. Premiére Partie. [Turin.} 58 pages, | table. 1812. Observations Entomologiques. Premiére Partie. Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci., Litt. et Beaux-arts Turin. (Mémoires Présenteés . . .) vol. 18: 21-78. ____ 1813a. Observations Entomologiques. Deuxiéme Partie. Turin. 52 pages. 1813b. Observations Entomologiques. Deuxiéme Partie. Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. Litt. et Beaux-arts Turin, vol. 20: 433-484. CROTCH, G.R., 1870. The genera of Coleoptera studied chronologically (1802-21). Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1870: 213-241. GASKIN, L.J.P. & LEWIS, E., 1956. On the “Tabula Synoptica” and the “Observations Entomologiques” of F.A. Bonelli. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. vol. 3: 158-164, 1 facsimile. GENE, G., 1834. Elogio storico di Franco Andrea Bonelli accademico e professore torinese. Mem. r. Accad. Sci. Torino, vol. 37: 126-151. GERMAR, E.F., 1817.4 review of Franc-André Bonelli, Observations Entomologiques. Approuvés par l’Academie Impériale des sciences, litterature et beaux arts de Turin le 29 Avril 1809. 4to. maj. Sect. I. pagg. 58. Mag. Ent. vol. 2: 301-304. HORN, W. & SCHENKLING, S., 1928. Index Litteraturae Entomologicae. Berlin-Dahlem. vol. 1: 1-352. LATREILLE, P.A., 1809. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum. Paris, vol. 4: 1- 399. 1810. Considérations Générales sur l’Ordre Naturel des Animaux. Paris. 444 pages. MROCZKOWSKI, M., 1977. Bonelli, F.A., “Tabula Synoptica, 1811”: pro- posed addition to the official list. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 61-62. OLIVIER, G.A., 1811. Articles Mouche Abeilliforme to Nomade in Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle. Insectes, vol. 8(1): 45-360. STURM, J., 1815. Deutschlands Fauna. V. Abtheilung. Die Insecten. Nurnberg. vol. 3: 1-192. ACYONIDAE AMEGHINO, 1889 (MAMMALIA): SUPPLEMENT TO PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THIS NAME. Z.N.(S.) 2159 By Larry G. Marshall (Department of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), William A. Clemens (Department of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley), Robert J. Hoffstetter (Institut 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). In March, 1977 (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 33: 212-213), Marshall, Clemens, Hoffstetter, Pascual, Patterson, Tedford and Turnbull proposed that the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 Commission should use its plenary powers to suppress the family name ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1891, in favour of BORHYAENIDAE Ameghino, 1894. We are grateful to Dr. L.B. Holthuis for pointing out a defect in that proposal: so long as Acyon Ameghino, 1887, remains an available name, it is impossible to prevent a zoologist from making it the type-genus of a family, so that it is necessary to ask also for the suppression of that generic name. Investigation of that point has revealed another obstacle to our original proposal. 2. In 1887 Ameghino published his Enumeracion sistem@tica de las especies de mamiferos fosiles coleccionados por C. Ameghino en los terrenos Eocenos de la Patagonia austral y depositados en el Museo La Plata, 26 + (2) pp. This publication, together with two others by Ameghino in the same year, was evidently subsidized by the Museo de La Plata. All three are listed as “Publicaciones esporadicas del Museo de La Plata” on page 18 of R. Lehmann- Nitzche’s “Museo de La Plata. Indice bibliogrdfico de sus publicaciones issued by the La Plata Museum in 1928. On: 8 Ameghino proposed Boryhaena [sic] tuberata gen. y sp. nov. and Acyon tricuspidatus gen. y sp. nov. and accompanied each with a description. In the copy in the British Museum (Natural History), the spelling Boryhaena has been corrected by hand to Borhyaena in ink now faded to brown. It can only be conjectured that this correction was made by the author, but the fact remains that the correct original spelling of the name is Boryhaena. It is, however, clear that the author intended Borhyaena, for he used the revised spelling in his much more important monograph in 1889, Actas Acad. Nat. Sci. Cérdoba, vol. 6: 285, 288, 924, 927, 963 (where B. tuberata is still the only included species) and in his later works, and it is the spelling that has been consistently used by later authors. Borhyaena Ameghino, 1889 is clearly an unjustified emendation of Boryhaena and we seek the use of the plenary powers to rule that it is a justified emendation, with the author and date of Boryhaena. 3. We have considered whether we should alter our original proposal so as to give BORHYAENIDAE precedence over ACYONIDAE when both names are applied to the same taxon, and have decided not to do so. This is because ACYONIDAE has not been used as a valid name since 1904, while Acyon itself has been treated as invalid for over fifty years (as pointed out in our original publication). To give protection to names unused for so long seems unnecessary. 4. We wish to replace our original proposal to the Commission by requesting that it: (1) use its plenary powers (a) to rule that the spelling Borhyaena first used by Ameghino, 1889, is a justified emendation of Boryhaena Ameghino, 1887; (b) to suppress the generic name Acyon Ameghino, 1887, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the generic name Borhyaena Ameghino, 1887 (gender, feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Borhyaena tuberata Ameghino, 1887, as validated under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) place the specific name tuberata Ameghino, 1887, as published in the binomen Boryhaena [sic] tuberata (specific name of type- species of Borhyaena Ameghino, 1887) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) place the generic name Acyon Ameghino, 1887, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) place the family name ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (unavailable because the name of its type-genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR THE TYPE-SPECIES OF STROMATOPORELLA NICHOLSON, 1886. Z.N.(S.) 2177 (see vol. 33: 233-240) By M.J. Benton (Department of Zoology, University of Aberdeen, U.K.) St Jean (1977) could not find the original figured specimen of Stromatoporella granulata (Nicholson, 1873) (type-locality: Port Colborne, Ontario) in the British Museum (Natural History) or any other repository of the Nicholson collection. This original figured specimen was only a hand specimen and no sections were figured when the species was first described. St Jean identified the specimen and sections (BMNH P6021, nos. 329, 329a-f) used by Nicholson in his later descriptions (1878, 1886, etc.). These came from Arkona, Ontario, and are of slightly later age than the original figured specimen. These apparently display the characters of S. granulata and the genus Stromatoporella well, and he asks that they be designated the neotype. During 1976 and 1977 I worked on a catalogue of Nicholson’s type and figured specimens, visiting about 10 institutions in which his collections are now preserved. In none of these did I find the original specimen figured by Nicholson in 1874. BMNH H4524 comes from Port Colborne (the original locality) but is probably not the figured specimen. For the following reasons, I think St Jean is justified in requesting that BMNH P6021, nos. 329, 329a-f, be designated as neotype: (ly chis specimen and its slides form a series which was used by Nicholson in his first description of internal structures of the species and, in 1886, of the genus Stromatoporella; (2) there is no evidence that Nicholson sectioned the original figured specimen, amu sections are essential in defining stromatoporoid taxa. If the original were found, and sections made from it, the latter might not correspond with the interpretation of S. granulata based on sections of specimens from a different horizon (Nicholson, 1878, 1886, and subsequent authors); (3) the proposed neotype is in the British Museum (Natural History) and Nicholson’s other stromatoporoid types are preserved there; (4) according to St Jean, the proposed neotype well displays the characters of its species and of the genus of which it is the siete type-species. sa Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 COMMENT ON MICROFORM AS PUBLICATION. Z.N.(S.) 2182 (see vol. 33: 98-104; vol. 34: 9-10, 133-135; vol. 34: 201) By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The Australian journal Alcheringa announces in an editorial in vol. 1 (3-4): 245-246 (1977) the use of microfiche “‘as a marketing experiment that will be assessed during the next two years’’. That issue includes a microfiche which is capable of carrying 416 pages and which actually holds (1) the complete printed text of the issue, (2) 90 pages of text and 40 line drawings supporting one of the articles printed in the issue (by G.J. Retallack on Triassic vegetation) but not available in any other form, and (3), as a bonus, the 44 plates and their explanations from Jack & Etheridge, 1892, The geology and palaeontology of Queensland and New Guinea, which is a major classic of Australian palaeontology. The editors point out that the microfiche reproduction of Retallack’s unpublished matter cost $A 215, whereas the cost of printing it on paper would have been about $A 1500. The full cost of adding the Jack & Etheridge material was $A 5.40, and of reproducing the printed text of the issue $A 11. If microfiche were adopted as a matter of routine in the future, an airmail microfiche edition of Alcheringa could be supplied for an additional cost of about fA 1 a copy to cover postage and handling costs. (The present subscription price is $A 15.) In that event, the amount of matter printed on paper would be much reduced, but would probably include the names, types and diagnoses of new and revised taxa and their half-tone illustrations, at the very least. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED NEOTYPE-DESIGNATION FOR CALYMENE VARIOLARIS BRONGNIART, 1822 (TRILOBITA). Z.N.(S.) 2189 By Y. Howells & P.D. Lane (Geology Department, Keele University, Staffs. ST5 5BG, U.K.), C.P. Hughes & A.T. Thomas (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, CB2 3EQ, U.K.), and R.M. Owens (Geology Department, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, CF1 3NP, U.K.) In order to avoid a change in current nomenclature, Tripp, Temple & Gass (1977, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33: 250) ask the Commission to use its plenary powers to rule that Calymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822, be interpreted with reference to the specimen figured by Murchison (1839, Silurian System: 655, pl. 14, fig. 1) as Calymene variolaris Brong. (var.?). It is known, however, that Murchison’s specimen is not conspecific with Brongniart’s, which is thought to belong to the species currently known as Encrinurus tuberculatus (Buckland) (see Tripp, 1962, Palaeontology vol. 5: 467; Tripp and others, op. cit.: 251). Because of this, and because of the possibility that Brongniart’s specimen may one day be found, we object to the proposal by Tripp and others. The solution we favour is to restrict Calymene variolaris Brongniart, ne ee rte Pee eee a Re ae Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1822, to Brongniart’s missing specimen and to give a new name to Murchison’s species. While such an approach involves changing current nomenclature, we consider this outweighed by three advantages: (a) the solution is clear and unambiguous; (b) the name variolaris continues to be available should Brongniart’s specimen be found; (c) reference to the Commission is not necessary. Reply to the above, by R.P. Tripp I wish emphatically to reject the arguments put forward by Howells and others. The course of action they propose would (a) transfer the name variolaris from the species represented by Brongniart’s fig. 3b to the different species represented in his fig. 3a; (b) not only change the application of the name variolaris, which has been stable for well over 100 years, but make it a nomen dubium by attaching it to a specimen which was lost when the nominal species was first established by Brongniart; and (c) upset the stabilisation of Encrinurus tuberculatus (Buckland) which, though of recent date (Tripp, 1962), has never been questioned. In reply to their specific points: (a) their proposal introduces ambiguity where none need exist; (b) the availability of variolaris is not in question; we propose to consolidate its century-old validity; they propose to destroy it by making it a nomen dubium; (c) their proposal would make reference to the Commission necessary, if only as a preventive measure. COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION TO CONSERVE ACIDASPIS CORONATA SALTER, 1853 (TRILOBITA). Z.N. (S.) 2190 (see vol. 34: 92-93) By A.W.A. Rushton (Institute of Geological Sciences, London SW7 2DE, UK) The difficulty with accepting Paradoxides quadrimucronatus Murchison, 1839, as a senior synonym of Acidaspis coronata Salter, 1853, lies in the lack of a known type-specimen of the former (a pygidium) by which to verify the synonymy. In supporting Dr Thomas’s application to conserve A. coronata 1 would point out that the syntypes of A. coronata are preserved in the collections of the Institute of Geological Sciences. According to Stubblefield (1938, Summ Progr. geol. Surv. U.K. for 1936 (2): 37), the figures for which A. coronata was proposed represent three specimens: the cephalon (Salter, 1848, Mem. geol. Surv. U.K. vol. 2 (1): pl. 9 fig. 8) may be a composite drawing of two specimens numbered GSM 36734 and 36738; the pygidium (ibid. fig. 9) is a drawing of 36735. Whittard (1938, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) vol. 1: 109) named GSM 36734 as ‘holotype’ and thus effectively selected that specimen (a cephalon) as lectotype. It is from low in the Ludlow Series at Vinnal Hill, 4 km SW of Ludlow, Salop, England. The fact that a lectotype has been chosen for A. coronata should be made known to the Commission, especially as the specimen fixes the name in harmony with general usage. The associated pygidium supports the accepted synonymy with Murchison’s species. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 A COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION OF HALIPLANELLA TREADWELL (POLYCHAETA) IN FAVOUR OF HALIPLANELLA HAND (ANTHOZOA). (Z.N.(S.) 2192). (see vol. 34, part 2: 94-97) By R.B. Williams (2, Carrington Place, Tring, Herts. HP23 5LA) The request by Dunn and Hand (1977) for the suppression of Haliplanella Treadwell (Polychaeta) in favour of Haliplanella Hand (Anthozoa) seems to be the most reasonable solution to this particular problem of nomenclatural stability. However, before any action is taken by the Commission on the specific requests in paragraph 7:95, the following points should be taken into consideration. First, the publication date of the genus-group name Haliplanella Hand and of the family-group name HALIPLANELLIDAE Hand is not 1955, but 1956, since the Fall1955 number (2) of volume 13 of the Wasmann Journal of Biology, in which these names were published, was not issued until 14 February 1956, as indicated at the end of the index to volume 14 and by a stamp on separates distributed by the author. Second, the binomen Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898 given as that of the type-species of Haliplanella Hand, 1956, is in my opinion a junior subjective synonym of Sagartia lineata Verrill, 1869. I shall discuss this more fully in a future paper on variation in the type-species of Haliplanella. Meanwhile, however, a comparison of the species descriptions of S. lineata by Verrill (1869), S. luciae by Verrill (1898) and H. luciae by Hand (1956) confirms the senior synonymity of the species-group name lineata of Verrill (1869) who even recognized at that time two of the four now well-known colour varieties of this species described by Uchida (1936) (as Diadumene luciae). The date of publication of S. lineata is indicated in the contents list of volume 6 (part 1) of the Communications of the Essex Institute. Hence, I suggest that three (nos. 2, 3 and 5) of the five specific requests of Dunn and Hand (1977) in paragraph 7: 95 should be modified as follows: (2) place the generic name Haliplanella Hand, 1956 (Anthozoa) (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name lineata Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Sagartia lineata (valid name of type-species of Haliplanella Hand, 1956) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (5) place the family-group name HALIPLANELLIDAE Hand, 1956 (type-genus Haliplanella Hand, 1956) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. A SR RR RR A RE Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES DUNN, D.F., and HAND, C., 1977. Haliplanella Treadwell, 1943 (Polychaeta): request for suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Haliplanella Hand, 1955 (Anthozoa). Z.N.S.) 2192. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 94-97. HAND, C. 1956. The sea anomones of central California. Part III. The aconti- arian anemones. Wasmann J. Biol. vol. 13 (for 1955): 189-251. UCHIDA, T. 1936. Influence ot the currents upon the distribution of races and frequency of a sexual reproduction in the actinian, Diadumene luciae. Zool. Mag., Tokyo vol. 48: 895-906. VERRILL, A.E. 1869. Synopsis of the polyps and corals of the North Pacific Exploring Expedition, under Commodore C. Ringgold and Capt. John Rodgers, U.S.N., from 1853 to 1856. Collected by Dr. Wm. Stimpson, naturalist to the expedition. Part IV. Actinaria [continued from vol. 5: 330) Communs. Essex Inst., Salem, Mass. vol. 6 (for 1867-70): 51-104.; —— 1898. Descriptions of new American actinians with critical notes on other species, I. Am. J. Sci. (4th Series) vol. 6: 493-498. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME PECTINARIA LAMARCK, 1818, AND THE SPECIFIC NAMES P. BELGICA (PALLAS, 1766) AND P. KORENI (MALMGREN, 1866). Z.N.(S.) 2202 (see vol. 34: 112-122) (1) By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) Dr C. Nielsen, Dr J.B. Kirkegaard and the late Dr Lemche submitted a proposal concerning the generic name Pectinaria and the names of two of its species as a reaction to a paper by Mr J.A.W. Lucas and myself (1975, Zool. Meded. Leiden, vol. 49 (9): 85-90). As I was mainly responsible for the nomenclatural conclusions arrived at in that paper, I feel that I should give some comments here. 2. Nielsen and others in their application have accurately reproduced the contents of the paper by Mr Lucas and myself. Although they ‘strongly object to most of [our] conclusions’, they admit that they are correct under the Code and that only resort to the plenary powers of the Commission can validate the names that they prefer. 3. The case concerns (a) the family names, (b) the generic names and (c) the specific names. I will discuss each separately. (a) The family names 4. In our paper Mr Lucas and I did not pay much attention to the family names, accepting the name AMPHICTENIDAE as used in several handbooks. Personally I was not even aware that there was a problem here. 5. Nielsen and others said that the name AMPHICTENIDAE had been in general use until 1941 when Hartman adopted the name PECTINARIIDAE, a radical change in the nomenclature of the group to which nobody seems to Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 have objected either then or since. According to those authors, AMPHICTENIDAE dates from ““Amphictenea”’ Johnston, 1865 (Catal. British non-parasitic worms Brit. Mus.: 243) corrected to AMPHICTENIDAE by Malmgren, 1867 (Annulata Polych. Spetsbergiae: 103); and PECTINARIIDAE dates from “Pectinarea” Quatrefages, 1865 (Hist. nat. Annel. vol. 2: 327) corrected to PECTINARIIDAE by Hartman (1941, Allan Hancock Pacific Exped. vol. 7: 325). Although PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865, and AMPHICTENIDAE Johnston, 1865 were cited with the same date, Nielsen and and others asked that the former be placed on the Official List without trying first to find out whether it had actual priority or not, or giving any reason why the Commission should prefer it to AMPHICTENIDAE. As I am not familiar with the literature of the Polychaetes, I have not been able to find a more accurate date for Quatrefages’ work, but Johnston’s Catalogue was published on 25 March 1865 according to Sherborn, 1934 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) vol. 13: 312). Since under the Code, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the date of Quatrefages’ work must be taken as 31 December 1865, it is clear that AMPHICTENIDAE has priority over PECTINARIIDAE. 6. However, the question of the exact date of Quatrefages’ work has become academic, as by perusing some older Polychaete literature, I found that the name “Amphictenea’”’ had already been published by Grube, 1851 (Familien der Anneliden: 82). Actually Johnston’s (1865: 243) ““Amphictenea. Front armed with a transverse row of stiff bristles” is undoubtedly a translation of Grube’s (1851: 82) ““Amphictenea. Mundsegment oben mit einer Querreihe von Paleen besetzt”. Unless, therefore, a family-group name based on Pectinaria has been published before 1851, the name AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851 is the valid name for the family contaning Cistena (= Pectinaria) and should be placed on the Official List unless Nielsen and others (and Polychaete workers in general) can show reasons why the Commission should use its plenary powers to give precedence to PECTINARIIDAE. It might appear rather strange to use the plenary powers to suppress a name which, according to Nielsen and others, was in uninterrupted use for 90 years (1851- 1941), and it therefore seems more logical that AMPHICTENIDAE be accepted. (b) The generic names 7. This is a straightforward issue of priority versus usage. Cistena Leach, 1816, and Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, are objective synonyms and have always been assigned to the genus containing Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas. However, the junior name, Pectinaria, has been used far more frequently than the senior, which, if cited, was usually so in synonymy. The question now is whether the usage of Pectinaria is such that the use of the plenary powers by the Commission to validate it is justified. The genus is not of any importance commercially or in applied biology, but on the other hand it is well known to marine biologists and ecologists. Nielsen and others give an impressive list of zoologists who were evidently asked at a symposium whether they preferred Pectinaria to Cistena and who answered in the affirmative. Although congresses and symposia are not the best places to look for well-founded opinions on complicated questions which have not been thoroughly studied beforehand, the present problem is simple enough for it to be evident from Appendix 2 to 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the application by Nielsen and others that there is substantial support for Pectinaria. Personally, I doubt that the acceptance of Cistena would cause much inconvenience, but even that small amount can be avoided by the suppression of that name. (c) The species names 8. The names of two species are involved here - I term them Species A and Species B for convenience. Nielsen and. others referred to them as the ‘sand-bottom’ and ‘mud-bottom’ species respectively, adding that although the species show a preference for these habitats, they are not restricted to them. 9. Species A was described by Pallas (1766) as Nereis cylindraria belgica, and the name belgica was used for it (according to Nielsen and others: 113) by all subsequent authors until in 1866 Malmgren gave the name Lagis koreni to Species A and applied Pectinaria belgica to Species B. Nielsen and others want to validate Malmgren’s usage through the plenary powers of the Commission and through the designation of a neotype for Pallas’s Nereis cylindraria belgica. Their reason is that the combinations cited by Malmgren ‘have been in stable use among specialists as well as in marine biological literature and in zoology textbooks for more than a century’ (: 115; see also : 113). I fear that Nielsen and others are mistaken here. Even though I am not a specialist in Polychaetes, I know that in the last century in Dutch popular sea shore books the common Amphictenid of our shores (Species A) has always been indicated as Pectinaria belgica, and that name has also been used for that species in specialist publications. Thus R. Horst, a Dutch Polychaete specialist, in his treatment of the Polychaeta in Fauna en Flora der Zuiderzee (1922: 274), spoke of ‘de op onze kust vrij gemeene Pect. belgica’ (‘Pect. belgica which is rather common on our shores’), referring to Species A, which, notwithstanding very intensive exploration of the Dutch North Sea Shore, is the only species of Cistena (= Pectinaria) that is found there, and is very common. 10. I should be very surprised if the practice of using the name belgica for Species A stopped abruptly in all other countries after the publication of Malmgren’s 1866 paper. The name belgica has been used in the past, and is still used, for more than one species and is thereby severely compromised. It is for this reason that Mr Lucas and I sank the name belgica as a junior synonym, applying the automatic provisions of the Code. The name cylindraria, which is free from the confusion and different interpretations that are attached to belgica, is in my opinion the most acceptable name for the species. Apart from being the valid name for Species A, it has the advantage of a hundred years priority over koreni, so that no synonym published between 1766 and 1866 can threaten its stability. If the name koreni is accepted, all such synonyms as are known to the Commission must be suppressed under the plenary powers. But even then, any synonym that is discovered later will still invalidate Koreni. The possibility that such overlooked synonyms do exist is shown by the fact that Nereis pectinata Sowerby, 1805, has been so long overlooked, while Nereis pennata Sowerby, 1805 (see below) is even less known. 11. To make belgica the valid name for Species B, as advocated by Nielsen and others, is most unadvisable, as (1) Species B does not occur on the coast of either the Netherlands or Belgium, so that the specific name would be aS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 highly misleading, and (2) the type of Pallas’s species is clearly different from Species B as shown by Pallas’s description and figures. It follows that the designation by Nielsen and others of a specimen of Species B from Bohuslan, Sweden, as neotype of Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas is invalid on two counts: Article 75c (4) of the Code requires that the neotype be consistent with what is known of the former type-specimen or syntypes; this is not the case here, as Pallas’s type belongs to Species A, Nielsen’s neotype to Species B. Secondly, Article 75c(5) requires that the neotype come as nearly as practicable from the original type-locality. The original type-locality in this case is the North Sea coast of the province of Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands (probably near Scheveningen), and is almost 1000 km from the locality of the neotype, Bohuslan, Sweden. 12. Hence the neotype-designation by Nielsen and others can only be validated by the use of the plenary powers. Personally | feel that such an action (in combination with all the other uses of the plenary powers requested) to validate a name that has not been and still is not uniformly used by zoologists, is not justified and that much more will be gained here by the simple and direct application of the Code. 13. Nielsen and others criticised the identification of Nereis pectinata with Species B as made by Mr Lucas and me in our 1975 paper. We realise that this interpretation is open to challenge. Sowerby (1805) described 14 parapodia with golden bristles. In species A there are 12 abdominal and three thoracic parapodia, and in Species B 14 abdominal and three thoracic. As the thoracic parapodia in Species B are small and easily overlooked, we thought it more likely that Sowerby described Species B and overlooked the thoracic parapodia, than that he had Species A and made an arithmetic error. But by this time neither argument can be proved. Nielsen and others may be right that Sowerby placed material of several species under N. pectinata, but this cannot be proved either. 14. I agree with Nielsen and others that the status of Nereis pectinata should be clarified. In my opinion this can best be done by designating a specimen of Species B as its neotype. To remedy this omission by Lucas & Holthuis (1975) I now designate as neotype for that species the specimen from Bohuslan, Sweden, in the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Section of Invertebrate Zoology, type no. 3138, which Nielsen and others (1977: 118) designated, but invalidly, as neotype of Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas. This specimen agrees with Sowerby’s (1805) description and figure (if one accepts his statement ‘Tentacula 14 on each. side’ as referring to the abdominal parapodia only). The type-locality of Nereis pectinata Sowerby ‘on the Sandwich [= Sandwich Bay, north of Dover, England] and other shores’ is defined broadly enough to include Bohuslin, Sweden. 15. As Nielsen and others pointed out, if the name belgica cannot be used for Species B, and if, following their example, the name pectinata is rejected for it, then it seems to be without a name. But as pectinata has not been used for any other species of Cistena (= Pectinaria), it comes in very handy for Species B. In addition, the fact that it was published as early as 1805 reduces the likelihood of synonyms being found that would threaten its stability. 16. How easily names can be overlooked is shown by the existence of 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the name Nereis pennata Sowerby, published on the cover of fascicle 9 of Sowerby’s Zoological Miscellany and dated 1 December 1805. Nereis pennata refers to pl. 51 and is thus an objective synonym or an incorrect original spelling of N. pectinata. It is best considered as the latter, but is in any case invalid as a junior homonym of Nereis pennata O.F. Miiller, 1776 (Zool. Dan. Prodr.: 217), which is in turn a junior objective synonym of Nereis norvegica Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1: 1086. 17. My objections to the proposals by Nielsen and others may be summarised as follows: (a) The family name PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865 is invalid, and even if placed on the Official List must be replaced by AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851. (b) The request for the suppression of Cistena is technically in order, but a decision must be taken as to whether Pectinaria is sufficiently well known and important to justify the use of the plenary powers for its retention. (c) The proposal to validate the names koreni Malmgren, 1866 and belgica Pallas, 1766 for Species A and B respectively must fail because their proposed neotype-designation is invalid and because it does not remove the confusion surrounding the name belgica, which has been used for at least two different species. 18. I therefore place the following alternative sets of proposals before the Commission. In my view, either of these would give a more soundly based stability to the nomenclature of the taxa concerned than would the proposals of Nielsen and others. I prefer the first alternative, namely the simple application of the Code with no use of the plenary powers. The second alternative proposes the suppression of Cistena under the plenary powers so as to validate Pectinaria. Alternative A The Commission is requested (1) To place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (a) cylindraria Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Nereis cylindraria, and as defined by the lectotype selected by Lucas & Holthuis, 1975; (b) pectinata Sowerby, 1805, as published in the binomen Nereis pectinata, and as defined by the neotype designated in paragraph 14 herein. (2) To place the generic name Cistena Leach, 1816 (gender, feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cistena pallasii Leach, 1816 [ a junior objective synonym of Nereis cylindraria Pallas, 1766jon the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) To place the family name AMPHICTENIDAE (correction by Malmgren, 1867, of “Amphictenea’’) Grube, 1851 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (4) To place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific names (a) belgica Pallas, as published in the combination Nereis cylindraria belgica (rendered invalid as a synonym of the simultaneously Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 published Nereis cylindraria Pallas, 1766 by the first reviser action of Lucas & Holthuis, 1975); (b) pallasii Leach, 1816, as published in the binomen Cistena pallasii, a junior objective synonym of Nereis cylindraria Pallas, 1766; (c) pennata J. Sowerby, 1805, as published in the binomen Nereis pennata, a junior homonym of Nereis pennata O.F. Miller, 1766; (d) tubiformis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Sabella tubiformis, a junior objective synonym of Nereis cylindraria Pallas, 1766. (5) To place the generic name Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818 (a junior objective synonym of Cistena Leach, 1816) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. No action is proposed for PECTINARIIDAE. This name is available for those zoologists who place Cistena Leach, 1816 and Amphictena Savigny, 1820, in different families. Alternative B The Commission is requested (1) To use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cistena Leach, 1816 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) as paragraph (1) of Alternative A. (3) To place the generic name Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818 (gender, feminine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Malmgren, 1866 (Ofvers. k. Vetensk. Akad. Forhandl. Stockholm, 1865: 356), Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas, 1766, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (4) as paragraph (3) of Alternative A (5) as paragraph (4) of Alternative A (6) To place the generic name Cistena Leach, 1816, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (2) By Torleif Holthe U/nstitute of Biology and Geology, University of Troms@. P.O. Box 790, N-9001, Troms¢, Norway) Concerning the nomenclature of the polychaete family AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851 (PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865), I have been asked by both Professor Holthuis and Dr Nielsen to express my views to the Commission. My concern with this question is due to my work on the ‘Marine invertebrates of Scandinavia’, of which the volume on Polychaeta Terebellomorpha is about to be completed. I have read the paper by Lucas & Holthuis (1975, Zool. Meded. Leiden, vol. 49: 85-90) and the contributions by Nielsen, Kirkegaard & Lemche and by Holthuis in Bull. zool. Nom. Regarding the conservation of the generic name Pectinaria, I agree with the proposal by Nielsen and others because this genus is one of the few polychaete genera known to most marine biologists and it is one of the more important genera of benthic synecology. In my experience, many ecologists find polychaete taxonomy especially esoteric and difficult, and I am afraid that changing a familiar name like Pectinaria would make it unnecessarily more so. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The question of the specific names is indeed difficult and can only be solved by the Commission. For all practical work a decision on this question must be welcomed, whatever it may be. I do not, however, find it as important to conserve the specific names belgica and koreni as the generic name Pectinaria, and J will therefore support Holthuis’s proposal B. A consequence of both Holthuis’s proposals is that the subgeneric names (as used by, among others, Nilsson, 1928, Géteborgs Kungl. Vetensk. Vitterh. Samh. Handl., vol. 33(4) must be changed. If his Alternative A is adopted, Pectinaria (Lagis) koreni (Malmgren, 1866) must be changed to Cistena (Cistena) cylindraria (Pallas, 1766), and Pectinaria (Pectinaria) belgica (Pallas, 1766) to Cistena (new subgeneric name) pectinata (J. Sowerby, 1805). If his Alternative B is adopted, P. (L.) koreni must be changed to P. (Pectinaria) koreni, and P. (P.) belgica to Pectinaria (new subgeneric name) pectinata. The latter proposal thus means that the subgenus Pectinaria will no longer be the familiar one, and this is the most serious disadvantage of his Alternative B. I shall have to publish a new name for the subgenus whose type- species is Pectinaria pectinata (J. Sowerby, 1805) in the “Marine Invertebrates of Scandinavia’. (3) By Dr Marian H. Pettibone (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, USA) I reviewed the manuscript of Lucas and Holthuis “On the identity and nomenclature of Pectinaria belgica (Pallas, 1766) (Polychaeta, Amphictenidae)”’ before it was published in 1975. At the time I went over the evidence carefully and was convinced, based on a series of errors, that something drastic needed to be done and that Lucas and Holthuis had worked out some sound solutions, based on the rules of nomenclature. I have nothing significant to add to the very thorough discussion by Holthuis of the proposal by Nielsen and others. In paragraphs 14 and 25 of their proposal those authors indicate the family name PECTINARIIDAE has been followed by almost all authors since Hartman (1941: 325) reintroduced the name. This is incorrect; it was used only by a few American and Russian polychaete workers. Since the publication of Hartman’s Catalogue of the polychaetous Annelids of the World in 1959 the family name PECTINARIIDAE has been more widely used, since people are most apt to follow that type of publication. I agree fully with Alternative A of Holthuis, although I would not object to Alternative B. However, since the familiar names have to go, I favour going all the way by not even trying to save the name Pectinaria. The new combinations of Lucas & Holthuis (1975) might very well become familiar and more quickly generally accepted than by having the name Pectinaria combined once again with the less familiar name cylindraria. I find no ways of saving the species names belgica and koreni. (4) By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The following zoologists support the original proposals by Nielsen, Kirkegaard & Lemche (though without having seen the accompanying ~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 comments): Dr Eve Southward (The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, U.K.), Dr Jarl-Ove Stromberg (Kristineberg Marine Biological Station, Sweden), Dr Vera Fretter and Professor Alastair Graham (University of Reading, U.K.), Dr Gesa Hartmann-Schréder (University of Hamburg, BRD), Dr F. Rullier (Université Catholique de I’Ouest, Angers, France), Dr Hans Brattstrom (Bergen University, Norway), Professor Robert D. Barnes (Gettysburg College, Pennsylvania, USA), and Dr Kristian Fauchald (Allan Hancock Foundation, Los Angeles, California, USA). (5) AMENDED PROPOSAL FOR VALIDATING PECTINARIA LAMARCK, 1818 (POLYCHAETA), P. BELGICA (PALLAS, 1766) AND P. KORENI (MALMGREN, 1866) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N(S.) 2202 By Claus Nielsen (Marine Biological Laboratory, DK-3000 Helsingér, Denmark) and Jorgen B. Kirkegaard (Zoological Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen @, Denmark). “The object of the Code is to promote stability and universality in the scientific names of animals . . .”” (Preamble: International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). “The Law of Priority is to be used to promote stability and is not intended to be used to upset a long-established name in its accustomed meaning through the introduction of an unused name which is its senior synonym. A zoologist who considers that the application of the Law of Priority would in his judgement disturb stability or universality or cause confusion is to maintain existing usage and must refer the case to the Commission for a decision under the plenary powers” (Article 23 a-b: International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). The above quotations could have been the motto for the proposal to validate the genus name Pectinaria and the two species names P. belgica and P. koreni (Nielsen, Kirkegaard & Lemche, 1977). As Dr. Lemche died unexpectedly, just before the publication of the original proposal, the present comments have therefore been prepared by Nielsen & Kirkegaard alone. Dr. Holthuis has sent us a copy of his manuscript with his comments on our proposal, together with a kind letter with suggestions for the present, amended proposal. We should like to’thank Dr. Holthuis heartily for this help. Our comments will follow those of Dr. Holthuis. a. The family name is, of course, the least important problem. We feel, however, that it would be convenient to stabilize the current preference for the name PECTINARIIDAE, which is based on the most widely known genus. Since, as pointed out by Dr. Holthuis, the name AMPHICTENEA dates from Grube, 1851, and PECTINAREA from Quatrefages, 1865, this can only be done by asking the Commission to give PECTINARIIDAE preference over AMPHICTENIDAE. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature b. The generic name is, as also pointed out by Dr. Holthuis, a straightforward case of priority versus usage. We still maintain that since Cistena Leach, 1816, has not been used as a valid name since its introduction, a reintroduction of this name as a replacement for the widely known name Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, would violate Article 23 (a-b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Dr. T. Holthe (University of Trondheim) has called our attention to the problem of subgeneric names. If the present proposal is followed the accustomed use of the subgeneric names Pectinaria s.str. and Lagis Malmgren, 1866, will be unchanged. If one of Holthuis’ proposals is followed the subgenus now known as Lagis would become Cistena s.str. (proposal A) or Pectinaria s.str. (proposal B) while the other subgenus would require a new name. c. The species names pose the most difficult problems. The important thing for us aS marine biologists and zoologists is to stabilize the current use of the two widely known names. Dr. Holthuis points out that the name belgica has been used for the sand-bottom species in popular Dutch seashore books and we have now found also that some polychaete specialists have questioned Malmgren’s description of P. belgica. Cunningham & Ramage (1888: 656-659), Hornell (1891: 162-163) and Horst (1896: 26-27) discuss the differential characters used by Malmgren (1866) to distinguish the genera Lagis and Pectinaria, but all these authors state that P. belgica has the number of setae and hooks that characterizes Lagis and that Malmgren must have been in error. Apparently all these authors dealt with the sand-bottom species and none of them had actually seen the mud-bottom species which Malmgren called belgica. We admit that even as late as 1922 a polychaete specialist (Horst, 1922: 274) could have misinterpreted Malmgren’s (1866) definitions of the two species, but we find it impossible to believe that the widely accepted treatise by Fauvel (1927) on sedentary polychaetes in ““Faune de France’’ can have been overlooked. As nobody except Lucas & Holthuis (1975) seems to have questioned Fauvel’s use of the names belgica and koreni (which accords with that of Malmgren in 1866), we must conclude that the names we ask the Commission to stabilise have now been in stable use for 50 years. It is thus not correct for Holthuis to say the name belgica “‘is still used for more than one species”’. It is regrettable, but without nomenclatural importance, that a species called belgica does not occur on the Belgian coast. Holthuis’ statement “If the name koreni is accepted all such synonyms that are known at present have to be suppressed by the Commission; but notwithstanding this any such synonym that becomes known later still will make the name koreni invalid” is directly contradicted by the provisions in the Code regarding unused senior synonyms and can therefore be disregarded. We agree with Holthuis that the name pennata Sowerby, 1805 (as published in the combination Nereis pennata) is an incorrect spelling for pectinata Sowerby, 1805, and should in any case be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names as a junior homonym. Dr. Holthuis has called our attention to additional species referred to Pectinaria in the older European literature. Montagu (1803, pp. 552-553) described three types of tubes which Johnston (1845, p. 446) with doubt referred to Pectinaria. Two of these species, arenaria and sybcylindrica, have Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 cylindrical rather than conical tubes and are therefore not pectinariids, and the third species, setiformis, has a tube “composed of very fine tragments of shells and minute fragments of stones . . . lying on each other in an imbricated manner. Length three or four inches, size double that of hog’s bristle”, which indicates the tube of the oweniid Myriochele rather than that of a pectinariid. Hartman (1959, pp. 558, 564, 565) lists all three species as indeterminable. Risso (1826, pp. 411-412) described two species of Pectinaria, P. castanea and P. nigrescens, from the Mediterranean. The first species is by Hartman (1959, pp. 478, 480) listed as a doubtful synonym of P. koreni, and the second (op.cit., p. 480) is listed as indeterminable. We treat them as nomina dubia and propose no action concerning them. Through an error, in the final manuscript of the original proposal we omitted the formal proposal asking the Commission to validate our selection of a neotype of belgica (in accordance with §24 in our original proposal); this error should be remedied by (1) (C) (b) below. Our amended proposal to the Commission is therefore as follows: The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) Under the Plenary Powers (A) to suppress the specific names: (a) cylindraria Pallas, 1776, as published in the combination Nereis cylindraria (b) tubiformis Pennant, 1777, as published in the combination Sabella tubiformis (c) pectinata Sowerby, 1805, as published in the combination Nereis pectinata (d) pallassii Leach, 1816, as published in the combination Cistena pallassii (B) to suppress the generic name Cistena Leach, 1816, type by monotypy Cistena pallassii (C) (a) to set aside all type material used by Pallas (1776) in describing his variety Nereis cylindraria belgica and, having done so, (b) to validate the neotype selection of Nereis cylindraria belgica made by Nielsen, Kirkegaard & Lemche (1977) (D) to give the family name PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865 (correction pro PECTINAREA by Hartman, 1941) precedence over the family name AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851 (2) To place on the respective Official Lists: (A) the specific names: (a) belgica Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Nereis cylindraria belgica, as defined by the neotype validated under (1) (C) (b) above (b) koreni Malmgren, 1866, as published in the combination Lagis koreni (B) the generic name Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, type-species by subsequent designation by Malmgren (1866) Nereis cylindraria belgica as defined under (2) (A) (a) above (C) the family-group names: (a) PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865 (correction pro PECTIN- 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AREA by Hartman, 1941) with the annotation that this name be given precedence over AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851, by those authors who consider the genera Amphictene Savigny, 1822, and Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, to belong to the same family. (b) AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851 (correction pro AMPHI- CTENEA by Malmgren, 1867) with the annotation that authors who consider the genera Amphictene Savigny, 1822, and Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, to belong to the same family shall give the name PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865, precedence over AMPHICTENIDAE (3) To place on the respective Indexes of Rejected and Invalid names: (A) the specific names: (a) cylindraria Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Nereis cylindraria, and suppressed under (1) (A) (a) above (b) tubiformis Pennant, 1777, as published in the combination Sabella tubiformis and suppressed under (1) (A) (b) above (c) pectinata Sowerby, 1805, as published in the combination Nereis pectinata and suppressed under (1) (A) (c) above (d) pallassii Leach, 1816, as published in the combination Cistena pallassii and suppressed under (1) (A) (d) above (e) pennata Sowerby, 1805, as published in the binomen Nereis pennata (a junior primary homonym of Nereis pennata Miller, 1766) (B) the generic name Cistena Leach, 1816, as suppressed under (1) (B) above. REFERENCES CUNNINGHAM, J.T. & RAMAGE, G.A., 1888. The Polychaeta Sedentaria of the Firth of Forth. Trans. r. Soc. Edinb., vol. 33: 635-684, pls 36-47. FAUVEL, P., 1927. Polychétes sédentaires. Faune France, vol. 16: 494 pp. GRUBE, E., 1851. Die Familien der Anneliden. Arch. Naturgesch., vol. 16: 249-364. HARTMAN, O., 1959. Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Occ. Pap. Allan Hancock Fdn, vol. 23: 1-628. HORNELL, J., 1891. Report on the polychaetous annelids of the L.M.B.C. district. Proc. Liverpool biol. Soc., vol. 5: 223-268, pls 13-15. HORST, R., 1896. Naamlijst der tot de nederlandsche fauna behoorende Annelida Polychaeta. Tijdschr. ned. dierk. Vereen., 2. Ser., vol. 5: 15-28. HORST, R., 1922. Polychaete Anneliden. In: Flora en Fauna der Zuidersee (Ed. H.C. Redeke) pp. 262-275. Helder. JOHNSTON, G., 1845. An index to the British annelids. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., 1. Ser., vol. 16: 433-462, pl. 15. LUCAS, J.A.W. & HOLTHUIS, L.B., 1975. On the identity and nomenclature of “Pectinaria belgica (Pallas, 1766)” (Polychaeta, Amphictenidae). Zool. Meded. Leiden, vol. 49: 85-90. MALMGREN, A.J., 1866. Nordiska hafs-annulater. Ofvers. K. Vetensk Akad. Férh. Stockh., 1865: 355-410, pls 18-29. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 MONTAGU, G., 1803. Testacea Britannica. Part 2, pp. 293-611, 16 pls. London. NIELSEN, C., KIRKEGAARD, J.B. & LEMCHE, H., 1977. Pectinaria Lam- arck, 1818 (Polychaeta), and the specific names P. belgica (Pallas, 1766) and P. koreni (Malmgren, 1866) to be validated under the Plenary Powers. Z.N.(S.) 2202. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34: 12-122. QUATREFAGES, A. de, 1865. Histoire naturelle des annelés marins et d’eau douce. Annélides et géphyriens. Vol. 2, 794 pp. Paris. RISSO, A., 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de 1’Europe méridionale et particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes. Vol. 4, 439 pp., 12 pls. Paris. SOWERBY, J., 1805/06. The British Miscellany. Vol. 1, 136 pp., 60 pls. London. FINANCIAL REPORT 1976. The accounts for 1976 show an improvement on those of the year 1975. This is due to the increase in the rate of subscription to the Bulletin and to sales of the International Code as well as to the generous provision of voluntary help in the Commission’s Office. As a result there was an excess of income of £264.88 compared with a deficit in 1975 of £3637. During the year it was possible to restore a little of the reduction in reserves which were so seriously depleted during 1975. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69°SLS‘8 F €6°918°7 ST cor T BL'vIP'l 79° 76E IT Z76'S9I'9 TS'78Lb €f°7L LO'IIE’T OL9TZ S- EZ'910'S Lr O1z $6 00F tr 19 9161 ‘UAMNAOAC ISIE LV SV LAAHS AONVIVE SLASSV LLAN SOUPAPY UT Paalodoy suUOoT}dIIOsqns SIO}IPsID AIpung SHILITIGVIT LNAYUND puey Ur pue yueg je yseg 9[GBIOAOIDY SOXe] 10410 puke 9UIODUT sa[Bg WOl] onp syunowy SLASSV LNdXaNO yO} UOT a[QeWeopey 8L6I HL eptaquieD Jo AjD OOO SF S09 18 SLNAWLSAANI uolepeideg poyepnunooy :ssaT 4809 38 [NAWdINOA AOIAO SLASSV GaxId BCCL L062 860T 608'T SETI 588 SI6€ $9 $06 ose's 910°S PEC SLOI AYNLVTONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YO LSNUL TVNOILVNUALNI 31 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SJUDJUNOIIP PasajADyD LL6I ‘l4dy 387 ‘OO ¥ NOSTIIN ‘AA TUON “HGE NIOM “uopuoT ‘moy Plojpog “JadI}G Soules OID ‘¢ “LOGI PUR BpP6I ‘S}9Y sarUedUIOD oy} YIM A[duIOO pue ajep yey} UO papusa Ie9A 94} oj snjding 3utjeredo ay} Jo puke 9/6] ‘Ioquisceq 4s[¢ ay} 1e se smejye s,AUBdUIOD ay} JO 3383S BY} JO MIA ey puke oni} & oars JUNODDY aM}Ipusdxq pue sWOdU] poxouUe puke Joos aour[eg 2A0qe ay} UOTUIdO Ino Uy] SYOLIGNV AHL AO LUOddu 9a}}1WUIOD (UIJJID “f stouesly jugwioseue_wOC( *ponyea useq jOU sey 94} JO SIaqUIa-F (JUSy JojJog suol}eoT]qng JO 490s oy] [ALON 69°SLS'8F 822‘L F 96 PEL TZ LINNOODOV ASNAdSNS «.LSIT TVIOISAO,, 7597 €LOv8'S 9OLS‘b ¥808 88° P97 (919 $261) snjding JUNODDY ainjpusdxq pue euloouy LED c 00°000° I dAIOSOY ]eIsuayy 0} Jojsuely “PPV 00 SJUSUI}SSAU] jo UOT} PSI BOY uo Ssoy— ‘SSOT Lrr'r S8°SLS‘b SL6I ‘Jaquiedaq IS[¢ 38 sOURlTeg 099‘ZI SHAYXASAY TVYANAD SHAUASAY ANNAADA Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LS 8pS'b 00°0S 1S'86S°P 00°09 Lv'so9‘l vO EL6'7 LS'€v68 OB ELE 00'0SE 78°BE 68°08 1'8 661169 06'°897'I 9L6l «LSIT TVIOIMSO,, OL GALVOOTIV NOILYOdOUd - 5527 seo WpNny sosusdxy 391jjO suOI}NqIIyUOD QOUPINSU] [PUOTJEN pur solieles SASNAdXH NOILVULSININGY -5527 LSAaaLNI LISOddd ANVA (sso) FNOONI LNAWLSAANI SNOILVNOG QIN}JRPOUSWION [PdISOTOOT jo uljaying apog [euoljeusojU] SNOLLVOITA&Nd JO SATVS os 8ZE'S 09 069'T 8LS‘E PSL OST £00'T 92 $26°S $19°¢ O9E SLOT 9L61 ‘UAGNAOA IS1€ OL UVAA AHL YOU LNNOOOV AUNLIGNAdXaA GNV AWOONI AUNLVIONAWON TVIIDOTOOZ AOA LSNUL TVNOILVNYAINI 33 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 96° PEL CF LAAHS FONV TIVE ©} Peles FONV IVE 00°0S SHSNddxXd NOILVULSININGY AO NOILYOdOUd : 8827 96'P8L'Z O8'cEl SNOILVOITAHNd AO SATVS 91°7S9°7Z premioy }YyBn0I1q FONV IVA SP Po sd 9L6l ‘UAAWAOAC SIE OL UVAA AHL YOd LNNODOV ASNAASNS ..LSIT TVIOIAO,, 88 P97 F (LIOISAG $L61) LAAHS AONV TVA ©} petzes SN TduNns 00°000°I AAUASAU TVYUANAD OL YUAASNVUL “5897 88° P97 I 69°8L9°L SEE INAWNdINOD ADI4AAO AO NOILVIOdUdAA Os’90I‘€ SNOILVOITANd dO NOILN IM LSIG GNV ONILNIdd LEME F LE9E T6Z OT 92 L8¢'S 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSAL TO CONSERVE BLATTA GERMANICA LINNAEUS, 1767 AND TO DESIGNATE IT AS TYPE-SPECIES OF BLATTELLA CAUDELL, 1903 (INSECTA, DICTUOPTERA, BLATTODEA). Z.NS.) 680. By D.K. McE. Kevan (Macdonald College, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Province of Quebec, Canada HOA 1CO) There seems to be no doubt that the oldest available name for the species widely known as Blattella germanica (Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1(2): 668) is in fact Blatta transfuga Briinnich in Pontoppidan, 1763 (Den Danske Atlas, vol. 1: 679, pl. 29). This synonymy, as far as | am aware, was first pointed out by Yakobson in Yakobson & Bianki, 1902—1905 (Pryamokr. i Lozhnosetchatokr. rossiisk. Imp. i sopred. Stran: 128). He was followed by Shugurov, 1908 (Hor. Soc. ent. Ross., vol. 38: 115; Zap. novoross. Obshsch. Estestvoispyt. [Mém. Soc. nat. Odessa] , vol. 34: 120-124); and by Kirby, 1910 (Syn. Cat. Orthopt. vol. 3:563). It has also occasionally been adopted sub- sequently by Russian authors, and commented on by others. 2. Since Briinnich’s name has undoubted priority over that of Linnaeus, the latter must fall under a strict interpretation of the Law of Priority, but so great a volume of literature exists in which the species is called germanica that it would be most undesirable to change such a universally known name for one that is unfamiliar and that has remained so long in nearly complete obscurity. The species is one of considerable economic importance and is frequently referred to by scientists other than taxonomic entomologists. It is also widely known (except in Germany) by the vernacular name of ‘German cockroach’ or the equivalent, which reflects the general acceptance of the Linnean name, even if this now cosmopolitan species is not of German origin. 3. Through most of the nineteenth century, Blatta germanica was referred to the genus Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville, [1838], but in 1903 Caudell found that that name was a junior homonym and accordingly replaced it by Blattella. At the same time he designated B. germanica as the type-species of both genera, and this was until now thought to be the first valid designation of a type- species for Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville. It is now known, however, that Walker in 1868 had designated Blatta lapponica Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species of that genus, and under Article 67i of the Code that species must also be the type of Blattella. The effect of this is that both Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville and Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Ww WN Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Blattella Caudell become junior objective synonyms of Ectobius Stephens, 1835, and if the Code be strictly applied (since not even an unfamiliar synonym is available for the genus containing the species germanica) some new name will have to be used for the genus known to workers in many and diverse fields as Blattella for 75 years. 4. There are thus two principal actions that the Commission is asked to take using its plenary powers: first, to conserve Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767, from being displaced by its senior synonym Blatta transfuga Briinnich, 1763; secondly, to set aside Walker’s designation of B. lapponica as the type-species of Phyllodromia and thus of Blattella and to designate B. germanica as the type-species of both these nominal genera. There are also repercussions affecting family-group names. The details of the case follow (those concerning B. germanica have been given in the first paragraph of this paper). 5. The genus Pseudomops was erected by Audinet-Serville, 1831 (Ann. Sci. nat. vol. 22: 41) with type- species, by monotypy, Blatta oblongata Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1: 425). 6. The genus Ectobius was erected (apparently at the suggestion of Westwood) by Stephens, 1835 (Jilustr. Brit. Ent., part 6: 45); it included, among other species, B. germanica Linnaeus, 1767, and B. lapponica Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1: 425). B. lapponica was designated as type-species by Westwood, [1838], (Introd. mod. Class. Ins., Syn. gen. Brit. Ins.: 44) and the generic name, so defined, has been placed on the Official List (see Opinion 104, Smiths. misc. Colls. vol. 73(5): 25-28, 1928: Direction 63, Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nom. vol. 1E: 21—60, 1957). The genus Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville, [1838] (Roret’s Suites a Buffon (Orth.): 105) (non Zetterstedt, 1837, Isis (Oken), 1837: 31, Diptera) also included the same two species. No type- species was designated. 7. The genus Epilampra was erected by Burmeister, 1838 (Handb. Ent. vol. Il (2): 504). Blatta brasiliensis Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.: 272) was designated as type-species by Kirby, 1903 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 12: 276). 8. The genera Ectobius Stephens and Phyllodromia Audinet- Serville were given taxonomic individuality by Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (Nouv. Syst. Blatt. (Wien): 53, 88). He did not designate a type-species for either genus, but germanica was his first species under Phyllodromia. In the same work he also erected the families ECTOBI[I]DAE (:46, 51), PHYLLODROMI[IJDAE (: 46, 74) and EPILAMPRIDAE (: 47, 147). 9. Walker, 1868 (Caz. Blatt. Brit. Mus.: 86 ff.), following the 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature taxonomy, but not the terminology, of de Saussure (1864, Hist. nat. Mexique, vol. 3: 92 ff.), divided the genus Blatta Linnaeus, 1758, into Sections, Divisions, Subdivisons, Groups and Subgroups. With some of these (but, still following de Saussure, not others) he associated generic names. One of these (Walker’s Section 1, Division 2, Group 1, Subgroup 3) is associated with the generic name Phyllodromia [the whole of Section 1 is associated with the generic name Hololampra, but by reference to de Saussure, this should really apply only to Division 1 of that Section]. Under the generic heading Blatta (: 86) is the following previously overlooked statement: “‘The species immediately following each division in the genus may be considered as the type of the division”. No initial capital is used for ‘“‘division’’, so that one must assume that it is used in a general sense, not formally for what he called ‘Divisions’ (which differ from the ‘Divisions’ of de Saussure). Blatta lapponica Linnaeus is the first species following the division (Subgroup) Phyllodromia and is thus its type-species. Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville is thus made a junior objective synonym of Ectobius Stephens, 1835 (see paragraph 6 above). 10. Caudell, 1903, February (Proc. ent. Soc. Washington, vol. 5: 234) pointed out the homonymy of Phyllodromia Audinet- Serville with Phyllodromia Zetterstedt, 1837, and remarked: ‘“‘The orthopterous genus Phyllodromia, being thus preoccupied in the Diptera, must necessarily fall. Being a valid [ sic - i.e. taxonomically distinct] genus, of which Blatta germanica Linnaeus is the type and having no synonyms, a new name is unavoidable. The generic name Blattella is here proposed for it”. This seems to imply that germanica had previously been recognized as the type-species of Phyllodromia, but this does not seem to have been the case, although the genus had always included that species, ever since its first proposal. The fact remains, however, that Walker had already designated B. lapponica as type-species of Phyllodromia, thus rendering it a junior objective synonym of Ectobius, and leaving Linnaeus’s species germanica without a taxonomic genus. Yet ever since Brunner von Wattenwy] (1865), the two species Japponica and germanica had been placed in different taxonomic genera. 11. Caudell, 1903, June (Proc. ent. Soc. Washington, vol. 5: 331) again stated ‘‘Ectobius germanicus’’ to be the type-species of Blattella (and of Phyllodromia) and, shortly afterwards, Rehn, 1903, September (Trans. Amer. ent. Soc., vol. 29: 266) accepted Blattella Caudell as the valid name for the taxonomic genus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 concerned !. In discussing the possible candidates for type-species of Phyilodromia he used a process of elimination (not acceptable under the Code) and selection (in a procedurally correct way) and said: “Of these, germanica can rationally be selected as the type”. Rehn also pointed out (: 260) that a new name was required for PHYLLODROMI[I] NAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865, and proposed PSEUDOMOPIDAE., based on Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831, and still recognised as distinct from the ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865. (Kevan & Princis. 1961, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 18: 330, in an earlier proposal on part of the present case, erroneously attributed PSPEUDOMOPIDAE to Burr, 1910, Synopsis Orth. W. Europe: 152.) Karny, 1908 (Mitt. naturw. Ver. Univ. Wien, vol. 6: 112) proposed BLATTELLIDAE in place of PHYLLODROMIIDAE based on a junior homonym, but his name is junior to PPEUDOMOPIDAE, and, although based on the valid name of the type-genus of the replaced nominal family-group taxon, is invalid. 12. Current usage of the family-group names is not uniform. but is sufficiently stable to make it necessary to give BLATELLIDAE (1908) precedence over its senior synonym PSEUDOMOPIDAE (1903) on the grounds that the former is a replacement name for PHYLLODROMIIDAE nd therefore technically dating from 1865 in accordance with the 1961 edition of the Code (Article 39a) which was, however, altered in the 1964 edition. These two taxa, together with ECTOBIIDAE (1865), are currently placed by many authors in the superfamily EPILAMPROIDEA (1865), so that the order of precedence to be given to these names should be: 1. EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 2. BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 3. ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 4. PSEUDOMOPIDAE Rehn, 1903 13. In detail, the Commission is asked to: (1) use its plenary powers © (a) to rule that the specific name germanica Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Blatta germanica, is to be given precedence over the specific name transfuga Briinnich, 1763, as published in the binomen Blatta transfuga, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms; i, From internal evidence (the selection, without comment, of a different type-species for the cockroach genus Leucophaea Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865, by Caudell and by Rehn respecitively - the latter’s selection having been generally, but incorrectly, accepted), it is almost certain that Rehn had not seen Caudell’s June 1903 paper, at least until after proofs of his own had been returned. D.K. ane: per bie Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) to set aside all designations of type-species hitherto made for the nominal genus Blattella Caudell, 1903. and to designate Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767, as type-species of that genus; (c) to rule that the following family-group names are to be given precedence in the order in which they appear below whenever they are used within a single superfamily: EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 - BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 (replacement name for PHYLLODROMIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865) PSEUDOMOPIDAE Rehn, 1903 (2) place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Blattella Caudell, 1903 (gender, feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767: (b) Epilampra Burmeister, 1838 (gender, feminine), type- species, by subsequent designation by Kirby, 1903, Blatta brasiliensis Fabricius, 1775; (c) Pseudomops _Audinet-Serville, 1831 (gender, masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Blatta oblongata Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) germanica Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Blatta germanica (specific name of type- species of Blattella Caudell, 1903); (b) brasiliensis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Blatta brasiliensis (specific name of type- species of Epilampra Burmeister, 1838); (c) oblongata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Blatta oblongata (specific name of type- species of Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831): 4) to place the following names on the Official List of im) Family-Group Names in Zoology, with an endorsement that, in consequence of the ruling under the plenary powers in (l)(c) above, they are to be given nomenclatural precedence in the following order: EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (type-genus Epilampra Burmeister, 1838); ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (type- genus Ectobius Stephens, 1835); 39 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 3. BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 (type-genus Blattella Caudell, 1903) (replacement name for PHYLLODROMIIDAE, 1865) 4. PSEUDOMOPIDAE Rehn, 1903 (type-genus Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831). 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADDITION OF PULTENEY’S DORSET CATALOGUES, 1799, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF AVAILABLE WORKS, WITH A REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE STATUS OF PREPRINTS. Z.NAS.) 2110 By David Heppell (The Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh) The objects of this application are (a) to ask the Commission to accept for the purposes of zoological nomenclature the first edition of the work by Richard Pulteney, 1799, entitled Catalogues of the Birds, Shells, and some of the more rare Plants, of Dorsetshire, and (b) to request a ruling on the status of works first issued as preprints. 2. The Catalogues consist of 92 folio pages of which 22 (pp. 1—22) are devoted to birds, 34 (pp.22—54) to shells, and the remainder to plants. The plant section does not concern us; the bird section included no new names, and the few incorrect subsequent spellings therein have no status in nomenclature; the shell section included more than sixty new nominal species of which eight are currently in use as the valid names of Mollusca. 3. Pulteney’s Catalogues were intended to form part of the third volume of the second edition of Hutchins’s History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, as is indicated on the 1799 title-page. The first two volumes of the History had been published in 1796 and 1803 but in 1808 the almost completed third volume was destroyed by fire at the office and warehouses of the printer, John Nichols & Son. In 1799, however, an unknown number of copies of Pulteney’s Catalogues had been printed by Nichols ‘for the use of the compiler and his friends’ [fide title-page]. 4. Four copies of this work were examined by Bowden & Heppell (1969) who concluded: ‘It is evident that they were not mere proofs but fully corrected final copies issued as pre-prints or separates in advance of the main work’. They also considered that the Catalogues were validly published within the terms of Article 8 of the Code and that the new names included were available. Others, however, have dissented from this view principally on the grounds that (a) those authors who have accepted the availability of the Pulteney names have not been fully aware of the circumstances of their publication, and (b) that the issue of a limited number of advance copies of a work is insufficient for it to be considered ‘obtainable by purchase or free distribution’ as required under Article 8(3). Thus, apart from the merits of the particular case Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4] under consideration, a wider issue is raised which requires an interpretative ruling by the Commission. This kind of problem is still occasionally met with in the zoological literature, an example being the ‘recently published’ parts of the Zoology of the Faroes of which some had been accessible as advance copies (preprints) distributed to colleagues by their authors for more than forty years; cf. Lemche, 1973 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 91 [Z.N.(S.) 2013}. Opinion 1085, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 35—36). 5. Because of the rarity of the 1799 Catalogues, Bowden & Heppell (1969) reproduced. as an appendix to their paper, the original descriptions of the eight species for which the names given by Pulteney are the oldest available. Not all of these are native to Britain: two of the adventitious species are Caribbean and a third is Indo-Pacific. These eight species, together with Venus lincta, generally regarded as no more than a subspecies of Venus lupinus L., 1758, are listed below, their current generic position being given in brackets: Mya pubescens [Thracia| (valid name of type-species by subsequent designation by Anton, 1838, of Thracia) [The date of Anton’s Verzeichniss der Conchylien has deen shown by Cernohorsky, 1978 (Veliger 20: 299), to be 1838, not 1839 as generally cited.] Mya praetenuis [Cochlodesma ( Bontaea) | (valid name of type-species by monotypy of Bontaea) Solen marginatus {Solen] (The priority and usage of this nominal species, and its possible suitability for designation as type-species of Solen under the plenary powers, will be discussed in a separate application.) Tellina squalida [Tellina ( Laciolina)} Tellina fausta {Tellina (Arcopagia) | Caribbean Tellina proficua [Semele] (valid name of type-species of Semele by monotypy). Caribbean Venus lincta [Dosinia (Asa) |(type-species of Asa by monotypy) Cy praea arctica [Trivia] Buccinum hepaticum [Nassarius] Indo-Pacific 6. Apart from Solen marginatus (which numerous authors have either attributed erroneously to Pennant, 1777, or regarded as a junior synonym of Solen vagina L., 1758), these names were generally attributed to Pulteney, 1799, until Winckworth (1932), in his check-list of British marine Mollusca, dated the five British species from their subsequent publication by Montagu (1803). Winckworth gave no explanation of his action at that time but discussed the point in a letter quoted by Cox (1940) and Bowden & Heppell (1969: 321 footnote). [The reference to Iredale (1915), 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature also cited by Cox (loc. cit.), does nor state that Pulteney’s work was not published but that it was not published as part of Hutchins’s History of Dorset.) The majority of British authors have since followed Winckworth uncritically while most other authors have continued to attribute the names to Pulteney. Owing to the rarity of the work few authors have been able to examine the original and have taken the attributions cited by earlier authors on trust. 7. No plates were published with the 1799 edition of the Catalogues, but Pulteney refers throughout to an MS. collection of plates under the title ‘Triton Britannicus’. This was never issued separately except in proof form. Because of the long time that had elapsed since their compilation, and as Pulteney had died in 1801, the Catalogues were extensively revised and added to by Thomas Rackett before their eventual publication. under Pulteney’s name, in 1813, as a separately paged appendix to the third volume of Hutchins’s History. This 110-page appendix may be regarded as the second edition of Pulteney’s Catalogues; its 23 plates of Recent shells are those of the ‘Triton Britannicus’. 8. In view of the importance of the names involved (some being type-species of well-known genera) and the present lack of consensus as to their correct date and authorship, the Commission is requested (by the use of the plenary powers if necessary [i.e. in the event of a vote in favour of 3(b) below]): (1) To rule that the work compiled by Pulteney, 1799, entitled Catalogues of the Birds, Shells, and some of the more rare Plants, of Dorsetshire, printed by J. Nichols for the use of the compiler and his friends, was published within the meaning of the Code: (2) To place the work cited in (1) above on the Official List of Works approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature. 9. For the purposes of this application the term ‘preprint’ is here defined as: ‘an author’s copy of a work distributed free in advance of its distribution by the publisher; or, a portion of a work distributed free by the author or the publisher in advance of the work of which it forms part’. To clarify the general issues relating to preprints, the Commission is further requested: (3) To issue a Declaration, either (a) that the following sentence be added to Article 8:‘A work is to be considered as having been obtainable by free distribution if it was first issued as preprints (other than solely for review or for advertising purposes)’; or (b) that the following words be added to Article 9(3): ‘or preprints’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 (4) To revise the definition of the term ‘preprint’ in the Glossary of the Code in conformity with its use herein. REFERENCES BOWDEN, J. & HEPPELL, D., 1969. Pulteney’s “Dorset Catalogues’, with special reference to the Mollusca. J. Conch., Lond. vol. 26: 321—328. COX, L.R., 1940. Cretaceous Mollusca described by R. Pulteney in the second edition of Hutchins’s History of Dorset (1813). Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. vol. 24: 121-128. IREDALE. T., 1915. Notes on the names of some British marine Mollusca. Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. vol, 11: 329-342. MONTAGU, G., 1803. Testacea Britannica or Natural History of British Shells, etc., London. WINCKWORTH, R., 1932. The British marine Mollusca. J. Conch., Lond. vol. 19: 211—252. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PRESERVE THE SPECIFIC NAME TENEBRICOLA, AS PUBLISHED IN LINYPHIA BY WIDER, 1834, BUT IN THE SENSE OF KULCZYNSKI, 1887 (ARACHNIDA). Z.NAS.) 2143. By G.H. Locket (Atners Tower, Stockbridge, Hants., England) A.F. Millidge (Little Farthing, Upper Westhill Road, Lyme Regis, Dorset, England) and P.J. van Helsdingen (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to preserve the specific name tenebricola for the species known as Lepthyphantes_ tenebricola (Wider) since Kulczynski’s (1887) interpretation of Wider’s description, despite the fact that the type-specimens belong to another species. 2. Linyphia tenebricola was described by Wider (1834: 260-261, pl. 18, fig. 2a, b) from material from Beerfelden in the Odenwald, Germany. Kulczynski (1887) produced the first adequate description of the species in the combination Lepthyphantes tenebricola (Wider) with recognizable illustrations of the secondary genitalia. He also discussed the differences between the species he named L. tenebricola (Wider) and that which he described as a new species at the same time and called Lepthyphantes mengei. Even though he appeared to be at variance with leading arachnologists such as Thorell and O. Pickard-Cambridge, his interpretation of Wider’s species has been followed since, and there always has been general agreement as to the existence of the two distinct species recognized by Kulczynski (tenebricola and mengei). 3. Recent re-examination of the type-material of Linyphia tenebricola. Wider at the =Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt-am-Main, revealed that all specimens (16 female, 2 male, one juvenile specimen) are identical with Lepthyphantes mengei Kulczynski (Locket, Millidge & Van Helsdingen, 1970, Bull. Brit. Arachn. Soc., 1: 90). Strict application of the Rules would make it necessary to (a) consider the common species Lepthyphantes mengei Kulczynski, 1887: 267-268, a junior synonym of Linyphia tenebricola Wider, 1834, and (b) find a replacement name for the species known since Kulczynski (1887) as Lepthyphantes tenebricola. This would involve therefore the shifting of a name Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 from a very-common and frequently recorded species to another closely related species. 4. The applicants of this proposal consider the situation that would result from this strict application of the Rules highly undesirable. Both species under consideration belong to the tenuis-group of the genus Lepthyphantes Menge, 1866, a group of species which are common in Europe and remarkably resemble each other. The two species in question, L. tenebricola and L. mengei, have been recorded very frequently in ecological as well as faunistic and systematic literature, and always in the current sense. It is clear that the use of tenebricola Wider for the species known since 1887 as Lepthyphantes mengei Kulczynski would cause great confusion now. Preservation of the present, stable situation would be highly desirable. 5. The following alternatives to the present proposal (par. | ) have been considered. (a) The suppression of Linyvphia tenebricola Wider, and at the same time the validation of Lepthyphantes tenebricola in the sense of Kulczynski (1887). The specific name would then be based on a sound description with adequate illustrations, but would cause confusion by the mention of another author (Kulczynski). (b) The strict application of the Rules. This would result in the use of the specific name tenebricola Wider for the species currently known as Lepthyphantes mengei Kulczynski. A new name would have to be provided for the species currently known as Lepthyphantes tenebricola (Wider). It appears that none of the available synonyms, as they are usually listed, can serve as an unambiguous replacement name. The description of Linyphia arcuata Thorell, 1856: 168 is too superficial and without illustrations, while original specimens could not be found. Linyphia pygmaea Westring, 1861: 126-128, though often listed under Lepthyphantes tenebricola (in the sense of Kulczynski), may have been a mixture of several species. The available material from Westring’s collection for the larger part was found to belong to another species of the same species-group, viz. Lepthyphantes flavipes (Blackwall). 6. A specimen that could serve as a neotype for Linyphia tenebricola Wider is available. It comes from the Taunus, to the north of the Odenwald from where Linyphia tenebricola was described by Wider, and bears the following label: O. Taunus: bei Ebersgons (Kr. Wetzlar), O. & M. Kraus, X1.1960. 7. For the above reasons the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) Under the plenary powers to set aside the type-material of the species Linyphia tenebricola Wider, 1834, and having done so to accept as a neotype for that species the following specimen: female from Germany, O. Taunus, Ebersgons near Wetzlar, XI. 1960 (preserved in the collection of the Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt). (2) To place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: tenebricola Wider, 1834, as published in the combination Linyphia tenebricola, and as defined under (1) above. REFERENCES KULCZYNSKI, W., 1887. Przyczynek do Tyrolskiej fauny Pajeczakow. [Symbola ad faunam Arachnoidarum Tirolensem.] Rozpr. Spraw. Wydz. mat.-przyrod. Akad. Umiej., vol. 16: 245-356, pls. 5-8. LOCKET, G.H., A.F. MILLIDGE & P.JJ. VAN HELSDINGEN, 1970. An observation on the type material of Lepthyphantes tenebricola (Wider) (Linyphia tenebricola Wider 1834). Bull. Brit. Arachn. Soc., vol. 1: 90-91, figs. 1-8. THORELL, T., 1856. Recensio critica Aranearum Suecicarum, quas descripserunt Clerckius, Linnaeus, De Geerus. N. Act. Reg. Soc. ne Uppsala (3) vol. 2: 61- 176. WESTRING, 1861. Araneae Suecicae. Géteborgs Kongl. Vetensk. Handl., Bee 7: 1-615. WIDER, 1834. Arachniden. In Zoologische Miscellen von Adolph Reuss, Mus. Senckenb. (Abh. Gebiete beschr. Naturges. von Mitgl. senck. naturk. Ges. in Frankfurt am Main), vol. 1: 195-276, pls. 14-18. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 STEINDACHNERI (TRIONY X) SIEBENROCK, 1906: PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES). Z.N.(S.) 2162 By Robert G. Webb (Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968, U.S.A.) The wattle-necked softshell turtle (Family TRIONYCHIDAE) distributed in southern China, including the island of Hainan, and North Vietnam has been referred to, without exception, by the specific name steindachneri, the proper generic combination for which is Trionyx steindachneri. This well-known name is antedated by a previously unrecognized senior synonym. It would be most unfortunate to allow Trionyvx steindachneri to be changed after its unchallenged use since the original description in 1906. 2. This previously unrecognized, senior subjective synonym that antedates Trionyx steindachneri Siebenrock (1906, Zool. Anz. vol. 30: 579) is Aspidonectes californiana Rivers (1889, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (2) vol. 2: 233—236). Aspidonectes californiana is the only synonym of the monotypic Jrionyx steindachneri. The one specimen that formed the basis of the original description of A. californiana was imported to California by the Chinese. No kind of indigenous trionychid turtle occurs at the type locality of A. californiana (“Sacramento River, near the city of Sacramento’’), and. a type-specimen is not known to exist. The name A. californiana had been incorrectly allocated to the synonymy of Trionyx sinensis and T. spiniferus emoryi, and its taxonomic status had not been authoritatively determined until Webb (1975, Copeia, vol. 4: 771) appraised the type-description and demonstrated that A. californiana is a synonym of T. steindachneri. 3. Since Aspidonectes californiana has remained unused as a senior synonym in the primary zoological literature for more than fifty years, the name qualifies for treatment under Articles 23a-b and 79b (Bull. zool. Nom. vol.’31: 79-81, 87-89). A list of ten works by five different authors using 7. steindachneri as a valid name during the last 50 years is appended to this paper. 4. Since the name Aspidonectes californiana Rivers, 1889 (1) is based on an imported specimen that is no longer extant, (2) has nMever been recognized as a senior synonym of Trionyx steindachneri, and consequently has never been associated with that taxon, and (3) has never been used since its original description as the valid name for any taxon, it is in the interest of nomenclatural Stability to act contrary to the Law of Priority and preserve the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature junior synonym Trionyx steindachneri Siebenrock, 1906 that has been universally accepted since the date of its proposal. 5. With establishment of Aspidonectes californiana Rivers, 1889 as a senior subjective synonym of Trionyx steindachneri Siebenrock, 1906, the Commission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name californiana Rivers, 1889, as published in the binomen Aspidonectes californiana for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name steindachneri Siebenrock, 1906, as published in the binomen Trionyx steindachneri, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name californiana Rivers, 1889, as published in the binomen Aspidonectes californiana, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. References to the use of Trionyx steindachneri Siebenrock as a valid name between 1927 and 1977 BOURRET, R. 1939. Notes herpétologiques sur |’Indochine frangaise. XVI. Tortues de la collection du laboratoire des sciences naturelles de Université. Description d’une espéce nouvelle. Bull. Gén. Instr. Publ. No. 6:11 1941. Les tortues de Il’Indochine. Hanoi: 210 MERTENS, R. & WERMUTH, H. 1955. Die rezenten Schildkréten, Krokodile und Briickenechsen. Zool. Jahrb. vol. 83 (Syst.): 392 PETZOLD, H.-G. 1963. Uber einige Schildkréten aus Nord-Vietnam im Tierpark Berlin. Senck. Biol. vol. 44: 11—12 POPE, C.H. 1935. The reptiles of China. Natural history of Central Asia, vol. X. New York (Amer. Mus. nat. Hist.) PRITCHARD, P.C.H. 1967. Living turtles of the world. Jersey City (T.F.H. Publ. Inc.): 215, 217 SMITH, M.A. 1931. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia, vol. 1, Loricata, Testudines. London (Taylor & Francis): 178-179 WERMUTH, H. & MERTENS, R. 1961. Schildkréte, Krokodile, Briickenechsen. Jena (Gustav Fischer): 280 —_ & —___ 977. : Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Das Tierreich Berlin (Walter de Gruyter), Lfg 100: 113 WEBB, R.G. 1975. Taxonomic status of Aspidonectes californiana Rivers, 1889 (Testudines, Trionychidae). Copeia (1975) No. 4: 771-773. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 SELKIRKIA WALCOTT, 1911 (PRIAPULIDA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2171 By S. Conway Morris (Sedgwick Museum, Downing St, Cambridge, U.K.) In 1908 Walcott illustrated a single specimen (USNM 96542) of a fossil tube from the Middle Cambrian Ogygopsis Shale of southern British Columbia, Canada. He named it Orthotheca major Walcott, 1908. 2. In 1911 Walcott discovered new specimens from the nearby Burgess Shale, stratigraphically slightly above the Ogygopsis Shale, which led him to remove O. major from Orthotheca Novak, 1886 and make it the type-species, by original designation, of a new genus Selkirkia Walcott, 1911. He was led to this by the extraordinary preservation of the Burgess Shale fossils, whereby not only the soft parts of animals with skeletons, but animals without any hard parts at all are exquisitely preserved. This occurrence is the more exciting to palaeontologists because it occurs in rocks that are about 520 million years old, not long after the first appearance (at about 590 million years ago) of fossils that can be confidently assigned to animal phyla represented by living species. 3. Examination of the soft parts shows that S. major from the Burgess Shale is a priapulid worm (Conway Morris, 1977). Orthotheca, on the other hand, is a genus of the Hyolitha. The hyolithids are an extinct group of tube fossils entirely unrelated to the priapulids. Their affinities have been recently discussed by Runnegar and others (1975), who hold that they probably form a phylum related to, but independent of, both the Sipunculida and the Mollusca, and by Marek & Yochelson (1976), who hold that they form a separate class within the Mollusca. 4. In his 1911 paper Walcott followed his revised description of Selkirkia major with descriptions of two new species, S. fragilis and S. gracilis. My researches show that these two species are not priapulids and that they will have to be assigned to other genera in due course. The holotype (USNM 96542) of S. major, however (the Ogygopsis Shale specimen), is comparable to S. gracilis. The rate of tapering of the tube in this specimen is much less than that noted in specimens of S. major with associated soft parts, but is the same as in specimens of S. gracilis. It differs from most specimens of S. gracilis in having the posterior tip missing, but it is impossible to ascertain whether this is due to fossilisation processes. The degree of curvature in tubes of S. gracilis varies, and the straightness of Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature USNM 96542 is not unique. S. gracilis is therefore taken to be a junior synonym of S. major. 5. Walcott’s diagnosis of Selkirkia is clearly based on the soft parts of the specimens from the Burgess Shale and the genus has subsequently been so understood. In this sense Selkirkia is a priapulid and is far more widely known in the literature than S. gracilis (= ‘“‘Orthotheca’”’ major) and S. fragilis. It is, however, clear that Selkirkia is based on a misidentified type-species. 6. In the interests of stability of nomenclature it is better to maintain Selkirkia on the specimens described and illustrated as S. major by Walcott in 1911 rather than on the holotype of that nominal species described in 1908. The species described in 1911 has been given a fresh diagnosis and its own name, Selkirkia columbia, by me (Conway Morris, 1977) and in that paper (: 34) I stated my intention to refer the question of the type-species of Selkirkia to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 7. Accordingly the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to: (1) exercise its plenary powers to suppress all designations of type-species for the genus Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 made prior to the Ruling now requested, and having done so designate Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977, as type-species of that genus. (2) place the generic name Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) place the new specific name columbia, Conway Morris, 1977, as published in the binomen Selkirkia columbia, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CONWAY MORRIS, S. 1977. Fossil priapulid worms. Special Pap. Palaeont- ology, No. 20:i—iv, 1—95. MAREK, L., and YOCHELSON, E.L. 1976. Aspects of the biology of Hyolitha (Mollusca). Lethaia, Vol. 9;65—82. NOVAK, O. 1886. Zur Kenntniss der Fauna der Etage F-fl in der palaeo- zoischen Schichtengruppe BGhmens. Sber. K. bohm. Ges. Wiss., 1886: 1—27. RUNNEGAR, B. etal. 1975. Biology of the Hyolitha. Lethaia, vol. 8: 181-191. WALCOTT: C.D. 1908. Mount Stephen rocks and fossils. Can. alp. J. vol. 1(2): 232-248. —— 1911. Middle Cambrian annelids. Smithson. misc. Collins, vol. 57(5): 109-144. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 LITOSOMA WITE KREPKOGORSKAYA, 1933 (NEMATODA); PROPOSED CORRECTION TO LITOSOMA VITEAE. Z.N.(S.) 2203 By O. Bain, A. Chabaud (Muséum national d’Histoire Naturelle, 45, Rue de Buffon, Paris 75005, France), B.O.L. Duke (U.K. Medical Research Council, La Crécerelle, 1141 Yens, VD, Switzerland), R. Kouznetzov (Martinovsky Institute of Medical Parasitology and Tropical Medicine, Malaja Prirogovskaja 20, Moscow, U.S.S.R.), R.L. Muller (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1 7HT, U.K.); and P. Wenk (Tropenmedizinisches Institut der Universitat, Tiibingen, B.R.D.) The purpose of this application is to ask the Commission to vary the original spelling of the specific name of a small filarial parasite of the great gerbil, Rhombomys opimus Lichtenstein, and of the jird, Meriones libycus Lichtenstein. This parasite, we suggest, should henceforth be known and written as Dipetalonema viteae (Krepkogorskaya, 1933). It belongs to the Nematoda, ONCHOCERCIDAE, and has become increasingly important in recent years as a laboratory model for screening new compounds for potential activity as filaricides in man. It figures largely in the current literature of medical parasitology and in the past has been referred to under a confusing variety of spellings, namely wite, witei, vitei, vite, and viteae. 2. The parasite was originally described by Krepkogorskaya (1933: 88). In her paper, which was written in German, the author stated that she named the parasite Litosoma wite in honour of Dr. Lydie I. Wite, the lady director of the Institute of Bacteriology in Kazakhstan, U.S.S.R.. The name wite was thus a transliteration into German of the lady’s name written as BUTE in the Cyrillic alphabet. 3. Since its first publication, the spelling of the name has been changed in the following ways: McIntosh & McIntosh (1935: 62) deliberately emended it to L. witei; Sassuchin, Tiflow & Schulz (1935: 636) used L. vitei as an incorrect subsequent spelling. Skriabin & Shikhobalova (1948: 227, not seen; 1949: 318) emended it to vite on the grounds that the Cyrillic B should be latinised as v, not as w; Chabaud (1952: 262) described a new species Dipetalonema blanci which he subsequently (1957: 342—343) synonymised with Litosoma vite in the new combination Dipetalonema vite; Geigy, Aeschlimann & Weiss (1967: 266) Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature emended it to witeae; finally Bain (1967: 212) gave reasons why the name should be spelled viteae. 4. Although under Article 32a of the Code there is no doubt that the spelling wite should stand as the “‘correct original spelling”’, since there is no evidence of incorrect formation under the Code, or of any inadvertent error, we ask, as an exception, for a ruling in favour of the spelling viteae. Our reasons for this request are as follows: (a) if the original description were to be published today, it is the spelling viteae that would conform with the recommendations of the Code. The v would conform to paragraph 5 of Appendix C, since both the Cyrillic B and the German w are pronounced like the French v. The ending -eae would conform with Recommendation 31A of the Code, indicating that BUTE in this instance denoted a female person and that the terminal E is not a mute vowel. (b) It is important that the spelling of the name should lead to a uniform pronunciation when used by persons working with this parasite who are not familiar with the German pronunciation of the letter w. The spelling viteae gives this advantage, as well as conveying the correct indication of Dr. Wite’s sex. (c) On the basis of usage we also consider that the spelling viteae should take pride of place and we believe that it will attract the largest following among parasitologists. As evidence of this we list 23 papers marked with an asterisk in the References which mention this parasite in their titles and which are revealed by the computerised bibliography in preparation at the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Filarioidea (at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) to be the total of those published on the subject since 1970. In all of them the name of the parasite is cited as Dipetalonema viteae. 5. In order to ensure stability in the scientific name of this parasite, which is widely used as a laboratory test model in medical research, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to: (1) use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the original spelling wite Krepkogorskaya, 1933, as published in the binomen Litosoma wite; (b) to rule that the spelling viteae is the correct original spelling of that name; (2) to place the specific name viteae Krepkogorskaya, 1933, as validated under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above in the binomen Litosoma viteae, on the Official List of * Nore OAR Y 10 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 Specific Names in Zoology: (3) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) wite Krepkogorskaya, 1933, as published in the binomen Litosoma wife, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above; (b) witei McIntosh & McIntosh, 1935, as published in the binomen Litosoma witei (an unjustified emendation of viteae Krepkogorskaya, 1933, as validated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above in the binomen Litosoma viteae); (c) vitei Sassuchin, Tiflow & Schulz, 1935. as published in the binomen Litosoma_ vitei (an~ incorrect subsequent spelling of viteae Krepkogorskaya, 1933, as validated under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above in the binomen Litosoma viteae); (d) vite Skrjabin & Shikhobalova, 1945, as published in the binomen Litosoma_ vite (an unjustified emendation of viteae Krepkogorskaya, 1933, as validated under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above in the binomen Litosoma viteae). REFERENCES BAIN, O., 1967. Ann. Parasit. hum. comp., vol. 42: 211—267. CAPRON, A. and others, 1972. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris (D), vol. 275(5): 719. CAVIER, R. and others, 1971. Ann. Parasit. hum. comp., vol. 46: 497. CHABAUD, A.G., 1952. Ann. Parasit. hum. comp., vol. 27: 250—285. —— 1957. Ann. Parasit. hum. comp., vol. 32: 342—343. CROWELL, W.A. & VOTAVA, C.I., 1975. Vet. Path., vol. 12: 178. DIESFELD, H.J. & KIRSTER, C., 1975. Tropenmed. Parasit. vol. 26: 499, FOOR, W.E. and others, 1971. J. Parasit., vol. 57(6): 1163. GEIGY, R., AESCHLIMANN, A.F.J. & WEISS, N., 1967. Acta Trop. vol. 24: 266. : HOLDSTOCK, R-P., 1974. Trans. roy. Soc.trop. Med. Hyg., vol. 68:9. JOHNSON, M.A. and others, 1974. J. Parasit., vol. 60(2): 302. KIEN TROUNG, H. & AMBROISE-THOMAS, P., 1970. Bull. Soc. Path. éxot., vol. 63: 351. : KREPKOGORSKAYA, T.A., 1933. Zool. Anzeiger, vol. 102: 87—91. McCALL, J.W. and others, 1975. J. Parasit., vol. 61(2): 340. McINTOSH, A. & McINTOSH, G.E., 1935. Proc. helminth. Soc. Wash- ington, vol. 2: 60—62. : McLAREN, D.J., 1972. Parasit., vol. 65: 507. — 1973a, Parasit., vol. 66: 447. — 1973b, Parasit., vol. 66: 465. 54 pal (22 #90 "Zi *22. e235: *24. *25. = 26. 7 F28. nie =30. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NIEL, G. and others, 1972. Bull. Soc. Path. éxot., vol. 65: 569. NIELSON, J.T., 1974. J. Parasit., vol. 60(6): 1061. —— 1975. J. Parasit., vol. 61(S): 785. —— 1976. Tropenmed. Parasit., vol. 27: 233. & FORRESTER, D.J., 1975. Exper. Parasit., vol. 37: 367. PACHECO, G., 1970. J. Parasit., vol. 56(4): 255. —— and others, 1972. J. Parasit., vol. 58: 275. SASSUCHIN, D.N., TIFLOW, W.E. & SCHULZ, 1935. Zeitschr. f. Parasitenk., vol. 7: 636. SULLIVAN, J.J. & CHERNIN, E., 1976. Int. J. Parasit., vol. 6(1): 75. VOTAVA, CLL. and others, 1974. J. Parasit., vol. 60(3): 479. WANG, G.J. & SAZ, H.J., 1974. J. Parasit., vol. 60(2): 316. WEISS, N., 1970. Acta Trop., vol. 27: 219. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 HESPERIIDAE LATREILLE, 1809 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). REQUEST FOR ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. ZNAS.) 2213 By C.F. Cowan (4, Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria, LA] 1 7DR, England) HESPERIIDAE (correction of HESPERIDES) Latreille, 1809 is featured in the Code, in the example to Article 36, as a valid Family-Group name, but no reference or other detail is given. HESPERIOIDEA, which is similarly featured, is one of the two primary superfamily names in the classification of the butterflies. It is doubly important that the former name be firmly fixed and placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. First, it is necessary to examine the type-genus itself, for Hesperia Fabricius, 1793 has not yet been listed: and then it must be established that Latreille identified it correctly in proposing HESPERIDES. 2. As Hemming (1934: 170-171) has shown, Dalman (1816: 200) validly designated Papilio comma Linnaeus, 1758 as type- species of Hesperia Fabricius, 1793. This view has stood the test of time, having been accepted nem. con. by authors world-wide, and confirmed by Hemming (1967: 216). 3. Latreille (1809: 187, 207) admirably diagnosed and discussed his LEPIDOPTERA - Familia 2, HESPERIDES / HESPERIDES in his Genera Crust. & Ins. 4, written entirely in Latin except for the French vernacular names added, down to generic level, after each scientific name. However, in separating the HESPERIDES from his Family 1, PAPILIONIDES, he based the former on the genus which he called ‘‘Hesperia Cuvier, Lamarck, Walckenaer’’, while actually placing ‘“‘Hesperia Fabricius” as a rejected synonym of Polyommatus, the last genus of his PAPILIONIDES. The explanation of this surprising and apparently serious deviation is readily understood when we consider the action two years earlier of Fabricius himself. 4. Fabricius, 1793, created Hesperia to take practically all the “Blues and Skippers” out of the comprehensive genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758. The name Hesperia aptly fitted the dusk and dawn- flying “‘Skippers’”’, and other authors quickly restricted the name to them (as duly regularised later by Dalman), while erecting further names (like Polyommatus) for the ‘‘Blues’’. However, when he next wrote on the Order, Fabricius (1807: 285) not only ignored all other authors’ names, but perversely diverted Hesperia to contain Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature only sundry “Blues” and erected new generic names for the “Skippers” (Thymele and Pamphila on page 287. the latter containing comma). Latreille realised the potential confusion here, and treated those two last names as synonyms of his type-genus Hesperia auctorum in the HESPERIDES. 5. Thus Latreille (1809: 206—207) made it quite clear to his contemporaries, in fewer words than mine, that he rejected the Papilionid Hesperia Fabricius, 1807 nec 1793 as an invalid misapplication of that name to the ‘‘Blues’’, and then (: 207—208), that he based his HESPERIDES on the generic name Hesperia auctorum; i.e. on the true Hesperia Fabricius, 1793 nec sensu 1807. Indeed, he included the actual type-species, comma, among those listed under that genus (p. 208), all of which were ‘‘Skippers’’. 6. The International Commission is therefore requested to: (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Hesperia Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. Syst. 3(1): 258) (gender feminine), type- species as designated by Dalman, 1816 (K. svensk. VetenskAkad. Handl. 1816 (2): 200) Papilio comma Linnaeus, 1758. (2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name comma Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Papilio comma (Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 1: 484), the type-species of Hesperia Fabricius, 1793. (3) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group name HESPERIIDAE (correction of HESPERIDES) Latreille, 1809 (Genera Crust. & Ins. 4: 187, 207), type-genus Hesperia Fabricius, 1793. (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group name HESPERIDES Latreille, 1809 (Genera Crust. & Ins. 4: 187, 207), the incorrect original spelling of HESPERIIDAE. REFERENCES DALMAN, J.W. 1816. Forsok till systematisk Uppstallning of Sveriges Fjarillar (1) (2). K. svensk. Vetensk Akad. Handl. 1816 (1): 48—101, tables 1, 2, pl. 3; (2): 199-255, table 3. FABRICIUS, J.C. 1793 (in 1792—1799, 4 vols., Index, Suppl., S/Index). Entomologia systematica &c, vol. 3(1). [6], 487 pp. 8°. Hafniae. — 1807 (in ILLIGER, J.K.W.) Die neueste Gattungs- Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linneischen Gattungen Papilio und Sphinx. Magazin Insectenk. (Illiger), vol. 6: 277—289. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature nN ~~ HEMMING, F. 1934. The generic Names of the holarctic Butterflies, vol. | (1758-1863). viii, 184 pp. 8°. London. ——— 1967. The generic Names of the Butterflies and their Type-species (LEPIDOPTERA: RHOPALOCERA). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) Suppl. vol. 9, 509 pp. LATREILLE, P.A. 1809 (in 1806—1809, 4 vols.) Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum secundum Ordinem naturalem in Familias disposita &c. vol. 4 [4], 399 pp., 16 pls. 8°. Parisiis et Argentorati. LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae (edn. 10) vol. 1. [4]. 824 pp. 8°. Holmiae. 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CAENOLESTIDAE TROUESSART. 1898, AND PALAEOTHENTIDAE SINCLAIR, 1906 (MAMMALIA); PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.S.) 2214 By Larry G. Marshall (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605, USA), and Richard H. Tedford (Department of Vertebrate Paleontology American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, USA) The object of this application is to safeguard the family- names CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898, and PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906, from the threat to their stability represented by the prior names ABDERITIDAE Ameghino, 1889, EPANORTHIDAE Ameghino, 1889, GARZONIDAE Ameghino, 1891, and DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893. Continuity and universality in the nomenclature of an important group of South American mammals are at stake. 2. The family-group names involved, with the type-genus of each nominal taxon and the type-species of each nominal genus, are tabulated on pp. 59—60. Notes on each case follow the table. 3. The usage of family-group names in this group has developed as follows. Ameghino (1903: 159) recognized three families among early Miocene (Santacrucian) representatives of his group Diprotodonta: the ABDERITIDAE, EPANORTHIDAE and GARZONIDAE. Trouessart (1898: 1200, 1202, 1204, 1205; 1904: 839, 840, 843, 844) recognized four families, the ABDERITIDAE, EPANORTHIDAE, GARZONIDAE and CAENOLESTIDAE. Palmer (1904: 876, 881, 882) recognized three families: the ABDERITIDAE, EPANORTHIDAE (including CAENOLESTIDAE and DECASTIDAE) and GARZONIDAE. Sinclair (1906: 416) opted to group ‘‘... all the Santa Cruz diprotodont marsupials in a single family, which may be called the CAENOLESTIDAE (Trouessart, 1898, p. 1205) from its only surviving and best known representative Caenolestes.”’ within this family Sinclair recognized three subfamilies: the CAENOLESTINAE (with Caenolestes, Halmarhiphus, Garzonia), the PALAEOTHENTINAE (with Palaeothentes, Callomenus, Decastis) and the ABDERITINAE (with Abderites). 4. Sinclair’s classification has been the one most commonly (though not exclusively) used for the last seventy years. The example of Thomas (1895: 875) in placing Caenolestes in the EPANORTHIDAE was followed by Osborn (1910: 517). Osborn Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 1, July 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TABLE Name of type-genus of nominal family-group taxon Family-group name ABDERITIDAE Ameghino, 1889: 268, 269 (as “Abderitesidae’’) (1) Abderites Ameghino. 1887: 5 EPANORTHIDAE Ameghino. 1889: 268, 270 (2) Epanorthus Ameghino, 1889: 27 (replacement name for Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887: =) GARZONIDAE Ameghino, 1891: 304, 307(3) Garzonia Ameghino, 1891: 21 (subjective junior synonym of Stilotherium Ameghino, 1887: 7) DECASTIDAE Ameghino, Decastis Ameghino, 1893: 79(4) 1891: 19 (subjective junior synonym of Dipilus Ameghino, 1890) CAENOLESTIDAE Caenolestes Thomas, Trouessart, 1898: 1205(5) 1895: 875 (replacement name for Hyracodon Tomes, 1863, non Leidy, 1856) PALAEOTHENTIDAE Palaeothentes Sinclair, 1906: 4] 7(6) Ameghino, 1887: 5 NOTES a justified €mendation under Article 59 Name of type- species of nominal ~ type-genus, and how fixed A bderites meridion- alis Ameghino, 1887: 5, by original designation Palaeothentes aratae Ameghino, 1887: 5. through Palaeoth- entes Ameghino. 1887: 5 Garzonia tvpica Ameghino, 189]- 307. under Article 68b Decastis columnaris Ameghino, 189]: 305 by original designation Hyracodon fuligin- osus Tomes, 1863. through Hyracodon Tomes, 1863, of which it is the type- species by mono- typy Palaeothentes aratae Ameghino, 1887: 5. by subsequent designation by Clemens & Marshall, 1976: 72 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2} EPANORTHIDAE was erected by Ameghino (1889: 272) to include the genera Epanorthus and Acdestis. However, ERANORTHIDAE Ameghino, 1889, is invalid because it is based on Epanorthus, an invalid replacement name. The sequence of events was as follows: The name “‘Palaeothentes aratae Mor.” was published in 1882 by Doering (: 455) in a list of names and is a nomen nudum. The name Palaeotenthes aratae was published, also in 1882, by Moreno (: 116), but this too is a nomen nudum. It is impossible to establish which name appeared first, but this has no importance. In 1887 (: 5) Ameghino described Palaeothentes aratae for the first time and the name is to be attributed to him. However, he clearly knew of the earlier publications, because in 1889 (: 271) he decided that this spelling was “impossible” and that the generic name should have been written Palaeoteuthis and hence was preoccupied by Palaeoteuthis d’Orbigny, 1850, an extinct dibranchiate cephalopod. He therefore proposed Epanorthus to replace it. However, the spelling Palaeothentes was original and intentional, and is ipso facto the correct spelling regardless of its etymology. It cannot be preoccupied by the quite different name Palaeoteuthis (see Simpson, 1945: 45n). Indeed, Sinclair (1906: 416) had already argued that Epanorthus “can no longer be retained either for a genus or to designate a family [EPANORTHIDAE |.” Palaeothentes, when described in 1887 (and redescribed in 1889 when Epanorthus was proposed to replace it) contained six species and no type-species was designated on either occasion. So far as we know, Clemens & Marshall (1976: 72) were the first to designate a type-species for this genus when they designated P. aratae, the first species described. EPANORTHIDAE was last used as a valid senior synonym by Scott (1937: 717). (3) GARZONIDAE was proposed by Ameghino (1891: 304, 307) to include the genera Garzonia and Halmarhiphus.Garzonia is now considered a junior synonym of Stilotherium Ameghino, 1887: 7 (see Reig, 1955: 62). Sinclair (1906: 417) included the GARZONIDAE within the CAENOLESTINAE and the name has remained unused as a senior synonym for the last seventy years. The last use of the family-name GARZONIDAE asa valid name was by Ameghino (1906: 417). (4) DECASTIDAE was proposed by Ameghino (1893: 79) to include the genera Decastis, Acdestis and Dipilus. Decastis Ameghino, 1891 is recognized as a junior synonym of Dipilus Ameghino, 1890 (see Simpson, 1945: 45; Clemens and Marshall, 1976: 70). Sinclair (1906: 417) included the DECASTIDAE in the PALAEOTHENTINAE and the name has remained unused as a senior synonym for the last seventy years. (5) CAENOLESTIDAE was proposed by Trouessart (1898: 1205) for Caenolestes only. (6) PALAEOTHENTINAE was proposed by Sinclair (1906: 417) to include Palaeothentes, Callomenus Ameghino, 1891, and Decastis. It was raised to the rank of family by Osgood (1921: 143, 151), but has remained unused as a senior synonym since that time. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 recognized a superfamily CAENOLESTOIDEA, but no family CAENOLESTIDAE. Osgood (1921: 151) placed Caenolestes in the CAENOLESTINAE, family PALAEOTHENTIDAE. Winge (1923: 84) recognized one family, EPANORTHIDAE, and included within it (among other groups) the CAENOLESTINI (with Halmatorhiphus, Caenolestes, Garzonia) and EPANORTHINI (with Epanorthus, Callomenus, Decastis, Abderites). More recently, Scott (1937: 717, 722) recognized one family, EPANORTHIDAE, with three subfamilies: CAENOLESTINAE, EPANORTHINAE and ABDERITINAE. 5. The family-group names ABDERITIDAE $$ and GARZONIDAE have remained unused as valid names for the last seventy years. Pertinent publications in which Sinclair’s classification and nomenclature have been followed include: Clemens & Marshall (1976: 10), Marshall (1976: 83), Pascual & Herrera (1973: 44), Piveteau (1961: 619), Simpson (1930: 9; 1945: 44; 1970: 58), Zittel (1925: 27) and many others. 6. If the Law of Priority is strictly applied, the family-group names CAENOLESTIDAE and CAENOLESTINAE of the classification most commonly used for the last seventy years would have to be replaced by ABDERITIDAE and GARZONINAE. This would not only upset stability in nomenclature but also introduce taxonomic concepts that are quite unacceptable. 7. We therefore ask the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group names ABDERITIDAE Ameghino, 1889, GARZONIDAE Ameghino, 1891, and DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893, are not to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family-group names CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 and PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, 1906; (2) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the endorsements shown: (a) CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 (type-genus Caenolestes Thomas, 1895), to be given nomenclatural precedence over ABDERITIDAE Ameghino, 1889, GARZONIDAE Ameghino, 1891, and DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893; (b) PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, 1906 (type-genus Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887), to be given nomenclatural precedence over ABDERITIDAE Ameghino, 1889, GARZONIDAE Ameghino, 1891, and DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893; 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c)ABDERITINAE Ameghino, 1889 (type-genus A bderites Ameghino, 1887), not to be given nomenclatural precedence over CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 or PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, 1906; (d) GARZONIDAE Ameghino, 1891 (type-genus Garzonia Ameghino, 1891), not to be given nomenclatural precedence over CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 or PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, 1906; (e) DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893 (type-genus Decastis Ameghino, 1891), not to be given nomenclatural precedence over CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 or PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, 1906; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Caenolestes Thomas, 1895 (gender, masculine), type- species, through Hyvracodon Tomes, 1863, non Leidy, 1856, Hyracodon fuliginosus Tomes, 1863; (b) Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887 (gender, masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Clemens and Marshall, 1976, Palaeothentes aratae Ameghino, 1887; (c) Abderites Ameghino, 1887 (gender, masculine), type- species, by original designation, Abderites meridionalis Ameghino, 1887; (d) Garzonia Ameghino, 1891 (gender, feminine), type- species, under Article 68b, Garzonia_ typica Ameghino, 1891 (currently treated as junior subjective synonym of Stilotherium Ameghino, 1887); (e) Decastis Ameghino, 1891 (gender, feminine), type- species, by original designation, Decastis columnaris Ameghino, 1891 (currently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Dipilus Ameghino, 1890); (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) fuliginosus Tomes, 1863, as published in the binomen Hyracodon fuliginosus (specific name of type-species of Caenolestes Thomas, 1895); (b) aratae Ameghino, 1887, as published in the binomen Palaeothentes aratae (specific name of type-species of Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887; (c) meridionalis Ameghino, 1887, as published in the binomen Abderites meridionalis (specific name of type-species of Abderites Ameghino, 1887); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 (d) tvpica Ameghino, 1891, as published in the binomen Garzonia tyvpica (specific name of type-species of Garzonia Ameghino, 1891); (e) columnaris Ameghino, 1891, as published in the binomen Decastis columnaris (specific name of type- species of Decastis Ameghino, 1891). LITERATURE CITED AMEGHINO, F., 1887. Enumeracién sistematica de las especies de mamiferos fdsiles coleccionados por Carlos Ameghino en los terrenos eocenos de la Patagonia austral y depositados en el Museo La Plata. Bol. Mus. de La Plata, vol. 1:1—26. 1889. Contribucidn al conocimiento de los mamiferos fdsiles de la RepGblica Argentina, obra escrita bajo los auspicios de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de la Reptiblica Argentina para presentarla a la Exposicién Universal de Paris de 1889. Actas Acad. Cienc. Cordoba, vol. VI, xxxiii + 1027 pp.; atlas 98 pls. 1890. Los plagiaulacideos argentinos y sus relaciones zooldgicas, geologicas, y geogrdficas. Bol. Inst. geog. argentino, vol. 11: 143—201. -1891. Nuevos restos de mamfferos f6siles descubiertos por Carlos Ameghino en el Eoceno inferior de la Patagonia austral. Especies nuevas, adiciones y correcciones. Rev. Arg. Hist. Nat., vol. 1: 289-328. 1893. Les premiers mammiféres. Relations entre les mammifeéres diprotodontes éocénes de 1’Amérique du Nord et ceux de la République Argentine. Rev. gén. Sci. (Paris), vol. 4: 77-81. 1903. Los diprotodontes del orden de los plagiaulacoideos y el origen de los roedores y de los polimastodontes. An. Mus. nac. Buenos Aires, (3) vol. 2: 81—192. 1906. Les formations sedimentaires du Crétacé supérieur et du tertiare de Patagonie. An. Mus. nac. Buenos Aires, (3) vol. 8: 1-568. CLEMENS, W. A., and L. G. MARSHALL., 1976. Fossilium Catalogus: Amer- ican and European Marsupialia. W. Junk (The Hague), Pars 123: 1—114. DOERING, A., 1882. Informe oficial de la Comisidn cientifica agregada al Estado Mayor General de la Expedicion al Rio Negro (Patagonia) realizada en los meses de Abril, Mayo y Junio de 1879, bajo las 6rdenes del General D. Julio A. Roca. Il. Geologfa. 4°, Buenos Aires. D’ORBIGNY, A. D., 1850. Prodrome de Paléontologie Stratigraphique Univ- erselle des Animaux Mollusques & Rayonnés. Victor Masson, Paris. Vol. I. LEIDY, J., 1856. Notices of several genera of extinct Mammalia, previously less perfectly characterized. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 8:91—92. MARSHALL, L. G., 1976. Revision of the South American fossil marsupial subfamily Abderitinae. Mar del Plata Mus. Munic. Cienc. Natur., Publ., vol. 2(3): 57—90. MORENO, F.P., 1882. Patagonia. Resto de un antiguo continente hoy sumerg- ido. An. Soc. Cien. Argentina, vol. 14: 97—131. OSBORN, H.F., 1910. The Age of Mammals in Europe, Asia, and North America. New York, MacMillan Co., xx + 635 pp. 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OSGOOD, W.H., 1921. A monographic study of the American marsupial Caenolestes. Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. Ser., vol. 14(1): 1—162. PALMER, T.S., 1904. Index Generum Mammalium: a list of the genera and families of mammals. U.S. Dept. Agr., North American Fauna, no. 23, 984 pp. PASCUAL, ee and H.E. HERRERA., 1973. Adiciones al conocimiento de Pliolestes tripotamicus Reig, 1955 (Mammalia, Marsupialia, Caenolestidae) del Plioceno superior de la Argentina. Ameghiniana, vol. 10(1): 36—50. PIVETEAU, J., 1961. Marsupialia, pp. 585—637. Jn, J. Piveteau (ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, vol. 6, no. 1. REIG, O.A., 1955. Un nuevo género y especie de cenolestinos del Plioceno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (Republica Argentina). Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., vol. 10: 60—71. SCOTT, W.B., 1937. A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere. Revised edition, rewritten throughout. New York, The MacMillan Co., xiv + 786 pp. SIMPSON, G.G., 1930. Post-Mesozoic Marsupialia. Jn, Fossilium Catalogus. I: Animalia. Berlin, W. Junk (The Hague), Pt. 47: 1—87. 1945. The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 85: 1—350. —__ 1970. The Argyrolagidae, extinct South American Marsupials. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 139: 1—86. SINCLAIR, W.J., 1906. Mammalia of the Santa Cruz beds: Marsupialia. Rept. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patagonia, vol. 4(3): 333—460. STOLL, N.R., et al., 1961, 1964. International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology. London, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. THOMAS, O., 1895. Description of four small mammals from South America, including one belonging to the peculiar marsupial genus “Hyracodon” Tomes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) vol. 16: 367 [No. 95, November, 1895; see also On Caenolestes, a still existing survivor of the Epanorthidae of Ameghino. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, for 1895: 870—878.] TOMES, R.F., 1863. Notice of anew American form of Marsupial. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, for 1863: 50—S51. TROUESSART, E. L., 1898. Catalogus Mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. New ed., Berlin. Vol. 2, Pt. 5, pp. 665—1264. — 1904. Catalogus Mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. Quinquinale supplementum, Berlin. 2 vols., 1—546 (1904), 547—929 (1905). WINGE, H., 1923. Pattedyr—Slaegter. 1, Monotremata, Marsupialia, Insecti- vora, Chiroptera, Edentata. Copenhagen, viii + 360 pp., 111 pls. {English translation: “The Interrelationships of the Mammalian Genera”. Copenhagen, 3 vols. (1941—42), Transl. by E. Deichmann and G.M. Allen]. ZITTEL, K.A. VON, 1925. Text-Book of Paleontology. London, MacMillan and Co., Vol. III. CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ................ Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain DERE doribrepege ear lersaictin tir ietedsdes Caetedath od bee: tabetha cco riiealte ential awe List of new applications era ANNOUNCEMENTS. 6s 5) sc tpeicus's cae oc kes bee he eee ee Obituary: Dr. Henning Lemche ................2.-..c0ce0-- International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report and Accounts for 1976 Coe! we we fess GS ies te STi oO Be eee ip mie ena ea ©). = NEW AND REVIVED CASES Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Dictuoptera, Blattodea): proposal to conserve and to designate it as type-species of Blattella Caudell, 1903. (D.K. McE. Kevan) .............. Proposed addition of Pulteney’s Dorset Catalogues, 1799, to the Official List of Available Works, with a request for clarification of the status of Preprints(D.Heppell) ................. Proposal to conserve the specific name tenebricola, as published in Linyphia by Wider, 1834, but in the sense of Kulezynski, 1887 (Arachnida). (G.H. Locket, A.F. Millidge & PJ. van EPEISAITI POI) s See sas ait. abe ras eve asin cana Ses emeira penn ye™aben ators Steindachneri (Trionyx) Siebenrock, 1906: proposed validation (Rentia, Testudines). (R.G. Webb)» ... ....-d. 2 se ee es Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida): proposed designation of a type- species, (5. Conway Morris) if. . S3 G00. Smeg -- . - k Ss Litosoma wite Krepkogorskaya, 1933 (Nematoda): proposed correction to Litosoma viteae (O. Bain, A. Chabaud, B.O.L. Duke, R. Kouznetzov, R.L. Muller, & P.Wenk) ........... HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): request for for addition to the Official List. (C.F.Cowan) ............ CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898, and PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Mammalia): proposed conservation. (L.G. Marshall & R.H.Tedford).......... en ie Pach eared tees Page 34 40 COMMENTS Further Comments on the Family Name ATTACIDAE (Insecta: Lepidoptera) (R.S. Peigler, C. Lemaire and reply by I.W.B. Nye, DiS. Fletcher Ac Watsons 28 we 0.5 Zorn ckponahen check teuas peas eens Correction to the application to designate a type-species for Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825](A.Diakonoff) .............. Comment on the proposed addition of Bonelli’s “Tabula Synoptica” tosthe Official, List GReB Madge) wicc caus: 0% tysnzicen bene tind~n etchant ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Mammalia): supplement to proposal to suppress this name (L.G. Marshall, W.A. Clemens, R.J. Hoffstetter, Rosendo Pascual, Bryan Patterson, R.H. Tedford ANGAW Des MUG bss socucs Seccacres 4s mua tends see snaps aietenshac ete Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for the type- species of Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886 (M.J. PVC THRO) orate Bs a ee es ea bs Antti aaah helicase Velour Ae Comment on Microform as Publication (The Secretary, International | Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)................ Comment on the proposed neotype-designation for Calymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita) (Y. Howells, P.D. Lane, CP. Bushes, A. Thomas & R.M..OWENS), 9.6.5 euiceysto > ot Gee Comment on the application to conserve Acidaspis coronata Salter, AS SS PG bitay AW a RUSD LON) oe ices auscve 26 aunaceionnes CuRiemesaaniul Comment on request for suppression of Haliplanella Treadwell (Polychaeta) in favour of Haliplanella Hand (Anthozoa) (R.B. STV EN TT ends ol lay eit: huh oes aan RN A. Strebel or Was Srl be Comments on the proposed validation of the generic name Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, and the specific names P. belgica (Pallas, 1766) and P. koreni (Malmgren, 1866) (L.B. Holthuis, Torleif Holthe, M.H. Pettibone, The Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, C. Nielsen & J.B. Kirkegaard) ...... 18 Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the only regular source of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of donations and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. © 1978 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Norman Carter at 11 Broad Street, Teddington, Middlesex. - wo - Ps fon wis": 1.8 \918 Volume 35, Part 2 aN yov OS 31st October, 1978 pp. 65-128 is cnr? e/ 7 RN , Oo a ™~ ocy Pee THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LONDON: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD ISSN 0007-5167 Price Four Pounds (All rights reserved) ew @ NAT- HS 2 NOY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON <3 PURCK ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE O A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. 1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History ) Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). 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.l. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (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 Science Museum, 3-23-]1 Hyakunin - cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh.EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Instituto Miguel Lillo, S.M. de Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden ) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzer- land) (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, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crustacea ict & (978 AAS" Dz a 2. o 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, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972). Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut 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 Ham burg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (C.S.I.R.O., Division of Land Use Research, P.O. Box 1666 Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia} (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) (President) 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. Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Mon. J. Forest Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Mr. N.D. Riley, C.B.E. Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G.F. deWitte B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M. Sc. (Scientific Controller) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 35, part 2 (pp. 64 - 128) 31st October 1978. 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) Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Hemiptera): proposal to designate a neotype. Z.N.(S.) 640. (2) Proposal to revive application in the case of the names for South American Rodents published by Brants (1827). Z.N.(S.) 1775. (3) IOTONCHIDAE Goodey, 1953 (Nematoda, Tylenchida) and IOTONCHIDAE Jairajpuri, 1969 (Nematoda, Monochida): proposals to eliminate homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2137. 66 *(4) *(5) (6) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 (Mammalia, Insectivora): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2222. Sorex dzinezumi Temminck, [1844] (Mammalia, Insectivora): proposal to correct original spelling. Z.N.(S.) 2224. Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (Bivalvia, CUCULLAEIDAE): request for determination of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2227. (c) The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 35(1) on 31st July 1978. (1) (2) (3) (4) (3) (6) Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841 (Colenterata: Actiniaria) and Milnea Lydekker, 1891 (Chordata: Aves): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2261 (R.B. Williams). Molluscan names proposed by Iredale, 1933: are they available? Z.N.(S.) 2262 (M.J. Bishop). METRIDIIDAE Gosse, 1860 (Anthozoa) and METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda): proposal to remove homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2263 (D.F. Dunn and K. Hulsemann). Harminius Fairmaire, 1852, and Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898 (Coleoptera, ELATERIDAE): proposal to designate type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2264 (E.C. Becker). SYNODONTIDAE: proposal to remove homonymy for two families in Fishes. Z.N.(S.) 2265 (K.J. Sulak). Curculio picirostris Fabricius 1787 and Tychius stephensi Schénherr, 1836 (Coleoptera: CURCULIONIDAE): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2266 (W.E. Clark). SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS NOTICE OF IMPENDING VACANCIES ON THE COMMISSION This notice is issued under Article 4 of the Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and announces the names, nationalities and fields of specialisation of the following members of the Commission whose terms of service will expire at the close of the next meeting (in 1979) of the Sects of Zoology of the International Union of Biological ciences: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 EISENMANN, Dr Eugene. U.S.A. Ornithology MELVILLE, Mr R.V. United Kingdom (Secretary). Palaeontology STAROBOGATOYV, Dr Y.I. USSR. Mollusca, Crustacea BAYER, Dr F.M. U.S.A. Octocorallia, Systematics CORLISS, Professor J.O. U.S.A. Protozoa, Systematics . Article 2b of the Constitution states: ““‘The members of the Commission shail be eminent zoologists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature”. Nominations are now invited for successors having these qualifications to be elected to the places vacated. The retiring members may themselves be nominated, but it is for the Council of the Commission to decide whether they are eligible to be considered for re-election. The Commission wishes to receive more nominations than there are vacancies, so as to be able to make a genuine choice between candidates and to maintain a balanced geographical and disciplinary representation. FINANCIAL HELP FOR THE COMMISSION We are glad to record further annual donations which have been made to the Trust from The Academies of Sciences of Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Egypt. Any nations adhering to the International Union of Biological Sciences (1.U.B.S.) who have not yet sent in their contribution for 1977 or 1978 are urged to do so without delay either through the Executive Secretariat of the I.U.B.S., 51, Boulevard de Mortmorency, 75016 Paris, France, or direct to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o Messrs. Coutts and Co., 1 Cadogan Place, Sloane Street, London, SW1X 9PX, U.K. for credit to the Trust’s Account No. (180005) 30510210. c/o British Museum (Natural History) R.V. MELVILLE Cromwell Road Secretary, International London SW7 5BD Commission on Zoological United Kingdom Nomenclature June 1978 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBITUARY: P.C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY Professor P.C. Sylvester-Bradley, who died on 17 April at the age of 64, was a member of the Commission from August 1953 to July 1958, when he resigned. When I went up to Reading University in 1932, Peter was one year ahead of me, but we became friends through a common interest in Jurassic biostratigraphy and remained so to the end. He started a research project on the Jurassic-Cretaceous Purbeck Beds of Dorset, and especially on their ostracod faunas. He became a world authority on this Order in general and initiated the stereo atlas of ostracod shells, a publication of outstanding quality which will, it is hoped, continue to make progress. His interests were exceptionally diverse and included astronomy as well as many aspects of geology (Jurassic oysters; Precambrian fossils and the origins of life; general evolutionary theory, and other topics). He was active in many learned societies, especially the Systematics Association, and at the time of his death was a Vice-President of the Palaeontographical Society. He was Professor of Geology in the University of Leicester and it is undoubtedly as a leader and inspirer of youth that he will be most fittingly remembered. His intensely religious private life led him to give special attention to his moral responsibilities as a Professor, and this - together, perhaps, with a too wide dispersal of effort - reduced the amount of original research that he was able to publish. He was looking forward to retiring in 1979 so as to prepare for publication the fruits of 30 years’ work. The loss of this to science is as tragic as the loss of a much loved friend is to his circle. He leaves a widow, three sons and a daughter. R.V.M. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO CONSERVE COLOBIDAE BLYTH, 1875, AS THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME FOR THE LEAF-EATING MONKEYS (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES). Z.N.(S.) 2094 (see vol. 33: 85-89) By D. Brandon-Jones (Unit of Anatomy in relation to Dentistry, Anatomy Department, Guy’s Hospital Medical School, London SE1 9RT, U.K.) The application by Dr. Eric Delson for the Commission to use its plenary powers to ensure the conservation of COLOBIDAE Blyth, 1875, as the family-group name for the leaf-eating monkeys, while wholly commendable in its intentions, suffers from a number of omissions, some of which have a significant bearing on the necessity for such a proposal. Blyth, 1875 (J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. vol. 44(2) Extra number: 9) is not the earliest work to employ the family-group name COLOBIDAE. The name can be traced to Blyth, 1863 (Catalogue of the Mammalia in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal: 11). However, inspection shows that in neither Blyth (1863) nor Blyth (1875) is the family-group name properly proposed, since the nominal type-genus, the African Colobus Illiger, 1811, is not listed in either reference. The earliest properly proposed usage would appear to be that of Jerdon, 1867 (The Mammals of India: 3) where it is employed at subfamilial rank (COLOBINAE). This emendation of the date and authorship of the family-group name COLOBINAE does not affect the seniority of the family-group names PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825, and SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843. There are, however, significant exceptions (e.g. Miller 1903, Smithson. misc. Coll. vol. 45: 67; Elliot, 1907 A Catalogue of the Collection of Mammals in the Field Columbian Museum: 570; Hill, 1936, Spolia zeylan. vol. 20: 116; and Hill, 1939, Spolia zeylan. vol. 21: 279) to the assertion that PRESBYTINA has been employed by only Gray himself since its definition. The usage of the name (at subfamilial rank, PRESBYTINAE) by Elliot (1907) is of particular importance because it demonstrates that his later (Elliot, 1913, A Review of the Primates, 3 vols.) adoption of the name COLOBINAE was not in ignorance of the senior name, but was a deliberate change following his (Elliot, 1910, Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 28: 151) rejection of both Presbytis and Semnopithecus as junior synonyms of Pygathrix E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812. Elliot (1913) presumably followed Palmer, 1904 (Index Generum Mammalium: 721) in regarding the validity of a family-group name as dependent on whether its nominal type-genus is recognised. Perhaps largely through the influence of Elliot (1913), the family-group name COLOBINAE has now won general acceptance, and can be maintained under the provisions of Article 40 (a) of the Code. With COLOBINAE Jerdon, 1867 (1825) conserved in this way, there would seem little reason to contravene the Law of Priority in determining the relative rank of PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825, and SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843. Delson himself, 1975 (In: Szalay (Ed.) Approaches to Primate Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2. October 1978 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Paleobiology: 171) has set a precedent in reviving the name PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825 for family-group taxa at infra-subfamilial rank which include Presbytis but exclude Colobus. The request for the Commission to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822, made prior to the designation by Pocock, 1939 (The Fauna of British India... Mammalia, 1: 88) is obviated by the type-species designation by I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1851 (Catalogue méthodique ... du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris. Premiére partie. —Mammiféres. Introduction et catalogue des primates) which antedates both that of Palmer (1904) and of Pocock (1939). Although the type-species is not mentioned nominally in the statement: “Genre ...dontl’Entelle. . . doit étre considéré comme le type” (I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1851: 11), the “Entelle” is clearly identified on page 13 as Simia entellus Dufresne, 1797. In view of the above, the request to the Commission (vol. 33: 85-89, para. 7) might be amended as follows: Section | to be omitted. Section 2(a) should now read: “Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822 (gender: masculine), type-species, designated by I. Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire (1851), Simia entellus Dufresne, 1797” Section 4 should now read: “place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology: (a) COLOBINAE Jerdon, 1867 (1825) (type-genus Colobus Illiger, 1811) with the endorsement that it is to be considered the senior synonym of PRESBYTINA Gray, 1825 by any zoologist who considers that these two names denote a single family- group taxon of relevant rank; (b) 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 Colobus [lliger, 1811 and Presbytis Eschscholtz, 1821 belong to the same family- group taxon of that rank; (c) SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843 (type-genus Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822).” I would like to acknowledge the assistance received from Mrs. P.H. Napier in the preparation of this comment. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS GLYPHIPTERIX HUBNER, [1825](LEPIDOPTERA, GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2115 (see vol. 34: 81—84; vol. 35 : 00) By J.D. Bradley (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London, U.K.) and K. Sattler (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) We agree with the aim of Diakonoff & Heppner to preserve the present concept of the genus Glyphipterix Hiibner; however, the provisions of the Code already cover the situation adequately and there is no necessity for the Commission to use its plenary powers. Two nominal genera are involved in this case: Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825], Verz. bekannter Schmett. : 421; type-species: Tinea aillyella Hiibner, [1817], Semml. eur. Schmett. vol. 8, pl. 64, fig. 431, by subsequent designation: Meyrick, 1914, Genera Insect. 164: 28. The type-species was cited by Meyrick as ‘G. thravonella, Scopoli’ (thravonella being a typographical error of thrasonella). This was not an originally included nominal species of Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825]; however, Meyrick placed it on p. 30 as the senior synonym of T. aillyella Hiibner, [1817] (Int. Code zool. Nom., Article 69(a) (iv)). Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827, Br. Ent. 4, no. 152; type-species: Phalaena linneella Clerck, 1759, Icon. Insect. rariorum vol. 1, pl. 12, fig. 8, by original designation. The proposal by Diakonoff & Heppner (Z.N.(S.) 2115, Bull. zool. Nom. 34: 81—84, 1977) covers three problem areas: 1. The type-species of Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825 |. Diakonoff & Heppner are asking the Commission to designate as the type-species Tinea bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781; however, this new type- designation is unnecessary, since bergstraesserella is currently considered tc be congeneric with aillyella (= thrasonella), the valid type-species under the Code. The type-species of Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825], is unaffected by the ‘type-designation’ by Westwood (1840: 112). It is evident from the diagnosis, spelling of the name (‘Glyphipteryx’), references and the included species that Westwood was referring to Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827, and erroneously attributed the name to Hiibner. 2. The similarity of the names Glyphipterix Hiibner and Glyphipteryx Curtis. The closeness of spelling of generic names is by no means unusual in zoological nomenclature. The similarity of the names Giyphipterix Hiibner (YPONOMEUTOIDEA: GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE) and Glyphipteryx Curtis (GELECHIOIDEA: MOMPHIDAE) is unlikely to cause confusion, since the genera concerned belong to different superfamilies. Moreover, the name Glyphipteryx Curtis applies to a genus comprising only three or four little Known species. The taxonomy of this group is not yet fully understood and therefore any decision affecting the availability of names would be inadvisable at this time. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ‘rs Spelling of the family-group name based on Glyphipterix Hubner, 1825 The spelling GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE is the correct one under the Code. It was used by Rosenstock (1885: 438) as stated by Diakonoff (1978, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35: 9), and is universally used in current major works, for example, Inoue, 1954, Hering, 1957, Clarke, 1969, Common, 1970, Krogerus et al., 1971, Wolff, 1971, Kloet & Hincks, 1972, Karsholt & Nielsen, 1976, Diakonoff, 1976, Heppner, 1977a, 6. The arbitrary alteration to GLYPHIPTERYGIDAE would therefore be against the interest of stability. Furthermore there already exist in the Microlepidoptera other comparable family names, viz. COSMOPTERIGIDAE (Cosmopterix Hiibner) and MICROPTERIGIDAE (Micropterix Hiibner). As an alternative to the proposals by Diakonoff & Heppner we request that the Commission stabilizes the current usage by approving the following simplified proposals without recourse to the plenary powers: (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following generic names: (a) Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] (gender: feminine); type- species: Tinea aillyella Hiibner, [1817] , by subsequent designation (see above). (YPONOMEUTOIDEA: GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE). (b) Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827 (gender: feminine); type-species: Phalaena linneella Clerck, 1759, by original designation. (GELECHIOIDEA: MOMPHIDAE). (2) place on the Official List of Family Names in Zoology the name GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Stainton, 1854 (originally proposed as GLYPHIPTERYGIDAE, incorrect original formation). (YPONOMEUTOIDEA). (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name Phalaena linneella Clerck, 1759 (type-species of Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827, and Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854). (GELECHIOIDEA: MOMPHIDAE). (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854, Insecta Br.: 240, as a junior objective synonym of Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827. (GELECHIOIDEA: MOMPHIDAE). (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Names in Zoology the name GLYPHIPTERYGIDAE as an incorrect original formation of GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Stainton, 1854. (YPONOMEUTOIDEA). This accounts for all the proposals by Diakonoff & Heppner, with the exception of (3) (a). As Tinea bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781, is not the type- species of Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825], there is no need to place it on the Official List as requested by Diakonoff & Heppner, (3) (a). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 REFERENCES CLARKE, J.F.G., 1969. Catalogue of the type specimens of Microlepidoptera in the British Museum (Natural History) described by Edward Meyrick, 6, [vi] + 537 pp., 267 pls., London. COMMON, I.F.B., 1970. Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies). In Mackerras, I.M. (ed.) The Insects of Australia. xiii. t+ 1029 pp., 8 pls., Melbourne. DIAKONOFF, A., 1976. Aantekeningen over de Nederlandse Microlepidoptera 3 (Glyphipterigidae). Ent. Ber., Amst., 36: 82—84. HEPPNER, J.B., 1977a. The status of the Glyphipterigidae and a reassessment of relationships in yponomeutoid families and ditrysian superfamilies. J. Lepid. Soc., 31: 124—134, 1 text-fig. —— 1977b. A new genus and new assignments in American Choreutidae (Lepidoptera: Sesioidea). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 79: 631—636. HERING, E.M., 1957. Bestimmungstabellen der Blattminen von Europa. 3 vols. s’ - Gravenhage. INOUE, H., 1954. Check list of the Lepidoptera of Japan. 1. Micropterigidae - Phaloniidae, xiii + 112 pp. Tokyo. KARSHOLT, O. & NIELSEN, E.S., 1976. Systematisk fortegnelse over Dan- marks sommerfugle. 128 pp. Klampenborg. KLOET, G.S. & HINCKS, W.D., 1972. A check list of British Insects (edn 2) part 2. Handbk Ident. Br. Insects, 11 (2): i—viii, 1-153. KROGERUS, H. & al., 1971. Catalogus Lepidopterorum Fenniae et Scandin- aviae. Microlepidoptera. 40pp. Helsinki. ROSENSTOCK, R., 1885. Notes on Australian Lepidoptera, with descriptions of new species. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (5) vol. 16: 421—443. ae 1971. Lepidoptera. The Zoology of Iceland, 3(45), 193 pp., 15 pls. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF HALIPLANELLA TREADWELL (POLYCHAETA) IN FAVOUR OF HALIPLANELLA HAND (ANTHOZOA). Z.N.(S.) 2192 (see vol. 34, part 2:94—97) By J.C. den Hartog (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The statements of Dunn & Hand regarding the obscurity of the name Haliplaneilla Treadwell are undoubtedly quite correct. I have doubts, however, about the necessity of suppressing this name, as I shall try to explain. The facts that led to the introduction by Hand of Haliplanella and HALIPLANELLIDAE into Anthozoan nomenclature are presented by Hand (1955: 190) as follows: “Among the acontiate sea anemones of California there occurs the common Sagartia luciae of Verrill. This anemone has been classified as an Aiptasiomorphan by Carlgren (1949), but the present study has revealed a he a Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that in the acontia there are basitrichs, microbasic p-mastigophores and also microbasic amastigophores. This combination of nematocysts has not hitherto been known among the Acontiaria and is of such significance systematically that a new family must be designated to accommodate this anemone. This family will be named Haliplanellidae and for the present will have but one genus, Haliplanella.” It may here be remarked that the p-mastigophores and amastigophores mentioned by Hand are nothing more than two size-classes of a single type of nematocyst, p-mastigophores. Apart from this, the combination of nematocysts mentioned by Hand certainly is not a character unique to Sagartia luciae Verrili, 1898. In my own, as yet unpublished, studies of Caribbean Actinaria, supplemented by European species, I have observed this combination in the acontia of various AIPTASIIDAE Carigren, 1924, though not in all the species examined. The combination of nematocysts concerned cannot, therefore, be regarded as justifying the erection of a new family, as stated by Hand, and its significance at the generic level is, in my view, also very doubtful. Stephenson (1925) accommodated Sagartia luciae in Diadumene Stephenson, 1920, type of the monotypic family DIADUMENIDAE Stephenson, 1920, and closely related to the AIPTASIIDAE. Sagartia luciae fits in all respects in Diadumene, except for the dubious character discussed above. Hence, I consider Haliplanella Hand and HALIPLANELLIDAE Hand as junior subjective synonyms of Dizdumene and DIADUMENIDAE respectively. The view here presented is, of course, subjective, but not more so than that of Hand, and the conclusion is justified that Haliplanella Hand and HALIPLANELLIDAE Hand are at best dubious taxa. In conclusion, even if the senior homonym Haliplanella Treadwell were suppressed under the plenary powers of the Commission, there remains a strong possibility that Haliplanella Hand and HALIPLANELLIDAE Hand will disappear in synonymy. Reference STEPHENSON, T.A. 1925. On a new British sea anemone. J. mar. biol. Assoc. Plymouth, vol. 13: 880—890 REPLY TO DR WILLIAMS (: 17) AND DRS DEN HARTOG By Daphne Fautin Dunn and Cadet Hand (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco} Dr Williams is correct that the genus-group name Haliplanella Hand and the family-group name HALIPLANELLIDAE Hand should date from 1956, not 1955 as stated in our original application. The heading of the paper in which the names were published gives the date 1955, but no. 2 of vol. 13 of the Wasmann Journal of Biology was not published until 14 February 1956 (stated in the index to vol. 14, no. 2 of that journal). Dr Williams’s opinion that Sagartia luciae is a junior subjective synonym of Sagartia lineata is possibly correct, but this is a matter for him to demonstrate in a future paper. It has no direct bearing on the problem of generic homonymy raised in our application. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 Drs de Hartog states that “the p-mastigophores and amastigophores mentioned by Hand are nothing more than two size-classes of a single type of nematocyst, p-mastigophores”. We stand by Hand’s original diagnosis of the cnidom of Haliplanella luciae. The difference between these two types of nematocyst is often evident only in preparations from live animals. Few taxonomic studies on this group of actinians have been published since Haliplanella was defined by Hand in 1956. Drs. de Hertog’s opinion that Haliplanella does not merit placement in its own family is shared by, for instance, Widersten (1976, Fish Bull. vol. 74: 857—878), but even Widersten recognizes the validity of the genus. COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING SIMIA SYNDACTYLA RAFFLES, 1821 (MAMMALIA: HYLOBATIDABE). Z.N.(S.) 2195 (1) By Jack Fooden (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605, USA) The Commission has been requested by Groves (1977, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 104—105) to give precedence to Simia syndactyla Raffles, 1821, over “Simia gibbon C. Miller, 1779” as the name for the siamang, which is now universally known either as AHylobates syndactylus or Symphalangus syndactylus. However, such action by the Commission is unnecessary because, as shown below, C. Miller’s use of the name “simia gibbon” for the siamang is based on a misidentification, and this name therefore is not available for this species (Article 49 of the Code). 2. The complete reference to the Sumatran siamang in the published extracts of C. Miller’s correspondence (1779: 170) is: “We have abundance of the simia gibbon of Buffon: they are quite black, about three feet high, and their arms reach to the ground when they stand erect; they walk on their hind legs only, but I believe very rarely come down to the ground. I have seen hundreds of them together on the tops of high trees’’. 3. In this passage the name “simia gibbon of Buffon” clearly is not proposed as a new name for the siamang, but instead is erroneously used to identify the siamang with the animal that Buffon (1766: 92) designated by the vernacular name “Le Gibbon” (= Aylobates lar (Linnaeus, 1771): 521). Therefore, according to Article 49, “simia gibbon” may not under any circumstances be retained for the siamang. Accordingly, no action is required by the Commission to protect the priority of Simia syndactyla Raffles, 1821, from competition with “simia gibbon”’ of C. Miller, 1779. 4. If the published extracts of C. Miller’s correspondence are regarded as constituting a binominal work, which is itself questionable on grounds of inconsistent application of binominal nomenclature (Code Article 11c), this author’s use of the name “simia gibbon of Buffon” falls as a harmless junior synonym of Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771, which is also based on “Le Gibbon” of Buffon. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES BUFFON, G.L.L. de, 1766. Le Gibbon in Buffon & Daubenton, L.J.M., Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére. . . (Paris, Imprimerie Royale), vol. 14: 92—95 LINNAEUS, C.,1771. Mantissa plantarum altera (Holmiae, L. Salvius) (2) By Colin Groves (Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia) Fooden’s point is interesting, but I think the matter still needs clarification, especially as at least two authorities (Matschie, 1898, Sitzungsber. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berlin, 1898: 209-212; Simonetta, 1957, Atti Soc. tosc. Sci. nat., B, vol. 64: 53—112) have considered Miller’s name truly binominal and available for the siamang. Fooden cites Article 49 of the Code, which states: “The specific name used in an erroneous specific identification cannot be retained for the species to which the name was wrongly applied. . .”. Whether this article applies to the present case is a moot point: (1) Buffon, as an author who not only did not use binominal nomenclature, but explicitly rejected it, can hardly be said to have created any name under the binominal system, so Miller cannot have “wrongly applied” any such name. Miller’s name is thus surely de novo, despite his reference to Buffon. (2) Buffon wrote in French, and referred to “Le Gibbon”, not Simia gibbon; Miller wrote in English (and was correctly quoted by Fooden), so his usage of Simia gibbon is Latin and binominal; it is not a vernacular and not a direct quotation from Buffon. It is, moreover, the only scientific name in the work, so that the question of inconsistency does not arise. It seems to me, therefore, that as the name Simia gibbon was first used by Miller, and in a correct binominal fashion, it is an available name (as recognised by Matschie and Simonetta) and so liable to be resurrected by the priority-minded. At the very least it is open to this interpretation and needs to be dealt with by the Commission. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 FURTHER AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In November 1977 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 167—173) the Secretary to the Commission presented, on behalf of the Editorial Committee on the Code, a number of important amendments that the Committee proposed to introduce into the Third Edition of the Code. The precise form of these proposals can be seen in context in the draft Third Edition, now available from the Secretariat. The present paper, which arises out of correspondence within the Editorial Committee, puts forward further proposals, some already present in the draft Third Edition but overlooked in the earlier paper, and some new. In this paper, the proposals are presented under the Article numbers used in the draft Third Edition. Article 3. Starting Point. In Direction 104 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 17: 89, 1958) the Commission gave effect to the decision of the Paris Congress (Bull. vol. 4: 274-277, 315—319; vol. 5: 31-35, 98-100) giving availability to the generic name Araneus and the epithets published in combination with it by Clerck, Aranei svecici (1757). However, whereas the Paris Congress had decided to incorporate that decision in the Code, the London (1958) Congress decided to incorporate it in the form of an entry in the Official List of Works approved for use in zoological nomenclature, and it was the latter decision that was recorded in Direction 104. It has come to the attention of the Editorial Committee that some arachnologists are claiming that the starting point of zoological nomenclature for Arachnida is 1757, a whole year earlier than for the rest of the Animal Kingdom. This was neither the intention nor the effect of either of the Congress decisions involved, or of the Commission’s ruling in Direction 104. Since that ruling and the Official List of Works are not as widely available as they ought to be, the Committee proposes that the Paris decision should be respected by inserting a new Section in Article 3 of the Code Stating the decision as follows: (a) Clerck’s ‘‘Aranei svecici’’, 1757. The generic name Araneus and the epithets published in combination with it by Clerck in Aranei svecici are to be treated as though they had been published subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature and are to have priority as Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 z.. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature though they had been published in 1758, prior to the publication of the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae. The author and date of those names, if cited, must be cited as ‘‘Clerck, [1758].” Article 10e. Names for primary divisions of genera.- The implication of this provision is that names for secondary (and further) divisions of genera are not available. It was adopted by the London (1958) Congress to meet a particular situation that did appear upsetting to stability. The Editorial Committee believes, however, that such names are widespread, and that as they have been generally accepted, their suppression in toto would be even more disturbing. We therefore conclude that the word “‘primary” in this provision should be deleted. If a name, duly latinised and capitalised, is proposed as a name for a group of species, there is no operational difference between it and a name proposed with the label ‘“‘gen. nov.” and hence no reason to treat it as anything other than a genus-group name even if it was labelled as the name of a “Section” or “Division”. For example, Rafinesque (1820) divided his new genus of catfishes, Pimelodus, as follows: Genus Pimelodus Subgenus /ctalurus Section | Elliops (with four species) Section 2 Leptops (with two species) Section 3 Ameiurus (with four species) Section 4 Jilictis (with one species) Each of the names of Sections is accompanied by a diagnosis. It appears that the names are not in use today (though Ameiurus was generally used at one time), but they are listed in the nomenclators of Neave and Schulze (in the latter as subgenera of Pimelodus). Leptops Rafinesque, 1820, has been recognised as preoccupying Leptops Schonherr in Coleoptera; not only has the latter been replaced, but so has a family-group name based on it. The Committee would welcome information about other names of this kind and their treatment in the literature. Proposed restoration of Article 31.- The old Régles, Art. 14c, provided, for epithets that are substantives in the genitive, that “the genitive is formed in accordance with the rules of Latin declension in case the name was employed and declined in Latin”, but “if the name is a modern patronymic, the genitive is always formed by adding, to the exact and complete name, an ~i if the person is a man, .. .” etc. The 1961 Code, Art. Ehe appears at first glance to say the same thing, but it omitted mention of the genitive: “A species-group name, if a noun formed from a modern personal name, must end in -i if the personal name is that of.a man, 7 ete: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 At the International Congress of Zoology in Washington in 1963, various zoologists, notably ornithologists, protested that this Article required too many changes in the spelling of long-accepted names, and the Article was changed to Recommendation 31A (“should usually end in. . .”) for the 1964 edition of the Code. In the draft Third Edition, it is proposed to restore the reference to the genitive case, but the provision is stil] left with the status of a Recommendation. A modern check list of the species of birds of the world shows how many modern personal names are used as epithets in the form of nouns in apposition (e.g. Picumnus castelnau, Amazilia edward, Myrtis fanny, Acestrura mulsant). Such names were Obviously in contravention of Article 31 of the 1961 Code, but they would be immune from a restored Article 31 that applied only to epithets in the genitive case. Note further that Recommendation 31A is inconsistent with Art 32a; the first challenges names changed in the past to correct incorrect genitives (e.g. an -i ending in a name dedicated to a woman, and properly corrected to -ae); the second requires that the original spelling of a name is to be retained. The Committee, supported by Dr Mroczkowski, therefore proposes the restoration of Article 3] along the following lines: “Article 31. Epithets.- (a) Epithets formed from personal names.- An epithet formed from a personal name may be either a noun in the genitive case, a noun in apposition, or an adjective [Art. 11g (i)}. (i) An epithet, if a noun in the genitive case formed from a personal name that is already in Latin form-or treated as Latin, or from a modern personal name that has first been put into Latin form, is to be formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar. Examples.- The epithets elizabethae formed from Elizabeth, podae (from Nicolaus Poda, a man), victoris from Victor, cuvierii from Cuvierius, the latinised form of Cuvier, and plinii from Plinius, anglicised as Pliny. (ii) an epithet, if a noun in the genitive case formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by adding to that name -i (but see Article 33d) if the personal name is that of a man, -orum if of men, or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of a woman, and -arum if of women (see Article 1 1g (i) (3) and Appendix D III). (iii) For the use of -i and -ii as permissible alternatives in 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature subsequent spellings of epithets that are genitives based upon personal names, see Article 33d. “Recommendation 31A. Avoidance of personal names as nouns in apposition.- An author who establishes a new epithet based on a personal name should preferably form the name in the genitive case and not as a noun in apposition, in order to avoid the appearance that the epithet is a citation of the authorship of the generic name. ‘“Examples.- Gould, 1841, established a species geoffroii in the genus Dasyurus Geoffroy, 1796. Had he proposed geoffroy asa noun in apposition, the combination Dasyurus geoffroy would have been confusing and misleading. Names such as Picumnus castelnau and Acestrura mulsant are also confusing, and doubly so when the epithet is capitalised, as it wrongly is by some zoologists.”’ Article 32d (iii).- This provision seems to us to concede too much to careless and ill-edited work, and we propose its deletion. The rules governing the formation of family-group names are simple and direct. Appendix D to the Code gives helpful guidance which will cover a very large number of cases, and where advice is needed for other reasons it is not usually far to seek. We believe that names that are corrected to conform to rules that are simple and based on logic will quickly gain acceptance. Article 33b. Emendations. Our attention has been drawn to the difficulty of deciding whether a change in the original spelling of a name was “demonstrably intentional” or not. The decision is an important one, for it may determine whether a name is available or not and provide the answer to questions of homonymy at both generic and specific levels. We think that the Code ought to provide a test whereby intention can be assessed, and propose the following new subsection to Article 33b: . ‘(i)Intent to change the spelling of a name is demonstrated only when, in a given work, either the original and the changed spelling are both cited and the latter is adopted in the place of the former, or if the spellings of two or more names are changed in a similar way (for example by the substitution of av for a w, or a change in endings other than a mandatory change).” Article 40. Synonymy of the type-genus.- Article 40 deals with situations that arise when the name of the type-genus of a family-group taxon is rejected as a junior synonym and replaced by the name of a different nominal genus. We feel that it is necessary to clarify the status of a family-group name based on an unjustified emendation of the name of the type-genus - i.e. when there is a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8] change in the name without a change in the nominal genus We accordingly suggest a new Section ¢ as follows f G) 4i an, date.- A family-group name based on an unjustified emendation of the name of the type-genus is a junior objective synonym of the name based on the original spelling of the name of the type-genus: it may become the valid family-group name if the emendation becomes a replacement name for the original name of the type-genus.”’ Article 59 Secondary homonyms.- The subject of secondary homonymy is one of the most complex of all those dealt with in the Code, and this is plain to anybody who has had experience of dealing with cases of it, or who will take the trouble to read the papers on it presented to the Paris (1948). Copenhagen (1953), London (1958) and Monaco (1972) congresses. The draft Third Edition, Article 59, Section b, subsections (i) and (ii) reflects this complexity, somewhat as a see-saw reflects indecision, and we feel that some simplification is possible by replacing the present subsections (i) and (ii) by the following Subsection (i): “(i)If the use of a replacement name for such a junior secondary homonym is a cause of confusion, the case is to be referred to the Commission for a ruling (under the plenary power if necessary, see Article 79a) as to which name will, in its judgement, best serve stability and uniformity, and that name is then the valid name.” At the same time, we propose to end Section b at the word “invalid” in line 2 of the draft. 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DRAFT THIRD EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: COMMENTS BY ZOOLOGISTS Z.N.(S.) 2250 Chapter XII, Homonymy. Article 58, Variant spellings deemed to be identical By O. Kudrna (Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 150-154, 53 Bonn 1, BRD) I propose to omit from Article 58 the passage placed below in square brackets and italics: “Epithets that differ in spelling only in any of the following respects [and that are of the same origin and meaning} are deemed to be homonymous when they are cited in the same nominal genus or collective group”. Zoologists are not qualified to make judgments and . subsequent decisions on matters concerning other scientific disciplines, such as philology. Philologists may differ in their views on the origin, the meaning, or both, of certain words. The origin of epithets is rarely stated; if stated it is subject to errors. Differing opinions on the origin and meaning of an epithet - even if expressed by zoologists obviously ill informed on topics normally taken care of by other disciplines - are certain to have a disruptive effect on the stability of zoological nomenclature, the promotion of which is among the objects of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. This application is supported by the following entomologists at the British Museum (Natural History): P. Ackery, J.D. Bradley, D.J. Carter, P.M. Hammond, Miss C.M.F. von Hayek, A.H. Hayes, I.W.B. Nye, A.D. Palmer, R.D. Pope, G.S. Robinson, K. Sattler, M. Shaffer, R. Smiles, R.I. Vane-Wright and A. Watson. Comment by the Secretary to the Commission The historical background to Mr Kudrna’s proposal is as follows. The provision that he proposes to remove appeared in the 1905 Régles as Article 35(3). Its removal was proposed in the agenda papers for the Paris (1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 3: 51), was accepted by the Commission at Paris (Bull. vol. 4: 125) and ratified by the Section on Nomenclature of that Congress (Bull. vol. 5: 65—66). It was accordingly omitted by Professor Chester Bradley from the draft Code that he prepared for the London (1958) Congress (Bull. vol. 14: 181), but was restored by that Congress, and hence appears in the present Code and in the draft third edition. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 Under the present rule, two epithets smithi and smithii cited in the same nominal genus are not homonyms if they represent the names of different Smiths, though they would be so if Mr Kudrna’s proposal was adopted; so would calidus (hot) and callidus (cunning) in Chrysops, although they are not so at present (see Article 57d, examples). It is for the Commission to consider whether confusion is more likely to be reduced or increased by the adoption of this proposal. Comment on the proposed use of the term ‘Epithet’ By B. Bolton, Z. Boutek, B.H. Cogan, R.W. Crosskey, M.C. Day, M.G. Fitton, D.S. Fletcher, L.A. Mound, A.C. Pont, R.D. Pope, D.R. Ragge, K.S.O. Sattler, K.G.V. Smith, R.T. Thompson, A. Watson, P.E.S. Whalley, R.I. Vane-Wright (British Museum (Natural History), London) We understand the distinction that the Committee proposes to draw between the meaning of ‘epithet’ and ‘name’, but consider it both unnecessary and undesirable to attempt to make this distinction - which runs counter to the stated objectives of the Editorial Committee, namely, ‘simplifying and clarifying the Code”. Instead of overcoming a difficulty, the introduction of ‘epithet’ will probably cause confusion where none worthy of mention exists at present, and will certainly complicate and lengthen the Code for no material advantage. In our view any ‘deficiency’ in the present Code in failing to differentiate between epithet and name is imaginary rather than real. None of us has ever experienced any problem in this respect, nor do we know of any other zoologists for whom this has been a source of difficulty. We think that the Commission would be well advised to abandon this proposal, which would be damaging not only directly by giving us a needlessly complicated Code but also indirectly by tarnishing the image of nomenclaturists still further. Use of ‘epithet’ will only strengthen the view of the generality of zoologists that nomenclaturists are obsessed with semantics and not interested in animals. Comment by the Secretary to the Commission If the distinguished authors of the preceding comment have understood a distinction between ‘epithet’ and ‘name’, they have understood more than the Editorial Committee said or intended. An epithet is a name; it is also part of a name when it enters into a binomen or a trinomen. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The problem that the Editorial Committee seeks to solve starts with the loose use of the term ‘name’ in the Code, where it may mean one word (a name of the genus-group or the family-group), two words (the name of a species) or three words ‘(the name of a subspecies) as well as each of the components of the two latter. The confusion inherent in that mixture of uses is compounded by the fact that the terms ‘specific name” and ‘name of a species’ do not have the same meaning. Likewise, each of the authors of the comment has a surname and one or more forenames: his or her ‘name’ may be any one of those words, or all of them together, or, in common usage, one of several forenames with the surname. The Editorial Committee is not so arrogant as to suppose that it can remove this confusion by imposing an arbitrary restriction on the use of the term ‘name’. It believes that the introduction of the term ‘epithet’ will introduce clarity and it is mindful of the international nature of the Code and of the problems of those preparing translations into languages other than English or French. It is also aware of pressure to harmonise the zoological and botanical codes and of the profound differences of principle (which may perhaps reflect natural differences between the systematic behaviour of animals and plants) that render such harmonisation difficult. The introduction of ‘epithet’ does not encounter any of those major difficulties, but does represent one step in the desired direction. Miscellaneous Comments By Richard Brooke (University of Cape Town RSA) [Editor’s Note: Mr Brooke wrote a letter in which he expressed agreement with many of the points in the Secretary’s paper in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 167—173 and disagreement with others. I am publishing all the comments in which he expresses disagreement, but of the others only those where he sent in more than a one-word assent. R.V.M.] The term ‘epithet’? Harmony between zoological and botanical usage is obviously desirable but I have never felt that there was doubt what was meant at particular points in the Code or in taxonomic writings by the terms ‘specific name’ and ‘name of a species’. I go along with the universal introduction of ‘epithet’. Draft Article 13c. Single combined description of a new genus and a new species: | am delighted that the ban on this practice is to be removed but | fail to see why there should be a recommendation against it. A hundred and fifty years ago idealist trained zoologists thought that there were subsistent generic z é Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 characters that could be apprehended as such by a trained mind. I think everybody now recognises that generic characters are only apprehensible in relation to closely related genera. Furthermore, they can only be apprehended when there are two or more species in a genus to show what is common to a genus. This is not possible in a monotypic genus. To take a practical case in African ornithology, umbretta is the only species in Scopus which is the only genus in the SCOPIDAE. How can anyone detect generic or familial characters in such a situation if they are not philosophical idealists? I think that the draft Recommendation against combined descriptions should be dropped, since it seems to arise from an outmoded philosophy. Draft Article 32d. Correction of diacritic marks: No. At present an epithet (we had better get used to the term) based ona Danish Miller would take the form miulleri, if necessary by correction, since it is not a German but a Danish umlaut. With many epithets it would be an unreasonable burden on the working zoologist to require him/her to ascertain the history of the corrections to these names. I am at present working on a paper on Catharacta lonnbergi Matthews, 1912 (Aves: LARIDAE) and its relatives. The name was proposed in the form C. lénnbergi to honour the well-known Swedish zoologist Lénnberg, but the correction was made so long ago that I have not ascertained who made the correction or why he made it. To satisfy the linguistic nationalists with whom I am usually in sympathy it seems to me that what is required is a provision that epithets with diacritic marks should be treated according to the honoured person’s home language. If nothing is altered when the diacritic mark is left out, leave it out and change nothing else: in writing in capitals in French the accents are normally left out without disaster. If the spelling is altered when the diacritic mark is left out, alter the spelling of the epithet accordingly: e.g. insert an ‘e’ when the German umlaut is omitted. [ Editor’s Note. It is only fair to add that it is not the Scandinavian zoologists who have asked for the proposed extension of the rule on diacritic marks, but two American ornithologists, neither of whom is of Scandinavian origin. The view expressed by Dr Silfverberg on p. 141 seems more typical of the Scandinavian attitude. The language of zoological nomenclature is Latin, and Latin has no diacritic marks. This is the basis of the rule currently in force. The difficulty with Mr Brooke’s proposal to replace diacritics by altering the spelling of the name arises with the Slavonic languages, where both vowels and consonants are affected, and where there is no standard method of latinisation. R.V.M.j 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Draft Article 33d. Use of ‘i’ and ‘-ii’ as permissible alternatives: No. This seems to mean that epithets based on personal names may be spelt as the writer likes irrespective of original orthography. I see no reason for this departure from the provisions of a clear rule. We are gradually getting people to use original orthography and I see no reason to loosen up on the matter. Why weaken the Code with an exception at this point? [| Editor’s Note. The purpose of the Committee’s proposal on this point has not been sufficiently explained or understood. Article 14c of the old Regles provided that “If the name is a modern patronymic, the genitive is always formed by adding, to the exact and complete name, an i if the person is a man. . .”’. Article 31 of the 1961 Code provided that “A species-group name, if a noun formed from a modern personal name, must end in -i if the personal name is that of a man. . .”’. The former is inconsistent with the principle that the language of zoological nomenclature is Latin, for a name ending in a consonant, such as Smith or Dupont, is latinised, not as smithus or dupontus, but as smithius and dupontius, giving smithii or dupontii. But the ancient Romans were not consistent in following their own rule and would have spelt such genitives indifferently with -i or -ii. Article 31 of the old Code [independently of the objection concerning nouns in apposition that led to its being turned into a Recommendation in 1963] gave no guidance as to whether the rule of Latin grammar should be strictly adhered to, or whether the old Régles should be followed. Meanwhile, ever since the time of Linnaeus. and his pupils, patronymics in the masculine genitive singular have been corrected from -i to -ii and from -ii to -i — with perfect justification before the Régles came into force in 1905, because both practices could be justified by appeal to classical usage. While, therefore, there is a virtue in preserving original orthographies, that virtue can become a dogma when the status of the original spelling is doubtful; when subsequent usage may be inconsistent; and when its observance leads zoologists to pretend to care about the difference between one jot and two. This therefore seemed to the Committee a case where common sense and pragmatism might, for once, outweigh strict observance. R.V.M.] Draft Article 39. Homonymy of the type-genus: No, and again, No. If a family-group name is based on a junior homonym it must be replaced by a name formed from the valid name of the type-genus. Any other provision could lead to a change in the taxonomic content of the family. The kingfishers are usually called the ALCEDINIDAE based on Alcedo, but the earliest family-group name for them is HALCYONIDAE based on Halcyon. This is Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 acceptable to me on grounds of priority, but it does change the taxonomic content since some have used both names simultaneously for separate families based on their respective type- genera. Taking the next available family-group name will often lead to a change in taxonomic content whereas use of the valid name of the type-genus will not. [Editor’s Note. Mr Brooke’s customary clarity of thought seems to have deserted him here. The Committee’s proposal is precisely to replace a name based on a junior homonym by one based on the valid name of the type-genus - whether this is a name proposed expressly to replace the homonym (i.e. an objective synonym) or a subjective synonym (i.e. the name of a genus whose type-species is considered congeneric with that of the original type-genus), whichever is the senior. A generic name proposed expressly to replace the junior homonym might be invalid through subjective synonymy. R.V.M.] Draft Chapter XV. New term for type-species: No. I see no difficulty in the phrase ‘‘that species is the type-species”. How does it differ from talking about a school and saying ‘‘that master is the headmaster”? I see no reason to abandon “‘type-species” even though I seldom use it since I prefer the simpler “genotype” as Blackwelder has so persuasively argued. It was pusillanimous in the extreme to decide that since the geneticists had borrowed a long- established taxonomic term “genotype” for use in a totally different sense, the taxonomists would confuse either themselves or others by using it. If the Commission will not go back to “genotype” as it should, at least let us not increase instability by trying to introduce “‘generitype” in place of the “‘type-species” we have all got used to. In any case, to a non-latinist, ‘“‘generitype” does not immediately suggest that it has anything to do with a genus. Use of the terms “type of a nominal taxon” and “‘type of a name’’: I do not feel strongly about either term. I prefer to maintain the status quo as the Editorial Committee has done but there is a lot to be said for harmony with botanical usage. Mayr and Others have pointed out that a type-specimen is essentially a name-bearer. I would support the switch to “‘type of a name”’ but would lose no sleep if this were not done. . 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1107 CONSERVATION OF DERMACENTOR ANDERSONI STILES, 1908 (ACARINA: IXODIDAE) RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name venustus Marx MS. in Neumann, 1897, as published in the binomen Dermacentor venustus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name andersoni Stiles, 1908 (July), as published in the binomen Dermacentor andersoni, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2639. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers mentioned: (a) venustus Marx MS. in Neumann, 1897, as published in the binomen Dermacentor venustus, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 1035); (b) venustus Banks, 1908 (June), as published in the binomen Dermacentor venustus (a junior primary homonym of Dermacentor venustus Marx MS. in Neumann, 1897) (Name Number 1036). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N(S.) 260 In 1920 the Commission was asked to rule on the specific name of the Rocky Mountain spotted fever, or wood tick. In Opinion 78 (Smiths. mise. Colls. voi. 73 (2): 261—274, 1924), which was written by Dr L.J. Stejneger, the Commission did not give the ruling requested but designated the type-specimens of Dermacentor venustus Marx MS. in Neumann, 1897, and of D. andersoni Stiles, 1908. This Opinion was found to be unsatisfactory and, in response to requests from specialists, the Commission decided at its Paris meeting in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 4: 338) to review it as soon as possible. At the same time, specialists were invited to send their views to the Commission. From 1949 to 1961 correspondence passed between a number of specialists and the Commission’s Secretariat until, in the latter year, an application by Dr Cornelius B. Philip and Dr Glen M. Kohls (Rocky Mountain Laboratory, Hamilton, Montana, USA) was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18: 316—318 seeking the same objectives as those attained in the present Ruling. Professor Mayr Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 asked for reassurance on a zoological aspect of the case - the identification of venustus and andersoni as conspecific - but unfortunately the original specimens in the Marx Collection could not then be traced. FIRST VOTE BY THE COMMISSION On 11 December 1963 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper V.P. (63)36 for or against the proposals published on p. 318 of vol. 18 of the Bulletin. At the close of the voting period on 11 March 1964, there were 25 votes in favour and two against, with two voting papers not returned. The two members voting against were Dr Carl L. Hubbs and Dr C.W. Sabrosky, and they commented as follows: Dr Hubbs.- “Though I am fully in sympathy with the proposal to give preference to the name andersoni over that of venustus, if the two are held to be synonymous, I find sufficient objection to the proposals stated on p. 318 of vol. 18 of the Bulletin to call for a restatement of the proposals. “The most vital objection I have is the implied decision by the Commission that Dermacentor andersoni is the vector of Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and that D. venustus, as of Neumann, 1897, or of Banks, 1908, or of both, is synonymous with D. andersoni. In my opinion, such questions are basically taxonomic and not nomenclatural, and are the prerogatives of working zoologists, not of the Commission (except in so far as the importance of the case may call for the use of the plenary powers). **A much more satisfactory statement, I feel, would be along such wording as: ‘If the two names are regarded as specifically synonymous, Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, July 1908, takes precedence over D. venustus Neumann, 1897 (based on Marx MS) and over D. venustus Banks, June 1908.’ This would be a proper nomenclatural, rather than taxonomic decision. “Then D. andersoni can be put on the Official List, but there will be no need, or reason, to dispose further of venustus. The name venustus would then retain validity, and theoretically could be used for a related species, if held to be distinct, or for a subspecies. _ “T see no need to go further. Thisiaction would avoid the need to cancel Opinion 78, which in effect it would supersede, but without negating the well taken point that ‘the Commission as such is incompetent to express an Opinion as to the name of the spotted fever tick’.” {Dr Hubbs also drew attention to the effect on the proposals of the Washington (1963) Congress decision concerning Article 11d On names first published in synonymy.] 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr Sabrosky: “‘I vote against the application as stated, partly for procedural and partly for factual reasons. I object to cancelling Opinion 78, partly because the reasons given are not justified (see below) and partly because it necessitates use of plenary powers to suppress D. venustus Banks. If Opinion 78 is left in force, D. venustus Banks falls as a junior homonyn, if indeed it is not merely a subsequent usage of D. venustus Marx in Neumann. If it is desired to suppress the latter and validate andersoni, then this issue should be met directly and clearly, and usage cited to justify it. I note, for example, that D. venustus Marx in Neumann has always been used by the Parasitological Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in their identifications of ticks, that at least some literature has been based on it, and that Cooley’s action of 1938 violated the Code and Opinion 78, then in force. Acceptance of andersoni would mean in essence that if an Opinion is disregarded long enough and often enough the Commission will reverse it. ‘‘Several points need to be made on the application: (1) Philip & Kohls (para 7) state that in Opinion 78 the Commission ‘by taking a type-locality as an indication for D. venustus (Marx MS) Neumann, completely reversed its previous decision in Opinion 52 [recte 53, CWS]. I disagree with their statement. Opinion 78 is filled with data on localities, specimens, labels and collections, but all that was primarily concerned with the question of identity, and simply obfuscated the nomenclatural points involved. Stejneger’s discussion saw through the smoke- screen. The Commission did not take the type-locality as an indication. Stejneger clearly states (Opinion 78, page 10, para 1) that the case is ‘absolutely comparable’ to that of Halicampus grayi in Opinion 53, that H. grayi was considered available as of its 1856 publication in synonymy because it was published with a bibliographic reference and a description [that of the senior synonym, H. conspicillatus Kaupj, and that because Opinion 53 was in force ‘it is clear that Dermacentor venustus as a published and available name dates from 1897’. Type-locality was not the reason for regarding venustus as available from 1897; the reason was that it was published ‘in connection with’ the description of the species under which it was synonymized. ‘*(2) In the same para 7, Philip & Kohls state that at the time of Opinion 78 ‘there was no definite provision in the Code covering names published in synonymies’. There was not in the Rules proper, but the wording of Stejneger in Opinion 78 is significant: ‘As Opinion 53 is in force and consequently is part of the Code. ..’ [italics mine, CWS]. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 (3) Philip & Kohls correctly note that the London Congress adopted a rule that a name published in synonymy is not an available name, but that Congress also adopted a ‘saving clause’ to protect decisions and actions taken in good faith under the Rules previously in force. Because of certain drafting difficulties this saving clause was not used in the published Code (1961), but specific provisions protected all but names published in synonymy. This lack was remedied at the recent Washington Congress, and their decision must also be considered in connection with this case. “Even more to the point, however, Dermacentor venustus Marx in Neumann is still an available name, unless specifically set aside by the Commission. *(4) The Copenhagen Decision that a name originally published in synonymy is a junior objective synonym of the name under which it was originally synonymized was based on an editorial interpretation by Secretary Hemming which, while logical, was nevertheless contrary to the consistent position of the Commission in Opinion 53 and Opinion 78. In these opinions, Halicampus grayi Kaup in Kaup, and Dermacentor venustus Marx in Neumann, were resurrected from synonymy and applied to the species represented by the particular specimens with which they were associated. I do not disagree in principle with the Copenhagen decision, but I do point out that it was a reversal of the practice recognised in Opinion 53 and reaffirmed in Opinion 78 with undeniable clarity by reference to vial and specimen numbers. *(S) The existence of D. andersoni in the literature undoubtedly stems from Stiles’s belief that under Opinion 78 the correct name for the Rocky Mountain spotted fever tick is andersoni as long as it was considered that there were two species, but that statement cannot be used to justify andersoni when the zoological conclusion is that there is only one species.” In view of the force of these comments, no Opinion was then prepared on the case. Owing to pressure of other work, it was not until 1967 that the applicants were told of these developments; by that time, neither of them was concerned to follow the matter further. FURTHER ACTION BY THE COMMISSION In 1968 and 1969 correspondence passed between Dr Conrad E. Yunker (Rocky Mountain Laboratory) and the Secretary on re- Opening the case. This led to no immediate result, but in March 1975 a fresh application was received from Dr James E. Keirans (Rocky Mountain Laboratory). This, after discussions with the 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature author and with Dr Sabrosky, was sent to the printer on 14 October 1975 and was published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 261—264. 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 prescribed serials (Constitution, Art. 12b) as well as to seven general and seven entomological serials. The names of ten zoologists who supported the proposals were printed in the application. Support was also received from Miss J.B. Walker (Veterinary Research Institute, Onderstepoort, South Africa) and from Dr Omar M. Amin (University of Wisconsin). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (77)16 for or against the proposals published on p. 263 of Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Tortonese, Welch, Bayer, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Dupuis, Nye, Heppell (a conditional vote for the majority), Ride Negative Votes - none (0) Abstention - Sabrosky Leave of Absence - Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were returned by Brinck, Habe and Mroczkowski. No voting papers were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Eisenmann: “I vote for the proposal because it would seem that no specialists are opposed. What troubles me is that the name having priority has had considerable usage judging from the application; but the synonymy was not realised. Majority usage alone should not ordinarily be enough to justify preference of a junior name where such usage is not overwhelming in the recent literature.”’ Sabrosky: “I will not oppose the obviously overwhelming majority that favours D. andersoni. However, I cannot refrain from noting, with reference to the applicant’s statement (para 13) that ‘the strict application of the Code in this case continues to cause confusion in the literature’ that the ‘endless confusion’ would have been avoided if a large segment of workers on ticks for the last half century had chosen to follow the Commission’s Opinion 78, published in 1924.” Bulletin of Z oological Nomenclature 93 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: andersoni, Dermacentor, Stiles, 1908 (July), U.S. Pub. Health Rep., vol. 23 (27): 949 venustus, Dermacentor, Marx MS. in Neumann, 1897, Mém. Soc. zool. France, vol. 10: 365 venustus, Dermacentor, Banks, 1908 (June), U.S. Dept. Agric. tech. Ser., No. 15:46—47. decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1107. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 31 March 1978 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1108 CONSERVATION OF MARSTONIA BAKER, 1926 AND OF AMNICOLA LUSTRICA PILSBRY, 1890 (MOLLUSCA: GASTROPODA) RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name lustrica Say, 1821, as published in the binomen Paludina lustrica, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Amnicola Gould & Haldeman, 1840 (gender: feminine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Herrmannsen, 1846, Paludina porata Say, 1821 (Name Number 2061); (b) Marstonia Baker, 1926 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Amnicola lustrica Pilsbry, 1890 (Name Number 2062). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Jlimosa Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Paludina limosa (Name Number 2640); (b) Justrica Pilsbry, 1890, as published in the binomen Amnicola lustrica (specific name of type-species of Marstonia Baker, 1926) (Name Number 2641). (4) The generic name Euamnicola Fischer & Crosse, 1891 (a junior objective synonym of Amnicola Gould & Haldeman, 1840) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2091. (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Jlustrica Say, 1821, as published in the binomen Amnicola lustrica, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 1037): (b) lacustris Pilsbry, 1891, as published in the binomen Amnicola lacustris (an erroneous subsequent spelling or a junior objective synonym of Amnicola lustrica Pilsbry, 1890) (Name Number 1038). (6) The name AMNICOLIDAE Tryon, 1862 (type-genus Amnicola Gould & Haldeman, 1840) is hereby placed on the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 489. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 730 An application for the suppression of Paludina lustrica Say, 1821, was first received from Dr H.A. Pilsbry (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia) in December 1952. A later application prepared by Dr H. Burrington Baker (Haverton, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), was sent to the printer on 8 December 1960 and published on 14 April 1961 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18: 146—148. 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 Bepaied serials (Constitution, Art. 12b) and to two malacological serials. The application was opposed by Dr Dwight W. Taylor (U.S. Geological Survey) and Dr Wendell O. Gregg (Los Angeles, California), but supported by Dr H.B. Herrington (Westbrook, Ontario, Canada), Dr A.H. Clarke (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada) and Dr Fred G. Thompson (Florida State Museum). Dr Thompson’s comment, which was the only one to add new information to the application, was published in Bull. vol. 31: 170—171, December 1974. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (77)17 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18: 147—148, modified so as to provide for the suppression of Paludina lustrica Say, 1821 for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes - fourteen (14) received in the following order: Melville, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Corliss, Starobogatov, Dupuis, Heppell, Bayer, Ride, Nye Abstention - Cogger Negative votes - Holthuis. Late affirmative votes were received from Habe, Brinck and Mroczkowski. Dr Bernardi was on leave of absence. Voting papers were not returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: “Evidently the taxonomy of this group is still very unsettled. Therefore it is unwise for the Commission to start to meddle with its nomenclature. Taxonomists should choose a neotype for Paludina lustrica Say that causes least harm (why not a 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature specimen of Amnicola lustrica Pilsbry?).” Cogger: “I abstain from voting. I do not believe that either side of the case has presented arguments sufficiently convincing to justify either a clear affirmative or negative vote. Indeed, the Commission is being requested to use its powers in nomenclatural matters to resolve what is primarily a taxonomic problem which should be resolved by taxonomists. If A. lustrica Say is a nomen dubium, no further action is needed.” Heppell: “It is not clear to me from the Code that a suppressed name automatically loses its type status. I think the designation of Paludina lustrica as the type of Amnicola by Haldeman, 1840, should also have been suppressed under the plenary powers and the designation of P. porata by Herrmannsen, 1846, formally validated. The nomenclatural status of Amnicola Gould & Haldeman, 1840, is uncertain. It seems to me to be a monotypic genus whose sole species, /ustrica Say, is suppressed and possibly not even congeneric with porata Say. Surely Amnicola Gould & Haldeman, 1840, should be suppressed so as not to preoccupy Amnicola Gould, 1841, with type P. porata.”’ 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: Amnicola Gould & Haldeman, 1840, in Haldeman, Monogr. Limniades N. America, vol. 1:3 AMNICOLIDAE Tryon, 1862, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 14: 452 Euamnicola Fischer & Crosse, 1891, Mission sci. Mexique Amérique centr., Zool. part 7 vol. 2: 261 lacustris, Amnicola, Pilsbry, 1891, Nautilus, vol. 5: iii of Index lustrica, Paludina, Say, 1821, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 2: 75 lustrica, Amnicola, Pilsbry, 1890, Nautilus, vol. 4(5): 53 Marstonia F.C. Baker, 1926, Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. Arts, vol. Zan Waa CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (77)17 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 1108. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 April 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 OPINION 1109 CERITHIUM BRUGUIERE, [1789] (GASTROPODA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789] hitherto made are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cerithium adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, is designated as the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789] (gender, neuter), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cerithium adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2063. (3) The specific name adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Cerithium adansonii (specific name of type-species of Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789}), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2642. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2032 An application for the use of the plenary powers to determine the type-species of Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789] was first received from Dr Richard Houbrick (Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center, Washington, D.C. 20560) on 17 January 1973. It was sent to the printer on 29 January 1973 and was published on 10 October 1973 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 104—107. 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) and to three molluscan serials. Support was received from Dr W.O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, New Zealand) and Dr R. Tucker Abbott (Delaware Museum of Natural History, Greenville, Delaware, USA). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (77)20 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 106—107. At the close of the voting period on 22 February Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - sixteen (16), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Bayer, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Dupuis, Nye, Heppell, Ride Negative Votes - none (0) Leave of Absence - Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were returned by Brinck, Habe and Mroczkowski. No voting papers were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: adansonii, Cerithium, Bruguiére, 1792, Ency. méth., Hist. nat. Vers, vol. 1 (2): 479 Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789], Ency. méth., Hist. nat. Vers, vol. MeL )exeve CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (77)20 were cast as set out above, that the proposal 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. 1109. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 April 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 OPINION 1110 MICROTERYS THOMSON, 1875 (HYMENOPTERA: CHALCIDOIDEA): CONSERVED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Microterys Thomson, [1876] (gender, masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Ashmead, 1900, Encyrtus sylvius Dalman, 1820, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2064. (3) The specific name sy/vius Dalman, 1820, as published in the binomen Encyrtus sylvius (specific name of type-species of Microterys Thomson,[1876] ),is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2643. (4) The generic name Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1), above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2092. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2033 An application for the conservation of the generic name Microterys Thomson, [1876] by the suppression of its senior synonym Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856, was first received from Dr D. Rosen (Hebrew University, Rehovot, Israel) on 22 January 1973. It was sent to the printer on 29 January 1973 and published on 10 October 1973 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 108—111. 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 and to nine entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr D.P. Annecke and Dr G.L. Prinsloo (Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa), Dr Paul DeBach and Dr Harold Compere (University of California, Riverside, California, USA), Dr T. Tachikawa (Ehime University, Japan), Dr Oswald Peck and‘Dr Carl M. Yoshimoto (Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada), Dr Charles Ferriére (Geneva, Switzerland) and Dr Z. Bouéek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London). No adverse comment was received. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (77)21 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 110—111. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Bayer, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Dupuis, Heppell, Ride, Nye Negative Votes - Mroczkowski Leave of Absence - Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were received from Brinck and Habe. No votes were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. In returning his negative vote, Dr Mroczkowski remarked: “As the generic names Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 and Microterys Thomson, [1876] are only subjective synonyms, the senior name should not be suppressed and placed on the Official Index. In my view, the ‘relative precedence’ procedure is safer [see Nye, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 30: 141 and Mroczkowski, Bull. zool. Nom. in press}. 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: Microterys Thomson, [1876], Scandinaviens Hymenopteren, vol. 4: Las Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856, Hymenopterologische Studien, vol. 2:38—39 sylvius, Encyrtus, Dalman, 1820, K. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl., (1) vol. 20: 154. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (77)21 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1110. R.V. MELVILLE _ Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 April 1978 i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 OPINION 1111 LEUCOSPIS GIGAS FABRICIUS, 1793 (HYMENOPTERA, LEUCOSPIDAE) CONSERVED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) lugdunaea de la Tourette, 1780, as published in the binomen Cinips [sic| lugdunaea; (b) gallica Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Leucospis gallica. (2) The specific name gigas Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Leucospis gigas, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2644. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified ; (a) lugdunaea de la Tourette, 1780, as published in the binomen Cinips [sic] lugdunaea, and as suppressed under a plenary powers in (1) (a) above (Name Number 1039); (b) gallica Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Leucospis gallica, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above (Name Number 1040). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2038 An application for the conservation of Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793, was first received from Dr Z. Boucek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) on 7 March 1973. It was sent to the printer on 2 April 1973 and printed on 10 October 1973 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 124—125. 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 Article 12b) and to nine entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr B.D. Burks (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, Washington D.C. 20560, USA) (Bull. vol. 31: 116) and by Dr G. Viggiani (Istituto di Entomologia Agraria, Portici, Italy). No adverse comment was received. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (77)22 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 124. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Dupuis, Heppell, Ride, Nye Negative Votes - none (0) Leave of Absence - Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were received from Brinck and Habe. No voting papers were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. The following comments were sent in by members with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘As the 18th century method of citing the specific name in parentheses after the generic name in a Latin diagnosis has been considered an available method in binominal nomenclature (De Geer, 1772—1778, in his Mémoires pour servir a l’histoire des Insectes used this method, and his specific names are considered available), it seems best also to suppress the name Cinips [sic] lugdunaea de la Tourette, 1780, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.” Sabrosky: ‘My only question is whether ‘Cinips [sic] lugdunaea’ should be credited to Tourette, 1780, rather than to Gmelin. I have seen works in which the parenthetical insertion showed the specific name. Tourette’s paper should be examined to see if that was the format, and, if so, if he was consistently binominal. This is a technical detail that will not affect the object of conserving gigas.” Since Dr Boucek had originally applied for the suppression of Cynips lugdunaea Gmelin, 1790, the above comments showed that it was necessary to verify whether Cinips [sic] lugdunaea de la Tourette, 1780 was an available name (and in particular whether it met the requirements for a binominal name), and whether his and Gmelin’s names represented the same nominal species. De la Tourette’s paper (1780, Mém. Math. Phys., vol. 9: 730—746) is entirely devoted to the description of this one species. There is, therefore, no internal basis for answering Dr Sabrosky’s question as to whether the work is consistently binominal or not; but as both Dr Holthuis and Dr Sabrosky remark, the practice of citing a specific name in parentheses between the generic name and the specific description is widespread among early authors whose Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 works have always been accepted as binominal without question. The presumption here must, therefore, be in de la Tourette’s favour. Furthermore, as the name is associated with a 16-page description and with illustrations, its availability is not in doubt. On the second point, de la Tourette’s Latin summary reads “Cinips (lugdunaea) nigra, maculis luteis notata, femoribus posticis globosis, margine inferiore dentatis, aculei triplici super abdomen recurrato” [sic; the French translation reads ‘“‘recourbée”, so “recurvato” is clearly intended]. Gmelin’s entry (1790, Syst, Nat., ed. 13: 2653) begins ‘‘Cynips lugunaea C. nigra luteo maculata...” and is otherwise the same as de la Tourette’s, word for word, except that the misprint “recurrato” is corrected to “recurvato”. It is followed by a reference to de la Tourette’s paper. There is therefore no room for doubt: both authors deal with the same nominal species and it is de la Tourette’s name that must be suppressed. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: gallica, Leucospis, Villers, 1789, Caroli Linnaei Entomologia, vol. 3: 261 gigas, Leucospis, Fabricius, 1793, Entomologia systematica, vol. 2: 245 lugdunaea, Cinips [sic], de la Tourette, 1780, Mém. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. 9: 730—746, pl. 1. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (77) 22 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Se, Th Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1111. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28th April 1978 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1112 MADIZA FALLEN, 1810 (DIPTERA: MILICHIIDAE): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, all fixations of type-species for the nominal genus Madiza Fallén, 1810, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Madiza glabra Fallén, 1820, is hereby designated as type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Madiza Fallén, 1820 (gender, feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Madiza glabra Fallén, 1820, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2065. (3) The specific name glabra Fallén, 1820, as published in the binomen Madiza glabra (specific name of type-species of Madiza Fallén, 1810) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2645. (4) The family-group name MADIZINAE Czerny, 1909 (type-genus Madiza Fallén, 1810) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 490. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2040 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for Madiza Fallén, 1810 was first received from Dr C.W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, USA) on 26 March 1973. It was sent to the printer on 2 April 1973 and printed on 10 October 1973 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 126—128. 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 Article 12b) and to nine entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr Emilia Nartshuk (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 (77)23 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 30: 127-128. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes - seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Dupuis, Nye, Heppell, Ride Negative votes - none (0) Leave of Absence - Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were returned by Brinck and Habe. No voting papers were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: glabra, Madiza, Fallén, 1820, Oscinides Sveciae: 9 Madiza Fallén, 1810, Specim. entomolog. novam Diptera disp. Meth. exhibens: 19 MADIZINAE Czerny, 1909, in Czerny & Strobl, Verh. zool. -bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 59: 278. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (77)23 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. 1112. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28th April 1978 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1113 ALPHEUS NEPTUNUS DANA, 1852 (CRUSTACEA; ALPHEIDAE) STATUS OF NEOTYPE CONFIRMED RULING.- (1) It is hereby ruled that the specific name neptunus Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen Alpheus neptunus, is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated for that nominal species by Banner & Banner, 1972, Crustaceana, vol. 23: 24. (2) The specific name neptunus Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen Alpheus neptunus, and as interpreted by the neotype specified in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2646. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2047 An application from Dr Albert H. Banner and Mrs Dora M. Banner (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii) for confirmation of the status of the neotype designated by them for Alpheus neptunus Dana, 1852, was first received on 18 April 1973. It was sent to the printer on 24 October 1973 and published on 28 June 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 203—204. No use of the plenary powers was involved. The application was supported by Dr A.J. Bruce (East African Marine Fisheries Research Organization, Mombasa, Kenya). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (77)24 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 204. At the end of the voting period on 22 February 1978, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes - fourteen (14) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Starobogatov, Nye, Bayer, Ride Negative votes - one (1): Dupuis Abstention - Cogger Leave of Absence - Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were received from Brinck and Habe. No votes were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 Holthuis: “Of course Dana did not have a holotype, but only syntypes; but that is not really relevant here.” Cogger: “I abstain from voting on the application as proposed. As Dana described Alpheus neptunus from more than one specimen and did not designate a ‘type’ or holotype, the possibility that one of the Museum of Comparative Zoology specimens is the holotype (para 4) does not arise. However, it seems clear that these specimens probably belonged to the syntypic series and that one of them would normally be chosen as the lectotype. Thus it seems to me inadequate simply to endorse the status of the neotype but in addition the Commission should revoke the type status of any other specimens, including the two probable syntypes in the Museum of Comparative Zoology.” ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference to a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: neptunus, Alpheus, Dana, 1852, Crustacea, in U.S. Exploring Expedition... 1838. . . 1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes, USN, yOloIs: S55. pl. 30, Tig: J. The following is the original reference to a neotype designation confirmed by the ruling given in the present Opinion: for Alpheus neptunus Dana, 1852, by Banner & Banner, 1972, Crustaceana vol. 23: 24. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (77) 24 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. 1113. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28th April 1978 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1114 CORNUSPIRA SCHULTZE, 1854 (FORAMINIFERA): CONSERVED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Cyclogyra Wood, 1842; (b). the specific name multiplex Wood, 1842, as published in the binomen Cyclogyvra multiplex. (2) The generic name Cornuspira Schulze, 1854 (gender, feminine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Brady, 1884, Orbis foliaceus Philippi, 1844, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2066. (3) The specific name foliaceus Philippi, 1844, as published in the binomen Orbis foliaceus (specific name of type-species of Cornuspira Schulze, 1854) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2647. (4) The generic name Cyclogyra Wood, 1842, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2093. (5} The specific name multiplex Wood, 1842, as published in the binomen Cyclogyra multiplex, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1041. HISTORY OF THE CASE 'Z.N.(S.)'2031 An application for the suppression of the generic name Cyclogyra Wood, 1842, was first received from Dr Richard W. Ponder (James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia) in April 1973. After some correspondence with the author it was sent to the printer on 14 January 1974 and published on 31 July 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 54—58. 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 statutory serials (Constitution, Art. 12b) and to two palaeontological serials. The application was supported by the Senior Geologist, Geological Survey of Queensland, Dr A.C. Collins (Geelong, Victoria, Australia), Dr Ruth Todd (Vineyard Haven, Mass. 02568, USA), and Dr M. Hamaoui (Société Nationale des Pétroles d’Aquitaine, 64001 Pau, France). No adverse comment was received. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on voting paper (1977)25 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 57—58. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - fourteen (14) received in the following order: Melville, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Tortonese, Welch, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Heppell, Ride, Nye Negative Votes - three (3): Holthuis, Sabrosky, Dupuis Leave of Absence - Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were received from Brinck and Habe. No votes were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: “As Loeblich & Tappan’s (1964) work in the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology undoubtedly will be followed by many workers in Foraminifera, and since the taxonomy at the generic level of the type-species of Cornuspira evidently is not settled (see para 6 of the application), it seems best to apply the Code here strictly. At most the plenary powers should be used to suppress the specific name multiplex Wood, 1842.” Sabrosky: “Usage of Cyclogyra is too extensive to ignore. Let priority prevail.” Heppell: *‘There seems to be some confusion over the type- species of Cornuspira which should be made clear when the Opinion is published. The applicant states in para 4: ‘Schulze (1854). . . described two new species at length . . . and briefly discusses other species belonging to Cornuspira. Brady (1884) designated one of these species, Orbis foliaceus Philippi (1844) as the type-species.’. In para 5 it is noted that Cushman (1927) ‘changed the type designation to C. planorbis. . . as Schulze had not listed C. foliacea as an included species at the establishment of Cornuspira.’. Then in para 6 the applicant states: ‘Loeblich & Tappan (1964), however, show that C. foliacea was one of the names used by Schulze under Cornuspira and the original designation by Brady (Cushman, 1917, in Loeblich & Tappan) must stand.’. I have not seen these references and so have not been able to make up my own mind on this point and do not understand whether the designation dates from 1884 or 1917. My vote in favour of the application assumes that the statement quoted from para 6 is unexceptionable.” 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In view of Mr Heppell’s comment, I verified that Schulze, 1854: 41, fn**, expressly included Orbis foliaceus Philippi, 1844 in Cornuspira, so that Brady’s subsequent designation in 1884 is valid. On that occasion Brady synonymised Cornuspira planorbis Schulze, 1854, with C. foliacea Philippi; that would have constituted a designation of the former as type-species had the latter not been originally included in the genus. 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: Cornuspira Schulze, 1854, Ueber den Organismus der Polythala- mien (Foraminiferen), nebst Bemerkungen ueber die Rhizopoden im Allgemeinen (Leipzig): 40 Cyclogvra 8.V. Wood, 1842, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (1) vol. 9:458 foliaceus, Orbis, Philippi, 1844, Enum. Moll. Siciliae, vol. 2: 147 multiplex, Cyclogyra, §8.V. Wood, 1842, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (1) vol. 9: 458. The following is the original reference to a type-species fixation accepted in the present Opinion: of Orbis foliaceus Philippi, 1844 for Cornuspira Schulze, 1854, by Brady, 1884, Rept Voy. Challenger, Zool. vol. 9: 199. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (77)25 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1114. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 May 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 NOTONECTA STRIATA LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 640. By T.T. Macan (Stevney, Outgate, Ambleside, Westmorland, LA22, ONH, U.K.) and D. Leston (University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268, U.S.A.) This application is a revival of one that was first addressed to the Commission in 1952 and published in 1961 (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 18: 328—329). It failed on that occasion because a member of the Commission, in voting on the case, pointed out that the plenary powers ought to have been invoked to attain the end sought, whereas they had not been applied for, nor had the possibility of their use been advertised. 2. As first pointed out by Kirkaldy (1906, Entomologist, vol. 39: 60—64), the Linnean type-series agrees neither with the original description of Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758, nor with the species accepted by later authors. When establishing the species Notonecta striata in 1758 (Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1: 439) Linnaeus referred to three poor figures: Pet. gaz. t.72. f.7; Roes. ins. app. 1. p.177.t.29; and Joblot. micr. |.pp.t.7. fs.2.3. Linnaeus also gave the brief dagnosis: ‘‘Notonecta vulgaris compressa fusca. Habitat in Europae aquis.” It is quite impossible to identify the species either by the figures or by the description (see China, 1938, Ent. mon. Mag., vol. 74: 36). All that can be said is that the species belongs to the CORIXIDAE. Nevertheless, the name striata Linnaeus has been applied by workers in the past to a definite European species. 3. Reference to the Linnean collection preserved by the Linnean Society of London, Burlington House, shows that the pin piercing the label ‘“‘Notonecta striata” also pierces two female specimens, neither of which is Corixa striata as understood by modern workers. In fact, it is not possible to identify these female specimens with any certainty. Nevertheless, even though it is known that many of the original Linnean specimens have been replaced since the collection was brought to London by James Edward Smith in 1784, it cannot be proved that neither of these females is an original syntype. Thus it is still open to anyone to select one of them as the lectotype and thereby throw a well-established name into confusion. In these circumstances, a neotype can only be designated under the plenary powers. This was the basis of the objection referred to in the first paragraph, and it is well founded. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Leston (1955, Ent. mon. Mag. vol. 91: 57—59) established the new combination Sigara dorsalis (Leach), thereby bringing the nomenclature and systematics in use in Europe into line with American practice (Hungerford, H.B., 1948, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., vol. 32: 5-287); he also noted that both this species and Sigara striata (Linnaeus) occurred in Britain. 4. The present application is thus the culmination of a revision that began in 1924, when Jaczewski published the first modern illustrated description of the species under the genus Callicorixa (Ann. zool. Mus. polon. Hist. nat., voi. 3: 58) and the current use of the name dates from that work. In 1935 this use was confirmed by Poisson (Arch. Zool. exp. gén., vol. 77: 542). In 1954 Macan (Hydrobiologia, vol. 6: 58—65) showed that the traditional Corixa striata comprised two closely allied but distinct species. He restricted C. striata Linnaeus, 1758, to the form found in Danish lakes and gave a new name, C. lacustris, to the single form then recognised in Britain. In 1955 (Hydrobiologia, vol. 7: 124) he reported that C. lacustris was in fact a synonym of C. dorsalis Leach, 1817 (Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 12: 10—18). No syntypes of this species exist. 5. It is clear that stability of nomenclature where these two closely similar species are concerned will only be ensured if neotypes are designated for them. In the case of C. striata this can only be done by the Commission using its plenary powers, as pointed out above. The specimen that Macan purported to designate in his earlier application is suitable in every respect and the necessary details are given below. In the case of C. dorsalis Leach, Lansbury (1956, Ent. mon. Mag., vol. 92: 14) reported that he had designated neotypes for that and four out of the other five species described by Leach in 1817. No syntypes were to be found of any of these species, so Lansbury chose specimens from the Stephens collection in the British Museum (Natural History) because they were approximately contemporary with Leach’s work. He gave no particulars of the specimens, however, so that his neotypes are not valid under the provisions that were added to the Code some years later. He had, however, dissected his ‘“‘neotype” of C. dorsalis and had found it to be a specimen of C. lacustris. 6. It was at first proposed to accept the neotype designated for C. dorsalis by Lansbury. However, Leston (1956, J. Soc. Brit. — Ent., vol. 5: 153—158) noted that the two forms are sympatric in — S.E. England; C. dorsalis is variable in the structure of both genital claspers, the arrangement of the male palar pegs, and the number of pale pronotal markings; it is not known how far this variation is Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature jy individual, geographic or seasonal - Southwood & Leston (1958, Land and freshwater bugs of the British Isles (London): 388—389) pointed out that dorsalis has two generations a year in southern England. It follows that any neotype must have among its data a definite locality and a definite date of capture, partly because there is some geographical overlap between C. striata and C. dorsalis, and partly because it is possible that infraspecific taxa will at some future date be recognised in the species-complex in question. 7. The Stephens collection specimen selected by Lansbury and endorsed in Macan’s earlier application has neither a locality nor a date of capture. However, Macan’s designation of it in 1961 was nomenclaturally correct and can therefore only be set aside by the use of the plenary powers. A specimen which meets all the requirements is the holotype of C. lacustris Macan, 1954, and it is proposed that this be now designated as neotype of C. dorsalis Leach, 1817. 8. The two specimens now proposed for designation as neotypes are as follows:- (a) For Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758:a microscope slide of a dissected male specimen in the British Museum (Natural History). The slide bears at one end a red- bordered British Museum type label with the words ‘“‘Corixa striata (Linnaeus, 1758), Neotype’’, and at the other end a slide label reading ‘‘Denmark, Esrom Lake - 9.1950, T.T. Macan Coll., Station 11”’. (b) For Corixa dorsalis Leach, 1817: a microscope slide of a dissected male specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) labelled ‘“‘Corixa Jacustris Macan, 1954, Holotype. Esthwaite Lake 8.v.51, T.T. Macan’’. It also bears the British Museum (Natural History) acquisition number 1954-822. The acceptance of these proposals will stabilise the nom- enclature used by Southwood & Leston, 1964, Hemiptera, in A checklist of British Insects (Roy. ent. Soc. London), vol. 1: 36—52, and by all contemporary workers in Europe. This is desirable in view of the considerable ecological literature on the complex. The International Commission on Zoological _Nomenclature is accordingly asked:- (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-specimens for the nominal species mentioned below and to designate: (a) the specimen referred to in paragraph 8 (a) above as neotype of Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758; 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) the specimen referred to in paragraph 8(b) above as neotype of Corixa dorsalis Leach, 1817. (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) striata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Notonecta striata and as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above; (b) dorsalis Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Corixa dorsalis, and as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above. | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 REVIVED APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF THE NAMES FOR SOUTH AMERICAN RODENTS PUBLISHED BY BRANTS (1827). Z.N.AS.) 1775. By Alfredo Langguth (Dept. Zoologia Vertebrados, Facultad Humanidades y Ciencias, Montevideo-Uruguay) In December 1966 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 23: 243—4) I applied for the names for South American rodents published by Brants in 1827 to be placed on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. No action has yet been taken by the Commission on that application, which I now renew. 2. Felix de Azara published a well-known work on the mammals of Paraguay in 1801 in a French edition, and in 1802 ina Spanish edition - Apuntamientos para la historia natural de los quadrupedos del Paraguay y Rio de la Plata (Madrid). He described three new species of cricetid mice under vernacular names - agreste, blanco-debaxo and colibreve - in the Spanish, but not in the French edition. 3. Desmarest (1819, Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, vol. 29) gave linnean binominal names to the species described in the French edition, and these have been generally used ever since. They were used, for example, by Brants (1827, Het Geslacht der Muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld . . .) (Berlin), who saw that no scientific names had then been given to the three species first described in the Spanish edition. He therefore cited a genus ‘“‘Ratton d’Azara’’, although Azara had used only the vernacular plural ‘‘Ratones”, and placed in it as species the forms given one-word vernacular names by Azara, treating the names as Latin. In fact, he described in all five species in the genus Ratton, as Brants, 1827 Azara, 1802 Ratton agreste (: 184) el agreste (: 94) Ratton blanco debaxo (: 185) el blanco debaxo (: 97) Ratton colibreve (: 186) el colibreve (: 86) Ratton espinoso (: i86) el espinoso (: 76) Ratton tucotuco (: 187) el tucotuco (: 69) The last two species are not cricetids. It is necessary to examine the status of each of these names. 4. Brants used Ratton in exactly the same way as other generic names like Mus and Spalax and there seems no doubt that it Is an available name (it is listed by Neave, though not by Sherborn). _ Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 “ 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature It has, however, never been adopted by later authors, and the species put in it by Brants form a very heterogeneous collection. It is therefore a subjective synonym of several generic names in current use, mostly junior to it. It can be disposed of either by suppression under the plenary powers, or by designating a type- species that would make it a junior synonym of an earlier name (no type-species designation for Ratton is known). The latter course, however, presents problems of its own. 5. R. tucotuco belongs to the genus Ctenomys Blainville, 1826 (the other species are now placed in Eurizygomatomys Goeldi, 1901, Akodon Meyen, 1833 and Calomys Waterhouse, 1837). It would thus be easy to make Ratton Brants, 1827 a junior subiective synonym of Ctenomys Blainville, 1826 by designating R. tucotuco as its type-species. This would, however, imply that the specific name ftucotuco is a valid name. Unfortunately, Azara’s description is enough only to recognise that it is a Ctenomys. It is not enough to distinguish a species within the genus. Langguth & Abella (1970, Commun. zool. Mus. Hist. nat. Montevideo, vol. 10, No. 129) showed how subtle are the changes in morphology within and between populations and species of this genus over short geographical distances. Oldfield Thomas (1896, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) vol. 18: 311), in describing C. perrensi, thought that it might be Azara’s tucotuco ‘“‘but that animal has never had a distinctive name applied to it, owing to its identification with the Minas Geraes form, Ctenomys brasiliensis de Blainville” 1826; but in 1903 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 11: 228) he thought that his new species C. azarae might be the tucotuco (later that year, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 12: 243, he corrected the type-locality of C. azarae). All of these species are thus candidates to represent Azara’s tucotuco, but it is quite impossible to say which one does so in reality. For this reason - that the only type-species designation which would make Ratton a junior synonym involves a nomen dubium - it is thought preferable to ask for the suppression of that generic name. To designate a suitable neotype for R. tucotuco in connection with revisory work would be a long and difficult task and would create rather than solve a taxonomic problem. 6. Regarding the five specific names combined by Brants with Ratton, it is my present submission that these are not available names under the provisions of the Code because all are vernacular names. This seems obviously the case with blanco debaxo, espinoso and tucotuco; but even if accepted as Latin or latinised or treated as such, none is in either the nominative or the genitive case. The word colibreve is of obscure origin, but is not found in Latin dictionaries. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature [tT It is true that agreste corresponds to the neuter nominative singular of the Latin adjective agrestis, but it is equally a Spanish vernacular word. Moreover, there seems no reason to discriminate between these names, and every reason to treat them all in the same way. 7. If the Commission prefers to regard all the names as available, it is then necessary to consider the effect of that decision on other names. (a) R. agreste. This was renamed Mus? azarae by J.B. Fischer, 1829, Synopsis Mammalium: 325. That name has been used ever since except for one author on one occasion (Hershkovitz, 1966, Zeitschr. Sdug. vol. 31: 106). It is therefore impossible to apply the provision of Articles 23a-b and 79b to it, but it is clearly in the interests of stability that R. agreste should be suppressed. (b) R. blanco debaxo. This name, if not treated as a vernacular name, is not binominal and is thus unavailable for that reason. Its taxonomic status is doubtful. Mus? dubius J.B. Fischer, 1829: 326, is a replacement name for it, but according to Langguth (1975, Papeis Avulsos Zool. S. Paulo vol. 28(8): 46) it is now generally thought to be Calomys laucha (G. Fischer, 1814). I have been unable to find as many as ten recent references to this species. However, though it is clearly a less important case than the others, it is difficult to see what would be gained by making an exception in favour of R. blanco debaxo. (c) R. colibreve. No replacement name has ever been proposed for this name, nor has it ever been used as a valid name. Tate (1932, Amer. Mus. Nov. No. 557: 4) thought that Akodon obscurus (Waterhouse, 1837) was probably the same, and this Opinion was shared by Devincenzi (1935, An. Mus. Hist. nat. Montevideo (2) vol. 4, No. 10: 59). A list of uses of this name for topotypes and other specimens of R. colibreve is given in the Appendix to this paper. (d) R. espinoso. In this case Azara’s espinoso had already been named Rattus spinosus G. Fischer, 1814, so that Brants’ name, even if available, is invalid as a junior objective synonym. It has, moreover, never been used. (e) R. tucotuco. As shown in paragraph 5, this is a nomen dubium. Any attempt to introduce it into use would almost certainly disturb stability so that, if it is regarded as available, it should be suppressed. For the reasons advanced in this application, the Commission is asked to take the following action: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and then to take one of the following courses: either A (2) to declare that the specific names agreste, blanco debaxo, colibreve, espinoso and tucotuco Brants, 1827, as published in combination with the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827 are vernacular names and, as such, are not available for use in zoological nomenclature; or B (3) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific names agreste, blanco debaxo, colibreve and tucotuco Brants, 1827, as published in combination with the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (4) to place the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; either A (5) to place the specific names agreste, blanco debaxo, colibreve, espinoso and tucotuco Brants, 1827, as published in combination with the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as unavailable vernacular names; orB (6) to place the specific names agreste, blanco debaxo, colibreve and tucotuco Brants, 1827, as published in combination with the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (3) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (7) to place the specific name espinoso Brants, 1827, as published in the binomen Ratton espinoso, a junior objective synonym of Rattus spinosus G. Fischer, 1814, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. APPENDIX Usage of junior synonyms of R. agreste Brants, 1827 Akodon azarae (Fischer 1829). Sierra de Soriano, B., 1969. Algunos caracteres externos de cricetinos y su relacién con el grado de adaptacidn a la vida acuatica. Physis, vol. 28(77): 471-486. Akodon azarae azarae (Fischer). Barlow, J.C., 1969. Observations on the biology of Rodents in Uruguay. Life Sci. Contr. R. Ont. Mus. No. 75: 1-59. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Luo Akodon azarae. Pearson, O.P., 1967. La estructura por edades y la dindmica reproductiva en una poblacién de ratones de campo, Akodon azarae. Physis, vol. 27 (74) : 53-58. Akodon azarae. Bianchi, N.O., Reig, O.A., Molina, O.J. & Dulout, F.N., 1971. Cytogenetics of the South American akodont rodents (Cricetidae). I. A progress report of Argentinian and Venezuelan forms. Evolution, vol. 25(4): 724-736. Akodon azarae. Reig, O.A., 1964. Roedores y Marsupiales del partido de General Pueyrredon y regiones adyacentes. Publ. Mus. Mun. Cien. Nat. Mar del Plata, vol. 1(6): 203—224. Akodon arenicola (Waterhouse). Sanborn, C.C., 1929. The land mammals of Uruguay. Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Ser. vol. 17(4): 147-165. Akodon azarae azarae. Fornes, A. Massoia, E., 1965. Micromamiferos recolect- ados en la localidad bonaerense de Miramar. Physis, vol. 25(69): 99-108. Akodon azarae. Crespo, J.A., Sabattini, M.S., Piantianida, M.J. & de Villa-fane, G., 1970. Estudios ecoldgicos sobre roedores silvestres. 45 pp. Comision Nac. estudio y lucha fiebre hemorragica Argentina, Buenos Aires. Akodon (Akodon) azarae azarae (Fischer). Ximenez, A., Langguth, A., Praderi, R., 1972. Lista sistematica de los mamiferos del Uruguay. Anal. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, Ser. 2, vol. 7(5): 1—49. Akodon azarae (Fischer). Langguth, A., 1965. Contribucién al conocimiento de los Cricetinae del Uruguay. Anais 2do. Congr. Latinoamericano de Zoologia, vol. 2: 327—335. Akodon azarae. Crespo, J.A., 1966. Ecologia de una comunidad de roedores silvestres en el Partido de Rojas, provincia de Buenos Aires. Rev. Mus. Arg. Cien. Nat. Bs. As. Ecologia, vol. 1(3): 79-134. Usage of junior synonyms of R. blanco debaxo Brants, 1827 Hesperomys dubuis (Fischer). Tate, G.H.H., 1932. The South American Cricetidae described by Félix Azara. Amer. Mus. Novitates No. 557: 1-5. Mus [?] dubius Fischer - Hershkovitz, P., 1962. Evolution of Neotropical Cricetine rodents (Muridae) with special reference to the Phyllotine group. Fieldiana Zool., vol. 1—524. Calomys dubius dubius (Fischer). Cabrera, A., 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de América del Sur, II. Rev. Mus. Arg. Cien. Nat. Bs. As., vol. 4(2): 309-732. Calomys dubius. Massoia, E. & Fornes, A., 1965. Contribucién al conocimiento de los roedores miomorfos argentinos vinculados con la fiebre hemorragica argentina. Comision Nac. Coord. Estudio y Lucha Fiebre Hemorragica Argentina. 20 pp. (Calomys dubius (Fischer) is a synonym of Calomys laucha). Calomys dubius dubius. Massoia, E., Fornes, A., Wainberg, R. & Fronza, T.G., 1968. Nuevos aportes al conocimiento de las especies bonaerenses del genero Calomys. Rev. Invest. Agropecuarias INTA Bs. As. Ser. 1, vol. 5(4): 63—92. (Calomys dubius dubius .used as a junior synonym of Calomys laucha laucha). 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Calomys dubius. Langguth, A., 1975. La identidad de Mus lasiotis Lund y el status del genero Thalpomys Thomas (Mammalia, Cricetidae). Papeis Avulsos Zool. S. Paulo, vol. 29(8): 45-54. (Calomys dubius (Fischer) is a junior subjective synonym of Calomys laucha (Fischer) 1814). Usage of junior synonyms of R. colibreve Brants, 1827 Akodon obscurus (Waterhouse). Tate, G.H.H., 1932. The South American Cricetidae described by Felix Azara. Amer. Mus. Novitates, No. 557: 1-5. Akodon obscurus. Hooper, E.T. & Musser, G.G., 1964. The glans penis in Neotropical cricetines (Family Muridae) with comments on classification of muroid rodents. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan No. 123: 1—S7. Akodon obscurus (Waterhouse). Sanborn, C.C., 1929. The Land Mammals of Uruguay. Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Ser., vol. 17(4): 147-165. Akodon obscurus (Waterhouse). Hershkovitz, P., 1962. Evolution of Neotropi- cal cricetine rodents (Muridae) with special reference to the phyllotine group. Fieldiana Zool., vol. 46: 1—5S24. Akodon obscurus (Waterhouse). Vaz-Ferreira, Raul, 1960. Nota sobre cricetin- ae del Uruguay. Arch. Soc. Biol. Montevideo, vol. 24: 66—75. Zygodontomys obscurus (Waterhouse). Reig, O.A., 1964. Roedores y Marsupi- ales del partido de General Pueyrredon y regiones adyacentes. Publ. Mus. Munic. Cien. Nat. Mar del Plata, vol. 1(6): 203—224. Akodon obscurus obscurus (Waterhouse). Fornes, A. & Massoia, E., 1965. Micromamiferos (Marsupialia y Rodentia) recolectados en la localidad bonaerense de Miramar. Physis, vol. 25(69): 99-108. Akodon (Cabreramys) obscurus (Waterhouse). Ximenez, A., Langguth, A., & Praderi, R., 1972. Lista sistematica de los mamiferos del Uruguay. Anal. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, Ser. 2, vol. 7(5): 1—49. Akodon obscurus obscurus (Waterhouse). Cabrera, A., 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de Amerérica del Sur, II. Rev. Mus. Arg. Cien. Nat. Bs. As. Zool., vol. 4(2): 309—732. Cabreramys obscurus (Waterhouse). Massoia, E. & Fornes, A., 1967. El estado sistematico, distribucidn geogrdfica y datos etoecoldgicos de algunos mamiferos neotropicales (Marsupialia y Rodentia) con la descriptién de Cabreramys, Género nuevo (Cricetidae). Acta Zool. Lilloana, vol. 23: 407-430. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 IOTONCHINAE GOODEY, 1953 (NEMATODA, TYLENCHIDA) AND IOTONCHIDAE JAIRAJPURI, 1969 (NEMATODA, MONONCHIDA): PROPOSALS TO ELIMINATE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.) 2137 By M. Shamim Jairajpuri (Section of Nematology, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202001, India) It has been found that as a result of similarity of spelling between two generic names, the names of two family-group taxa have been established as IOTONCHIDAE. The Code, Article 55, covers this eventuality and requires that any such case is to be referred to the Commission. 2. The family-group taxa and their type-genera are: Class: Nematoda Class: Nematoda Order: Tylenchida Thorne, 1949 Order: Monochida Jairajpuri 1969 Family : IOTONCHIDAE Goodey, 1953; Family: IOTONCHIDAE Skarbilobiyitech, 1959 Jairajpuri, 1969 Genus: Jotonchium Cobb, 1920 Genus: Jotonchus Cobb, 1916 3. The senior name IOTONCHINAE Goodey, 1953, has been in use for nearly 25 years and has been raised from subfamily to family level by Skarbilovich (1959: 130) (as ‘“SIOTONCHIDAE?’’). In such a case it is preferable to maintain current usage and change the junior name. It seems to me that the most straightforward change, probably causing the least confusion, would be to emend the junior family-group name based on Jotonchus, to IOTONCHUSIDAE. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic name Jotonchus Cobb (1916: 195—196) for the purposes of the Code, Article 29, is IOTONCHUS-; (2) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ILOTONCHINAE Goodey (1953: 92), type-genus Iotonchium Cobb, 1920; (b) IOTONCHUSIDAE (corrected from IOTONCHIDAE) Jairajpuri (1969: 577, 579), type-genus Jotonchus Cobb, 1916; (3) to place the following genus-group names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) lotonchium Cobb (1920: 302) (gender: neuter) type- species by original designation, Tylenchus imperfectus Biitschli, 1876; (b) Jotonchus Cobb (1916: 195-196) (gender: masculine) type-species by original designation, Mononchus gymnolaimus Cobb, 1893 (established as a subgenus of Mononchus Bastian, 1865); (4) to place the following species-group names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) imperfectus Biitschli (1876: 363) as published in the binomen Tylenchus imperfectus (specific name of type-species of Jotonchium Cobb, 1920); (b) gymnolaimus Cobb (1893: 256) as published in the binomen Mononchus gymnolaimus (specific name of type-species of Jotonchus Cobb, 1916); (5) to place the following family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: IOTONCHIDAE Jairajpuri (1969: 577, 579) type-genus, Jotonchus Cobb, 1916 (an incorrect original spelling as a consequence of the use of the plenary powers in (1) above). REFERENCES BUTSCHLI, O., 1876, Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. vol. 26: 363—413. COBB, N.A., 1893, Macleay Mem. Vol. Linn. Soc. N. South Wales: 252—308. —— 1916, J. Parasit. vol. 2: 195-196. 1920, Contr. Nematology (9): 217-343. GOODEY, T., 1953, J. Helminth. vol. 27: 81—94. JAIRAJPURI, M.S., 1969, Nematologica vol. 15:557-—581. SKARBILOVICH, T.S., 1959, Acta parasitol. Polonica, vol. 7: 117-132. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 ERINACEUS DAUURICUS SUNDEVALL, 1842 (MAMMALIA, INSECTIVORA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2222 By G.B. Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) In describing Erinaceus dauuricus, a species of hedgehog in Central Asia now frequently allocated to the genus Hemiechinus, Sundevall (1842, K. svensk. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl., 1841: 237) recognised that he was probably renaming Erinaceus sibiricus of Seba (1734, Locuplet. rer. nat. thes. tom. 1: 79) and was apparently unaware of the validation of this name by Erxleben (1777, Syst. regni anim.: 172). 2. Seba’s specimen subsequently came to the British Museum (Natural History) as demonstrated by Thomas (1892, Proc. zool. Soc. London: 309-318). I have examined it and am of the opinion that it does indeed belong to Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall. This specimen is the holotype of Erinaceus sibiricus Seba, 1734, and of Erinaceus sibiricus Erxleben, 1777. 3. The name sibiricus appears not to have been used as a valid name during the last century. It was quoted, with a query, as a possible synonym of Erinaceus amurensis Schrenk, 1858, by Ognev (1928, Mammals of eastern Europe and northern Asia (Moscow; English translation, Jerusalem, 1962), vol. 1: 97) and as incertae sedis by Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, Checklist of palaearctic and Indian mammals, 1758—1946 (London): 22). 4. The name dauuricus, or its unjustified emendation dauricus, has been consistently used for this species since 1842, either in Erinaceus or Hemiechinus (opinion on the need to treat Hemiechinus as a distinct genus is still divided). The following are exampies of such use: Erinaceus dauuricus: Ognev, 1928: 101 Erinaceus dauricus: Bobrinskii & Kuzyakin, 1944, Key to the mammals of the USSR (ist ed.) (Moscow; in Russian): 39; Bannikov, 1953, /dentification of mammals of the Mongolian People’s Republic (Moscow; in Russian): 19; 1954, Mammals of Mongolian People’s Republic (Moscow; in Russian): 46 Erinaceus (Mesechinus) dauuricus: Ognev, 1951: Erinaceidae of the far East (in Russian), Byull. mosk. Obshch. Ispyt. Prir. Otdel. Biol., vol. 56: 8—14 _ Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 ig 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Erinaceus europaeus dauricus: Kuzyakin, 1965, in Bobrinskii and others, Key to the mammals of the USSR (2nd ed.) (Moscow; in Russian): 42 Hemiechinus dauuricus: Allen, 1938, The mammals of China and Mongolia, vol. 1 (New York): 43 Hemiechinus dauricus: Satunin, 1914, Key to the mammals of the Russian empire (Tiflis, in Russian): 54. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore asked (1) to use its plenary powers to direct that Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Erinaceus sibiricus Erxleben, 1777, by anybody who considers the two names to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names (a) sibiricus Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Erinaceus sibiricus, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842, by anybody who believes the two names to be synonyms; (b) dauuricus Sundevall, 1842, as published in the binomen Erinaceus dauuricus, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Erinaceus sibiricus Erxleben, 1777, by anybody who believes the two names to be synonyms. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 SOREX DZINEZUMI TEMMINCK, [1844] (MAMMALIA, INSECTIVORA); PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO RULE A CORRECT ORIGINAL SPELLING. Z.NAS.) 2224 By G.B. Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) Crocidura dzinezumi, a common species of shrew in Japan, has been consistently named thus and dated from Temminck, 1844, since its first description, except for its earlier allocation to the genus Sorex (in which it was first described), and its treatment as a subspecies of Crocidura russula (Hermann, 1780) by Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, 1758—1946 (London): 79). 2. Mazak (1967, Mammalia vol. 31: 537-573) has demonstrated that Temminck’s Apercu général et spécifique sur les Mammifeéres qui habitent le Japon (in Siebold, Fauna Japonica) was published in two parts: pp. 1—24, pls. 1-10 on [11 Feb. 1843]; pp. 25—59, pls. 11—20 on [18 Dec. 1844]. The species with which we are concerned was illustrated in Part | (pl. 5, fig. 3) under the name Sorex kenezumi, and (pl. 6, figs. c, c) under the name Sorex kinczumi. The description was published in Part 2 (: 26) under the name Sorex Dzinezumi, with the following footnote: “Portée par erreur sur la planche 5 fig. 3 sous le nom de Kinezumi; et le crane pl. 4 fig. c, c sous le nom de Kinczumi”’. Temminck thus makes it clear that he intended the name to be spelled dzinezumi, and it is this intention that has been respected by subsequent authors (those prior to Mazak’s work would not have been aware that there was a question of priority involved). The spellings kinezumi and kinczumi appear never to have been used as valid names. 3. The spelling dzinezumi has been used consistently, for example by the following authors: Crocidura dzinezumi: Imaizumi, 1957, J. mammal. Soc. Japan, vol. 1: 62; 1960, Coloured illustrations of the mammals of Japan (Osaka): 25; 1970, Handbook of Japanese land mammals, vol. 1 (Tokyo): 179 Crocidura russula dzinezumi: Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951: 79 Crocidura dzi-nezumi: Aoki, 1913, Annots zool. Japan, vol. 8: 272; Kuroda, 1940, Monograph of the Japanese mammals (Tokyo and Osaka): 180; Sowerby, A. de C., 1943, Note Mamm. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Mus. Heude, vol. 1: 11; Tezuka, 1956, J. mamm. Soc. Japan, vol. 1: 40—41 Crocidura russula dzi-nezumi: Kuroda, 1957, J. mamm. Soc. Japan, volHl +73) 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) To use its plenary powers to rule that the spelling dzinezumi Temminck, 1844, as published in the binomen Sorex dzinezumi, is to be deemed the correct original spelling of the name of the species figured by Temminck in 1843 with the names Sorex kinezumi and Sorex kinczumi; (2) to place the specific name dzinezumi Temminck, 1844, as published in the binomen Sorex dzinezumi (deemed by the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) to be a correct original spelling) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the names kinezumi Temminck, 1843, and kinczumi Temminck, 1843, as published in binominal combinations with the generic name Sorex (deemed to be incorrect original spellings in consequence of the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 DICRANODONTA WOODS, 1899 (BIVALVIA, CUCULLAEIDAE); REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF TYPE-SPECIES. ENS 2227 By Simon R.A. Kelly (Department of Geology, Goldsmith’s College, New Cross, London SE4 6NW) Woods (1899, Cretaceous Lamellibranchia, vol. 1: 53, Paleontogr. Soc.) proposed Dicranodonta as a new subgenus of Cucullaea Lamarck, 1801. As type-species he designated Cucullaea donningtonensis Keeping (1883, Fossils and palaeontological affinities of the Neocomian deposits of Upware and Brickhill: 152-153, pl. 8 fig. 9). . 2. Cucullaea donningtonensis Keeping was based on two specimens. One was from Lower Cretaceous sands of Donnington (misprinted ‘“‘Doddington’”’), Lincolnshire, and the other, designated “type”, from the Black Grit Nodules at the base of the Lower Greensand of Upware, Cambridgeshire. The Lower Greensand of Upware is of Upper Aptian (nutfieldensis Zone) age (Casey, 1961, Palaeontology vol. 3: 569), but the Black Grit Nodules at its base are a remanié deposit with a late Jurassic (Middle Volgian) to Lower Cretaceous (Lower Aptian) fauna. 3. In his diagnosis of Dicranodonta Woods states: ‘‘Shell stout, subquadrate or rounded. Hinge-area broad. Hinge-plate large. curved; central teeth transverse; lateral teeth long, curved ventrally, nearly parallel, often bifurcating. No posterior adductor plate.” This diagnosis does not agree with the holotype of C. donningtonensis, but clearly relates to the robust specimens figured by Woods from the Claxby Ironstone (Lower Cretaceous, Valanginian) of Benniworth Haven, Lincolnshire. Specimens of the true C. donningtonensis from Upware and from the Spilsby Sandstone of Lincolnshire (Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous, Middle Volgian to Upper Ryazanian) have a smaller hinge-plate and the lateral teeth, although subparallel, do not bifurcate. 4. It is thus clear that Woods misidentified C. donningtonensis when he designated it as type-species of Dicranodonta. However, the Benniworth Haven specimens that he figured have come to be regarded as typical of the genus, possibly because his figures show the hinge while Keeping’s do not (Wilson, 1948, East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, Brit. reg. Geol., Geol. Surv. Gt. Brit., p. 56, fig. 19 H; Castell, 1962, British Mesozoic Fossils, Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) pl. 53, fig. 6). These specimens are here _ Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 2, October 1978 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature referred to a new species, C. benniworthensis sp. nov. The holotype is the specimen figured by Woods, 1899, pl. 10, fig. 14, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, B. 11222). In order to preserve the concept intended by Woods, it is proposed that this species be designated as type-species of Dicranodonta. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal subgenus Dicranodonta Woods, 1899, and to _ designate Dicranodonta benniworthensis sp. nov. as type-species of that subgenus; (2) to place the subgeneric name Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (gender, feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dicranodonta benniworthensis sp. nov., on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name benniworthensis sp. nov., as published in the binomen Dicranodonta benniworthensis (specific name of type-species of Dicranodonta Woods, 1899) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the _ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological momenciature. oREIUNE FPS | Beas teria Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers 1b certam cases. 2. 0. UST 2 Te: East Of new applications -.. 6.6. heed ewer loc eee ee Merial ATIROUNCCINONES. «65. ac ee ee sae vs he? ses. Obituary: Professor Sylvester-Bradley ............. Opinions Opinion 1107. Conservation of Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, 1908 (Acarina, IXODIDAE) ............... Opinion 1108. Conservation of Marstonia Baker, 1926 and of Amnicola lustrica Pilsbry, 1890 (Mollusca, BAST ROPODA) 4% zelhertl..<. 3 CAGE ee Opinion 1109. Cerithium Bruguiére [1789 (GASTROPODA): designation of type-species under MIPUAEY BOWETS(). oi -cinail- duntwit weds £21) doceee Opinion 1110. Microterys Thomson, 1875 (Hymenoptera, CHALCIDOIDEA): conserved under the plenary BOWE. - CLACHTAROAVH « - etpanwabes. - ble k « avs Opinion 1111. Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera, LEUCOSPIDAE) conserved under the PRCDATY DOWETS yi wtaesace 947 ) veaciialessiOee leseolws Opinion 1112. Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Diptera, MILICHIIDAE): designation of a type-species under Bie plensry: POWETS 31 f-. duane «2% . cei. AE: xen Opinion 1113. Alpheus neptunus Dana, 1852 (Crustacea, ALPHEIDAE): status of a neotype confirmed ....... Opinion 1114. Cornuspira Schultze, 1854 (Foraminifera): conserved under the plenary powers............... New and Revived Cases Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Hemiptera): designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. ot. Macan & 1). Eeston). 6.55. 2 etn os cs Ts Revived application in the case of the names for South American Rodents published by Brants (1827). (A. ETT GREED en NOSED NER ont Oe ees ee ne et SI Ae Page 111 115 IOTONCHIDAE Goodey, 1953 (Nematoda, Tylenchida) and IOTONCHIDAE Jairajpuri, 1969 (Nematoda, Mononchida): proposals to eliminate homonymy. (M. Sian Vater. ee er ee eS Be Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 (Mammalia, Insectivora): proposed conservation under the plenary POWSR tC Be Orbe br S520 (Grit. nk coi. ee aes Sorex dzinezumi Temminck, [1844] (Mammalia, Insectivora). (Gab? Corbet)... Albee anc Bo. & Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (Bivalvia, CUCULLAEIDAE): request for determination of type-species (S.R.A. Rely) pr ew cer at CO eh tio dieses Urea ot Comments Comment on the proposal to conserve COLOBIDAE Blyth 1875 (Primates). (D. Brandon-Jones) ......... Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Glyphipterix Hubner [1825j (Lepidoptera, GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE) (J.D. Bradley & K. Sattler)... Comment on the proposed suppression of Haliplanella Treadwell (Polychaeta) in favour of Haliplanella Hand (Anthozoa) (J.C. den Hartog). Reply to Dr. Williams and Drs. Den Hartog by D.F. Dunn & C. Hand) ...... Comments on application concerning Simia syndactyla Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, HYLOBATIDAE). (J. Fooden, C. Groves } . 20S 3 Bask Tas CR Further amendments proposed to the International Code _ of Zoological Nomenclature. (The Secretary) ........ Comments by zoologists on Draft Third Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (O. Kudrna; B. Bolton; Z. Boucek; B.H. Cogan; R.W. Crosskey; M.C. Day; M.G. Fitton; D.S. Fletcher; L.A. Mound; A.C. Pont; R.D. Pope; D.R. Ragge; K.S.O. Sattler; K.G.V. Smith; R.T. Thompson; A. Watson; P.E.S. Whalley; R.I. Vane-Wright; The Secretary, CIN Pere NS Spee Meade 6 cies! c ctaba tw ahaa ah 121 69 71 73 75 TT, 82 ® Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the only regular source of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of donations and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. © 1978 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in Fngiand by Norman Carter at | | Broad Street. Teddington, Middlesex. = Volume 35, Part 3 Ist FEBRUARY 1979 pp. 129 — 192 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE =< a | if The Official Organ of ( aay THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LONDON: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD ISSN 0007-5167 Price Four Pounds (All rights reserved) THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History ), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. 1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History) 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 SBD) (30 January 1968) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (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 Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin - cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh.EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Instituto Miguel Lillo, S.M. de Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden ) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzer- land) (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, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) 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, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972). Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut 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) Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (C.S.I.R.O., Division of Land Use Research, P.O. Box 1666 Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) (President) 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) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managaing Director) Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Mon. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Mr. N.D. Riley, C.B.E. Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G.F. deWitte B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 35, part 3 (pp. 129—192) Ist February 1979. NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- stances 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) Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802 (Reptilia, Serpentes): revived proposal for suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1704. * (2) Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840 (Aves): proposed conser- vation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2233. (3) Conus fergusoni G.B. Sowerby III, 1873 (Gastropoda, CONIDAE): request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2239. (c) The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 35(2) on 31st October, 1978. Those marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b. (1) Chonetes Fischer, 1830 (Brachiopoda: CHONET- ACEA): stabilization of generic names. Z.N.(S.) 2267 (P.R. Racheboeuf). (2) Acmaea_ limatula Carpenter, 1864 (Gastropoda): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2268 (D.R. Linberg). (3) Eurhin Illiger, 1807, Eurhinus Kirby, 1819 (1818), Eurhynchus Kirby and Spence, 1828 (Coleoptera): family-group names based on. Z.N.(S.) 2269 (E.C. Zimmerman). (4) Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838 and Cyornis unicolor Blyth, 1843 (Aves, MUSCICAPIDAE): proposed conservation in accepted sense. Z.N.(S.) 2270 (C.W. Benson). (5) Asterias seposita Retzius, 1783 (Echinodermata, | Asteroidea) proposal to conserve. Z.N.(S.) 2271 (E. | Tortonese & F. Jensenius Madsen). 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6) Sarcocystis (Apicomplexa): proposed suppression of nomina dubia. Z.N(S.) 2272 (J.K. Frenkel, A.O. Heydom, H. Mehlhorn & M. Rommel). (7) “Type of a name” vs “Type of a nominal taxon’’. Z.N(S.) 2273 (W.D.L. Ride & C.W. Sabrosky). (8) Ammonites crenatus Bruguiére, 1789 and Ammonites renggeri Oppel, 1863 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): proposed conservation. Z.N(S.) 2274 (R. Gygi). (9) Procellaria albigularis Finsch, 1878 (Aves): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2275 (M.D. Bruce & D.T. Holyoak). (10) Rallus tabuensis Gmelin, 1789 (Aves): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2276 (M.D. Bruce, D.T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault). *(11) Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855 (Aves): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2277 (M.D. Bruce, D.T. Holyoak & J.- C. Thibault). (12) Sternotherus Gray, 1825 and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia: Testudines): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2278 (H.M. and R.B. Smith & D. Chiszar). (13) Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2279 (H.R. Lane & W. Ziegler). (14) Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (Hymenoptera, Vespoidea): proposal to change type-species to conserve Paralastor Saussure, 1856 Z.N.(S.) 2280 (J. van der Vecht). (15) Cycloclypeus carpenteri Brady, 1881 (Foraminifera): proposal to designate as type-species of Cycloclypeus Carpenter, 1856. Z.N.(S.) 2281 (C.G. Adams). *(16) Chelydra osceola_ _ Stejneger, 1918 (Reptilia: Testudines): proposed conservation. Z.N.S.) 2282 (H.M. & R.B. Smith & D. Chiszar). *(17) Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2283 (H.L.G. Stroyan). (18) Cotsen Stal, 1877 (Insecta, Dictyoptera) proposal to designate type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2284 (L.M. Roth & A.B. Gruney). (19) Galago crassicaudatus Geoffroy, 1812 (Primates: GALAGIDAE): proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2285 (T. Olson). (20) MEROPIDAE (Aves): change of author and date. Z.N.(S.) 2286 (P.S. Tomkovich & G.N. Kashin). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 (21) Geoemyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger. 1835 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation. Z.NAS.) 2287 (H.M. & R.B. Smith & C.H. Ernst). SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS DRAFT THIRD EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: CLOSURE OF COMMENTS PERIOD The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature hereby gives notice that it will cease to consider proposals for modifications to the Second Edition of the Code (1964) three months after the date of publication of this notice. Proposals received after that date, if of a major character, will be dealt with through the procedures laid down in Articles 77, 78a and 87 of the Code and Article 16 of the Constitution. Copies of the Draft Third Edition are still available from the Secretariat, price £2.50 surface mail, £5.00 air mail. GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMMISSION AT HELSINKI. 1979: CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR SUCCESSORS TO RETIRING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION The Commission will hold a General Meeting on the occasion of the General Assembly of IUBS at Helsinki, 20-24 August, 1979, at the close of which the terms of service of the following members will expire: EISENMANN (U.S.A.; Ornithology) MELVILLE (U.K.; Palaeontology) (Secretary) STAROBOGATOV (USSR: Mollusca, Crustacea) BAYER ( U.S.A.; Octocorallia, Systematics) CORLISS (U.S.A.; Protozoa, Systematics) The Council of the Commission is considering which of these members should be considered to be eligible for nomination for re-election. Nominations for successors to any of them should be sent to the Secretary as soon as possible. Candidates must be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, and must be known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature. Nominations must state the name, address, date of birth, nationality, field(s) of specilisation 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. c/o British Museum (Natural History). R.V. MELVILLE Cromwell Road Secretary London SW7 5BD International Commission on United Kingdom Zoological Nomenclature October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 132 ZE'SOS‘'LF nooo? Of'9LE C 791886 96SLO > 99°s0z's EZ 910'S €v 681 19 PIE I 69° 190'I ————;- ce LLG6% 67 €9 Sese9 66 1CP cy 119 LL61 ‘MAAWAOA ISIE LV SV LAATHS JONV IVE JOUPAPY Ul poAloooy suOT}diIosqns s10}Ipeig Aipuns SAILITIAVIT LNAWAND puey ul pue yueg je yseo J QeIsAOIIY SAXe | 194Y}O pue sUTODUT sajeg wo onp sjunowy SLASSV LNAYANO 4901S urO'T a[qeWsapoy SLOL BL Aptuquiey Jo AND 000‘ SF soo 18 S LNAWLSAANI uorjeioaidag payepnunooy ‘sso S09 18 INAWdINOA AOMAO S.LASSV GAXId ZOv'I SIP'l 8Lt € ZL LIE‘ Lic 9L6I AYNLVIONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YON LSNUL TVNOILVNAALNI 133 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8L6I ‘Aine Up "HCE NIOM ‘UopuoT “MOY Plojypog *19911§ Soules }eOID ‘¢ sjuejUNO.OY polayieyD ‘OO 8 ADOIMAVUD ‘AATUOW "LO6I puke gpl ‘S}OV SsotuedWIOD ay} YUM A[duIOD pue ajep yey} UO papuda IeaK ay) JOJ Worjod Burjesrado ay} Jo pue £16] “Iaquisoeq IS[¢ dy} je se see sAuRdUIOD oY} JO 9}e}S DY} JO MOIA Mey pue oni} & old JUNODDY anjIpuadxg pue oulooU] poxouUe puke JooYS soURTeg aAOge ay) UOTUIdO INO UT SYOLIGNV AHL AO LUOdAY 99}}TWIWIOD (943M “MO Juowodeuep ( *pan[ea useq JOU sey ay} JO SIoquiayW (UIJJIID “f slourly suorjyeoqnd JO YIOIS ey], -A.LON ZESOS‘LF 9LS'8 F 78°LOL‘Z LINNOOOV ASNAdSNS ..LSIT TVIOIMSO,, SEE OS L6L‘b Ips‘s SESLL (snjding 9261) Wo19q oor juno sD Y diInjIpusadxq pue suioouy 00° dAIOSIY [e1suas) Oj} Jojsuely :PPV 000‘ I S8SLS‘S 9L6] ‘Joquiaoeq ISTE Je soueTeEg OLS‘ b SHAUASAY TVAANAD SHAUASAY ANNAATA Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 134 €8'b67 8 Or She 00'0SE vE'Les 60°7S I'L sol gs 9sPr'9 9b’ 69 LL'LOL'b 00°0S LLLSL‘b 00'SL £90741 blZ97€ LL61 ‘UAAWAOA ISIE OL UVAA AHL YON LNNOOOV AUNLIGNAdXd GNV AWOONI «LSIT TVIOIO,, OL GALVOOTTV NOILYOdOUd *889T soo pny sosusdxq 391jJO suoIINgIyUoD QOUBINSU] [RUOTIEN pur sorse[esg SASNadxXa NOILVULSININGY :Ss9’T LSAYDLINI LISOddd ANVA (sso1)) ANOONI LNAWLSAANI SNOILVNOG suotuldo JINJEPOUDUTON [ed1ZO[OOZ Jo uTjol[ng apo [euor}eUuIAjUT SNOILVOITHNd AO SATVS 9L6I AYNLVIONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YOU LSNAL TVNOILVNUALINI 135 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 78° LOL‘7F 000s 7B LSL'Z 98°7C 96° PEL‘Z SEB8LL F 88° P9C ET'EPO'I 00° EZEO'I —— 90'8EE 6 *AieyaIOag W 10a suIseuey| “ULJID “f sfoursf (pausis ) 9761 ‘Ang UT] UO PIs Buljpaop [PIOUS jenuuy oy} 38 paydope oJoM sjaoys soUe|eq pur syunosor ayL, vn ‘sqyeS JO Jdlade1 UT askatoap [[PUIS B PUe ‘uolNqiysip pue BSUT,UII JO ySOO OY} Ul asvotOUI UB SBA STU} JO} uoseal ulew 94], “9L61 ul snjdins [jews Be ysurese ‘eT EHO TF JO TeAA ay} OJ sINITpusexs JO ssooxo ue moYs £16] JOJ INL ay} jo syunosor sy] LL61 LYOdaad TVIONVNIA LAAHS JONV IVE 0} pares FONV IVE SEL'CF SASNAdXaA NOILVULSININGV AO NOILYOdOUd :$89T os salt SNOILVOITENd AO SATVS eel piemioj }YSNOIG FONV IVA 792 LL61 ‘MAANAOAC ISTE OL UVAA AHL YOU LNNOOOV ASNAASNS «LSIT TVIOIO,, (SATdUNS 9L61) =e LAAHS JONV TIVE ©} peltzes LOA s9c F premsoy WYysN0Ig FONV IVA ere $97 AAUASAY TVYANAD OL YAANVUL -$89T 000°I UVAA AHL YOU AWOONI YAAO AUNLIGNAdXa AO SSHOXA S971 6L9 L ‘BO ler 4 LINAWNdINO” AOISAO AO NOILVIOdaddAG $7'609'F SNOILVOITEHNd JO NOILLNGIYLSIG GNV ONILNIdd LOI‘E 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DRAFT THIRD EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: FURTHER COMMENTS BY ZOOLOGISTS. Z.N.(S.) 2250. (1) Chapter III. Criteria of Publication Arts 7-9. (See also Z.N.(S.) 2182). By R.B. Clark (University of Newcastle- upon-Tyne, U.K.) At the request of the Secretary of I.C.Z.N., the Working Group on Taxonomy, Systematics and Biological Recording of the Committee of European Science Research Councils was asked to give its views on the proposed revision of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The Chairman, Professor R.B. Clark, (Department of Zoology, The University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne) sent the following observations made by the Zoology Section of the Working Group at their meeting in Strasbourg on 25-26 April 1978. (A list of the members is attached):- Criteria of Publication Members of the Group are well aware of the arguments that can be deployed for and against a revision of provisions in the Code that relate to particular methods of reproduction (xerox, microfiche, microfilm, etc.) which may in future supplement previously conventional methods of publication. The Working Group regards it as vital that the International Commission remains in firm control of the situation. Whatever the methods of reproduction that will eventually fall within the provisions of a revised Code, with advantages and disadvantages that each will bring, there is a strong feeling among members of the Working Group, that they are secondary to ensuring that the existence of descriptions of new species and taxonomic revisions affecting nomenclature is known to workers in the appropriate subject and that they can gain access to the publications. The draft of Article 8 in the 3rd edition of the Code which presumably, in part, addresses itself to this need, stipulates that a work must be published in ‘‘an edition containing numerous ...... copies” and that the publication shall be “for the purposes of sctembitie “400-5 record.”” Vagueness about how many copies are regarded as sufficiently ‘numerous’ to comply with this Article and the motivation of the author and his ‘purposes’ for publishing appear to the Working Group still to leave uncertainty as to what Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 constitutes valid publication and, equally important, to make these elements in the Article ultimately unenforceable. The Working Group therefore recommends that, as a means of clarifying this issue and of making known the existence of nomenclatural changes that are validly published, the International Commission considers making mandatory’ the present recommendation in the Code (General Recommendation 24, Appendix E) that authors submit copies of their works to the editors of the Zoological Record. A test for validity of names should then include reference to them in Zoological Record within a stated number of years. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition to this recommendation, the Working Group, being aware that there is always a long delay before publication of the Zoological Record, recommends that the International Commission considers ways in which this function could be discharged more speedily, possibly in a separate publication dedicated to this task. By this means individual authors would not be required to exercise their own judgement as to whether or not a name had been validly published under the imprecise terms stated in Article 8, and at the same time would be informed of the existence of valid publications, whatever authorized method of reproduction was used. Criteria of availability Referring to the inadequate control by referees and editors, the Working Group acknowledges that as with other branches of science, there is a wide spectrum of quality in taxonomic publications, reflecting the variable standards and experience of editors, editorial boards and referees. Whereas in other branches of science inferior work can be safely ignored without detriment to the science, in taxonomic literature all publications have, in a formal sense, equal standing, and none can be ignored. The International Commission has, of course, been aware of this unusual feature of taxonomic literature and numerous recommendations in the 2nd edition of the Code exhort editors on their responsibilities. The Working Group regrets that it can offer no practical recommendations on how the present situation can be improved by additional legislation in the Code. The membership of the Working Group is given overleaf. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MEMBERSHIP OF THE ESRC AD HOC GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL RECORDING, SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY. ZOOLOGY SECTION Austria. Professor R. Schuster. Netherlands. Dr. E. Schenk. Belgium. Professor W. Verheyen. Norway. Dr. A. Loken. Denmark. Professor A. Michelsen. Portugal. Professor C. Almaca. Finland. Dr. M. Meinander. Spain. Professor E. Balcells. France. Professor J. Forest. Sweden. Professor E. Dahl. Germany. Professor O. Kraus. Switzerland. Professor W. Sauter. Ireland. Professor P. O’Ceidigh. United Italy. Professor F. Lamberti. Kingdom, Professor R.B. Clark. Miscellaneous Comments (2) By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington. D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) Articles 4, 5, et passim. The term epithet is entirely proper for the word forming the 2nd term of the binomen and the 3rd term of the trinomen. In botany, it has been used perhaps from the inception of nomenclatural rules. Its history in grammar as the designation of either a word or a phrase added or ‘applied’ to a name and its later use, except for some unfortunate derogatory connotation in vernacular usage, for any kind of word or words, adjectives, genitive or other phrases, nouns in apposition, etc., applied to a name make it perhaps uniquely suitable for nomenclatural use. Article 8. (see also Z.N.(S.) 2182) Inasmuch as “‘assures numerous identical copies” (2) does not assure that those numerous copies have ever been distributed and inasmuch as the word “numerous” is not capable of precise definition, some statement of the exact minimal number of copies needed to satisfy the requirements should be included. It should be feasible to establish firmly the number of copies in the primary distribution. Furthermore, the word ‘‘identical”’ is too restrictive; differences in size, binding, or nature of material (paper or synthetic sheet) would prevent its application. Article 9. (see also Z.N.(S.) 2182) Category (3) is poorly defined. The meaning of “indirect electrostatic reproduction” is not clear. Publication techniques are undergoing so much change that the wording of (3) must be more Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 carefully considered. Some recent methods could well be called “indirect electrostatic reproduction” and yet be very good and permanent methods. ‘‘Xerographic” should be used rather than the trade-name “xerox”. Of 3 different kinds of xerographic machines in USNM, only one is Xerox. Article 11. (e). (i). 1, Example. “The name ERYCINAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, is available, etc.’’ should have added to it the statement ‘‘although (ii. below) it should be corrected to ERYCIINAE.”’ Article 30. (a). To consider all Greek words not transcribed in the classical Latin manner as indeclinable would open the way to far more confusion and result in less stability of nomenclature than at present, in view of the extent to which such have been considered as declinable according to a Latin system during the last 2 centuries. Many Greek words were so well integrated into Latin that it is difficult to say when they were no longer Greek, especially in post- classical times. As they became more accepted as loan-words they gradually and irregularly became spelled in a more Latin fashion. Article 11(b), requiring that all names must be treated as Latin, barely accepts unlatinized Greek words, but Article 32 (a). (ii) [c.(ii) of the draft] does not permit emendation of incorrect transliteration or improper latinization. This is somewhat contradictory. Presumably, if a name like melanoleucos (incorrectly transcribed and latinized) cannot be emended to melanoleucus, when it is transferred to a feminine genus it must still be treated as Latin and become melanoleuca or to a neuter genus it must become melanoleucum as if the word had been proposed correctly, rather than as melanoleucos or melanoleukos and melanoleucon or melanoleukon, resp. These compound words in Greek have the endings -os, masc. and fem., and -on, neuter, but the simple word leucos or leukos is leuce or leuke in fem. and leucon or leukon in neuter. In Latin, they all are of the 3 forms ending in -us, -a, -um. I believe that the most serious objection to this proposal is - that “modern zoologists that have no Greek”’ (mentioned by R.K. Brooke in his proposal Z.N.(S.) 2111) would still have to determine Whether any particular epithet is or is not an unlatinized Greek adjective. If any zoologist can do this, he can also determine what its endings should be and whether or not it is an adjective from a : _ Greek lexicon. Under melas, the forms melaina and melan are cited. He will still have to know the correct transcription. If the word he is trying to find is pammelaena, melaena, melaina or melaenus he will have greater difficulty. The adjective melaenus, melaena, | _melaenum is not Latin, but a Neo-Latin invention that does not 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature appear in any Latin lexicon. Its feminine form melaena is identical with the correctly transcribed Greek word. There would therefore be cases in which it would be impossible to determine whether the Greek melas, melaena, melan or the pseudo-Latin word was being used. I think it far simpler, less confusing, and more in line with the aim of stability in nomenclature to treat the simple Greek adjectives and the many compound ones in the style of classical Latin and to include in the Code as Appendix D, Table 4 a simple table, such as the following. Greek Adjectival Declensions Not Conforming to Latin Declensions Endings Masculine Feminine Neuter Examples Only melas ypedas, talas tadas and their prefixed -as -aena -an derivatives such as pammelas Tappedas, dystalas dvustadas, etc. Only megas =weyas, its derivatives and compounds. Only teren repnv, etc. -en -ina -en A few _ seldom-used -is (ets) -issa -en adjectives, e.g. chariis Xaptecc, dacr yois Sak puoecc, eurois evpoers, melitois pwertroers, teleis TeAnets, timeis Tynes, sigalois svyadoets. Several frequently used adjectives, e.g. brachys Bpaxus, hedys néus, OxYS déus, tachys TAXUS. It should be noted that /eucos is partly correctly transcribed; its wholly literal transcription would be leukos. It should also be noted that there are Greek adjectives in ws, which may be only transcribed as -os; on the analogy of Latin compos, these may well be considered indeclinable. is Classical transcription is well covered in the Appendices to ICZN. -as -ala -a -ys -ia (-e1a) “y Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 I am indebted to Curtis Sabrosky for the interesting fact that he found 27 cases from 1814 to 1971 wherein melas was declined and 11 cases from 1789 to 1864 wherein the word was not declined, including one in which the author emended it the following year. I therefore suggest that the draft of Article 30(a) be amended as follows:- Line 2: instead of ‘“‘Latin gender” read ‘‘Latin or Greek gender.” Line 7: delete ‘‘Greek or.” Examples: Revise as follows: ““Epithets such as melas, celebrachys, terina are to be treated as in Appendix D, Table 4; those such as polychloros, melanoleucos, melaina are to be treated as if they had been proposed in the correct transcriptions polychlorus, melanoleucus, melaena; and those such as nakpo (from Tibetan nak-po ‘black’) or dirgabrahu (from a Sanskrit word for ‘long-armed’) remain unchanged when transferred from combination with a generic name of one gender to combination with one of another gender.” Add above table “Greek Adjectival Declensions Not Conforming to Latin Declensions.” Article 30. (b). (i). Examples. Line 5, before ‘“‘Names’’: add ‘“‘Names ending in -ops oy or dware to be treated as masculine.” This is the better place for it. Line 5, sentence starting with ‘“‘“Names... .’’ should have the words alphabetized and others added, viz.: ‘Names ending in certain Latin nouns in -us (e.g., -acus ‘needle’, -alvus, -colus, -domus, -fraus, -humus, -laus, -tellus, -vannus) are feminine and others (e.g., -acus ‘chaff’, -corpus, -crus, -latus, -pectus, -rus, -tus) are neuter. Adjectives of the comparative degree (ending in -or in masculine and feminine) end in -us in neuter.” Idem, (1). It is little better than ridiculous to suppose that an author can take a Latin or Greek word and simply say that it means other than the meaning cited for it in lexicons, or that an author can invent a word that is identical with a classical word and say that it is not the classical word. Nobody can use one of the English four letter words commonly regarded as indecent and simply say that he is not using that word, but an identical one meaning something else. I suggest that the final phrase of the paragraph be deleted. Then any word that has a classical form will in nomenclature have its classical meaning and properties that can be determined by use of lexicons and grammars. Idem, (2). I have recently proposed to the Commission that this | Paragraph be reduced simply to: “‘A noun (or substantivated . 3 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature adjective) of variable gender is to be treated as masculine.’’ The statement concerning -ops is better placed in the Examples above. Idem, (3). Examples. Line 2, for ‘(masculine or feminine)’ read ‘(masculine, feminine, or neuter)’. Add a note such as “The classical transcription of Greek os to -us did not affect the gender of the word to which it was attached in Latin grammar, but the practice of treating as masculine all Greek words so transcribed is firmly established in zoological nomenclature.” Article 32. (c). (ii). The phrase ‘“‘without recourse to any external source”’ is too restrictive. Many people will be able to emend such inadvertent errors without such recourse, while others may find the information in the original publication itself sufficient by recourse only to such standard external sources as grammars, dictionaries, or gazetteers. The phrase “clear evidence of inadvertent error” is subject to quite various interpretation because the meanings of the words ‘“‘clear”’ and ‘‘inadvertent” are not completely unambiguous. It should be noted that the dictionaries define ‘“‘inadvertent”’ as ‘“‘lack of care or attentiveness.” I would like to draw attention to 2 examples: (1) Colcondomyia Reinhard, 1963 is a genus-name proposed with the single species C. falcifera cited from ‘‘Colconda Summit, Humbolt County, Nevada.” It may be maintained that this is clear evidence that Golcondomyia is the correct spelling because reference to any United States map or gazetteer will show a town named Golconda adjacent to a Golconda Summit in Humboldt (sic) County, Nevada and no mention of any Colconda. (2) The binomen Sobarocephala styskali (Clusiidae, Diptera) was proposed by Arpad Sods in 1963 on the same page with the statement ‘Finally, it is my agreeable task to express my sincere gratitude to my colleagues..... and Dr. G.C. Styskal as well as Dr. C.W. Sabrosky, of Washington, for making available the several materials... s«. ” T and many others know of course that Dr. Soos was referring to me, Mr. (not Dr.) George C. Steyskal, of Washington, and I maintain that the original publication alone leads to other data, including some in Dr. Sods’ other publications, wherein my name is spelled correctly, even one in which the spelling styskali is cited as an error, and that from the original publication alone it would be foolish to assume that the name could refer to anyone else. Appendices. D, VII, Table 2, A. Latin. At the end of the 2nd paragraph, where it is stated ‘the stem | to which they are attached must be known,” an explanation of how | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 this information may be found in dictionaries (lexicons) should be added to supplement the bare note ‘“‘shown in lexicons” at the head of the 6th column. s Under -is, the example of vis should give vi-is and VIIDAE (no stem consists of a single consonant); at this same point, the further example of lis, lit-is, LITIDAE should be added. A late Latin genitive vis is known, and inasmuch as grits and sits give gru- and su- respectively, it may be inferred that vis should give vi-. Likewise, aciis, arciis, lactis, inanits, tribus, etc. (long final vowels without consonantal stems) should give acu-, arcu-, lacu-, manu-, tribu-, with ACUIDAE, ARCUIDAE, LACUIDAE, MANUIDAE, TRIBUIDAE, etc.. This is indicated by such words as arcuatus, manualis, tribuarius. Idem. B. Greek. No. 19. krisis should give genitive kris-eos, family CRISIDAE. Cf. no. 11. basil-eos, BASILIDAE, and the fact that the genitive of basis in Latin is basis. No. 27. genus and eidos should give gen-eos, GENIDAE and eid-eos, IDIDAE, respectively. The words genealogy and ideology, incidentally, are derived from classical progenitors derived in turn from genea and idein, respectively. No. 38. astu and no. 40. péchus should give ast-eos, ASTIDAE and pech-eos, PECHIDAE, respectively. This results in a consistent final consonant stem for all Greek genitives in -eos or -e0s. Glossary. (1) Under case, n. add (1) and a new category (2). An inflectional form of nouns and adjectives in grammar, of which the nominative and genitive are used in nomenclature. (2) Under error the definition of inadvertent error is given as ‘‘an incorrect spelling not intended by the original author.’ The author’s intent has nothing to do with inadvertence; he may very well have intended the incorrect spelling, not having turned sufficient attention to the matter. The dictionary definition as ‘‘an incorrect spelling because of carelessness or lack of attention by the original author” must apply here; the author’s intent cannot be determined and would apply only if he had made an overt statement to the effect that the apparently incorrect spelling was intended. (3) After generic name the word generitype should also be mentioned and referred to type. Authors should be given the right to use this word. (4) Under name and new replacement name it would seem that many cases would be replacement epithets. (S) Under stem, add after ‘‘family-group”: ‘or genitive case”’. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6) Under suffix, terminations are also suffixes. The latter sentence should be: Terminations required by the rules of Latin grammar for numbers and cases of nouns and adjectives are the simplest kind of suffixes. The endings -es in the above mentioned more complex suffixes are also suffixes. (7) Under termination, it would be better to say: Of a name or epithet; the final letters determined by the gender and case of the word to which they may be applied. Some words have no termination. E.g., the letters -ws, -a, -um in elongatus, elongata, elongatum, and the letters -a and -um in ruber, rubra, rubrum (ruber has no termination and the letter e is elided in the other forms when the termination is added). (8) After topotype, add transcription, n. Replacement of one writing system by another. See also transliterate. (9) Under transliterate, a statement such as “‘Also known as literal or letter-for-letter transcription, q.v. Classical Latin transcription is not strictly transliteration because, for example, the Greek word era may be transliterated as leia but transcribed in the classical style as lia.’’ Some languages, notably French, do not recognize the word transliterate. (10) Under type, before genotype, the word generitype should be added with the comment that it is sometimes preferred as an equivalent to typus generis for type-species or genotype. cf. (3) above. (11) Under xerography and xerox, the relevance of “indirect” is not clear and the word xerox is a trade-name. Even traditional printing from plates is indirect. (3) By B. Bolton and Others (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7. U.K.) We should like to register our views with the Editorial Committee for the new Code on three of the matters for which the Commission has specifically requested opinions (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 167-173). We use the same heading phrases as those published by the Commission. (a) Correction of diacritic marks. We are opposed to the new draft Article 32(d) (i) (2) under which Scandinavian letters with diacritic marks would have to be spelt out in a comparable manner to that obtaining for names of German origin under the present Code. We see no merit in this proposal, which unnecessarily complicates nomenclature, and for which (so far as we know) there is no demand from Scandinavian zoologists. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 The situation has settled well since the 1961 Code. It has become generally understood that, for example, Schonbaueria and roderi (German) become Schoenbaueria and roederi, but that tomosvaryi (Hungarian) becomes tomosvaryi, and_ sjostedti (Swedish) becomes sjostedti. To introduce a new complication and to create a new instability (because many names have already been corrected and used in the light of the 1961 Code) has nothing in its favour. Indeed, if any change is to be made it should be for eliminating the special privilege already accorded to the German umlaut, though we are not in fact proposing this. We consider that no change is needed in the provisions of the present Code concerning diacritic marks and diaereses. Lastly on this we comment that the new draft proviso reading ‘*. . . . unless the name was first corrected by the deletion of the mark concerned, in which case it cannot be corrected further’ could involve zoologists in time-consuming and pointless research in the literature to discover the ‘first’ correction. In short, we cannot see the new draft proposal on this matter as anything more than a needless burden imposed on zoologists. (b) Use of ‘-i” and ‘-ii” as permissible alternatives. We are opposed to this provision in the new draft Code both in principle and practice. A primary objective of the Code is to regulate spelling and to ensure stability. A name can be correctly spelt in only one way. That is a cardinal principle of the Code, and should not be breached. There are already five kinds of spelling, and it is undesirable and unnecessary to add the novel concept of a ‘permissible alternative’. Since the 1961 Code it has been clear that the original spelling is the correct spelling. Some names therefore end in ‘‘-i” and others in “‘-ii’’, according to the orthography in the original description. If authors are free to use either ending for the same name, perhaps even haphazardly in the same publication, then the outcome can only be confusion and instability. At present it is possible to explain to non-taxonomists that the ending is governed by the rule that the original spelling is correct, and this is a sensible and acceptable rule. In fact, the 1961 Code has itself contributed much to ensuring stability where these endings had been haphazardly used in the past. To destroy this new stability by introducing the ‘permissible alternative’ serves no purpose, and we urge the Commission to abandon this proposal. (c) New term for “‘type-species”. We are opposed to any change in the term ‘type-species’, which appears to us fully satisfactory in every regard, and we trust that the Commission will not seriously pursue the idea of a change to ‘generitype’ (and 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature presumably ‘subgeneritype’). The term ‘type-species’ has been in use for very many years, is deeply rooted in the whole enormous literature of systematic zoology, is clear in meaning, and conforms with other type terms such as ‘type-genus’. It is difficult to conceive of any argument of sufficient weight to convince us that ‘type-species’ should be supplanted by ‘generitype’. We are thankful that the term has not been introduced into the new draft Code as yet, and hope that the Commission will not be tempted to recommend its adoption. This comment was signed by: B.Bolton, J.D.Bradley, B.H.Cogan, R.W.Crosskey, M.C.Day, W.R.Dolling, M.G.Fitton, D.S.Fletcher, I.D.Gauld, K.M.Harris, D.Hollis, A.M.Hutson, L.A.Mound, J.Noyes, A.C.Pont, R.D.Pope, J.Quinlan, D.R.Ragge, W.A.Sands, K.S.O.Sattler, K.G.V.Smith, R.T.Thompson, R.I.Vane-Wright, C.M.F.von Hayek, A.Watson, P-.E.S.Whalley, G.B.White, D.J.Williams. (4) Comment on the Transcription of the Umlaut in Zoological Nomenclature. By Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland) In the report on proposed amendments to the Code published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 167-173, the problem of the umlaut was mentioned. The present wording of the Code, which restricts the transcription of i, 4 and 6 as ue, oe and ae sespectively, to German words is a source of confusion, as the example presented in the report clearly shows. The report mentions the Danish zoologist Miller and states that the correct spelling of a name given after him would be mulleri. in fact, Miller is a German word no matter where its bearer lived, and that means that the correct spelling is muelleri. There are many similar cases, and it would mean an unreasonable amount of work for zoologists to search for the etymology of various personal names whenever an umlaut sign is encountered. Therefore my suggestion is that any li, 4 and 6 should be transcribed as ue, ae and oe. The report also mentions the letters 4 and ¢. For a there was a suggestion to transcribe it as aa. To me it seems that nothing is to be gained by that; there are several languages where a long vowel is written by duplication, so we would then have a new source of confusion. A name based, for instance, on the Finnish entomologist would correspond equally badly to the original pronunciation whether it was written storaai or storai. eee me ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 With the Danish ¢ the matter is different. This letter is identical with the Swedish 6 and corresponds quite closely to the German 6. Therefore it might be appropriate to treat it in the same way as 6 and transcribe it oe in zoological nomenclature. (5) Comment on Stability in Zoological Nomenclature. By M. Mroczkowski, J. Nast & A. Riedel (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warsaw, Poland) “The objects of the Code are to promote stability and universality in the scientific names of animals. . .”’ (Preamble to Code). 2. The primary principle in nomenclature is stability. The stability of zoological nomenclature is the main object of the Code. Stability and universality of nomenclatural terms is equally important. Changes in terms accepted since the Berlin Congress (1901) and universally used for over 75 years in all parts of the world and in many languages (the Code was translated into Bulgarian, Czech, German, Japanese, Polish, Russian, Spanish and other languages) are extremely undesirable. We are therefore strongly opposed to the introduction of new terms into nomenclatural language, particularly against the terms “‘epithet”’ and “‘generitype’’. 3. The expression “specific name” is easily distinguished from the expression ‘‘name of a species”. Both are well naturalised in many languages and are confused only in exceptional cases by people not well versed in zoological terminology. To change “specific name” to “epithet”? will cause very great confusion in nomenclatural terminology. The same also applies to the well-known expression “‘type-species” and “‘generitype”’. 4. “Nomenclature being thought so difficult, its mastery has been the object of comparatively a few” (Lewis, 1872). W.A. Lewis was an intransigent defender of the principle of stability in zoological nomenclature. Stability in nomenclatural terminology is very important too. We have enough difficulty in popularising the Code among all kinds of zoologists, though we have achieved much here. Superfluous and unwanted changes in terminology will reduce these achievements and make serious difficulties in further popularising the Code. 5. Incidentally, in Polish the word “epitet” has two meanings: the first, in common use, is “invective, term of abuse, Opprobrious word”; the second, rare meaning, is ‘“‘term”’. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6) Miscellaneous Comments. By K.H.L. Key (CSIRO Division of Entomology P.O. Box 1700 Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia) In response to the Commission’s invitation I submit the following comments on the above proposals: (a) I am in favour of the proposals, except as indicated below. (b) Correction of diacritic marks. — I object to the present provisions of Art. 32c(i) under which special treatment is accorded to names based on German words normally spelled with an “umlaut”. And a fortiori I object to the proposed extension of this provision to cover the Scandinavian letters specified. There are numerous other languages (French, Spanish, Czech, Polish, Turkish, etc.) in which Roman vowels and consonants are provided with a variety of diacritic marks and which could be considered to be mutilated by the simple deletion of those marks. The fact that (so far as I know) there is no optional alternative to use of the mark in those languages, as there is in the instances covered by the present Code and the new proposal, is not particularly relevant. What the proponents of the exceptional treatment claim is that it is not tolerable that the modified Roman letter gd, for example, should be rendered as a; yet they apparently find tolerable the rendering of a Czech ¢ as c. What we should be concerned with is consistency and simplicity in the rules of nomenclature, not with linguistic niceties irrelevant to the purposes of the Code. I propose simple deletion of Art. 32c(i). (c) Use of ‘-i” and ‘‘-ii’’ as alternatives. — 1 regard this as a retrograde proposal. The two spellings are alternatives only in the sense that a personal name such as ‘‘Smith” can be latinised as either ‘““Smithus” or “Smithius”, giving genitives smithi or smithii. They are not alternatives in the case of a personal name already in Latin form. ‘‘Linnaeus” can only yield ‘‘linnaei’’; ‘‘linnaeii’’ would be simply wrong. ‘‘Fabricius” must yield ‘‘fabricii’’, not ‘‘fabrici’”’ or ‘‘fabriciii’”. Moreover, if Smith is a woman, we have alternative latinisations ‘‘Smitha” and ‘“‘Smithia”, yielding ‘‘smithae” and ‘smithiae’. These would have an exactly comparable claim to be considered permissible alternatives. Again I must ask why we should compromise consistency and simplicity. The “alternatives” are different; they are differently derived; they are correctly derived respectively from different latinised personal names; and in the case of personal names already in Latin form, including many current Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 Dutch, Scandinavian, German, and other surnames (Sibelius, Pretorius, etc.), not only Linnaeus and Fabricius, they are not alternatives at all. All we need to do is to preserve the original spelling and to treat the other spelling as an incorrect subsequent spelling that must be corrected. This course involves no complications: the incorrect spelling is not available and the corrected spelling is ascribed to the original author and date. I recommend rejection of the proposal. (d) New term for ‘“‘type-species”. — The Code ought to seek stability not only for zoological nomenclature, but also for its own terminology. ‘‘Type-species” (or, as I prefer, “type species’’) has now become well established in place of ‘‘genotype”’. It should not be abandoned on the trivial ground that it produces ‘“‘awkward- sounding phrases in some contexts”. Much more substantial grounds are needed for changing the word for a fundamental concept, which by now must have been used in thousands of publications. I emphatically recommend rejection of the proposal. (e) Holotypes.— Your presentation of the problem of the type of a nominal species where there is no evidence as to whether the type series consisted of one specimen or more than one, is defective. It is not a question of a subsequent author “‘designating”’ as the holotype the only specimen that can be found. Certainly a holotype can only be designated by the original author. The question is whether a later author is entitled, and should be permitted, to assume provisionally that there was only one specimen. In that case that specimen would be the holotype by monotypy under the terms of the draft third edition, provided that the word “demonstrated” in Art. 73a (ii) were replaced by “inferred”. If other members of the type series are subsequently discovered, the case is taken care of under the third-edition draft Art. 74b. Under this view the Editorial Committee’s stated objection falls to the ground. Assumption of monotypy is a more economical solution than assumption of undiscovered syntypes. It relieves the author and the literature of the burden of designating what in the great majority of cases are likely to prove quite unnecessary lectotypes. Moreover it has the methodological advantage of assuming provisionally that what can be observed is all there is, rather than assuming definitively that there are things that have not been observed: it is the parsimonious solution. I recommend it. 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (7) Comment on Recommendation 31A and Article 33d By T.J. Spilman (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, USA) I object to Recommendation 31A on the use of -i and -ii endings in forming epithets based on the name of a male and to Article 33d on the use of -i and -ii as permissible alternatives in subsequent spellings. The 1961 and 1964 editions of the Code, at first readings, seem to require or encourage use of only an -i ending, but an exact interpretation of the words ‘“‘must end in -i” (Article 31 of 1961) and ‘“‘should usually end in -i’’ (Recommendation 31A of 1964) would allow both. A name with the terminal ending -ii does indeed end in -i. For subsequent spellings, Article 32 prevails and the original ending, -i or -ii, must be used. This required an inordinate amount of searching original descriptions for a relatively minor and troublesome item. I have personally spent much time searching literature for such endings, both in my own research and in answering requests from nonsystematists. Some systematists have become so exasperated with searching original descriptions that they have defied the Code and arbitrarily adopted the use of a terminal -i only; certain herpetologists and myrmecologists are examples (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 27: 251, 1971). In addition, even in a comment (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29: 106, 1972) supporting the free use of either the -i or the -ii ending we find the statement: “The practice of using only one ‘-i’ regardless of original orthography is so widespread that we not only find fighting the battle to get taxonomists to follow the Code a losing one, we also feel a considerable sympathy for the winning side’. I, too, am in sympathy with the practice; it avoids the searching of original descriptions, it is consistent with the use of a unique spelling for a species, it has been used and found desirable, and it is simple and easily understood. A required -i ending would not change names such as fabricii, a patronym for Fabricius, because Fabricius was actually the man’s true surname or at least his professional name. On the other hand, smithii came from Smithius, a name latinised from Smith, the true surname. The 6th Draft has attempted to solve the problem by permitting either -i or -ii in subsequent usage, regardless of the original ending. This, of course, solves the problem of referring to the original description, but it is actually only a half solution in that Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 ee a a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151 it leads into another difficulty - inconsistency. It leads towards variability, not uniformity. Different authors could use different endings, or an author could one day end a name with -i and the next day with -ii. Such variability is not consistent with the remainder of the Code. Would not such a rule be contrary to one of the basic principles of nomenclature, namely that each species have one name and only one name? In the past, students and readers have expected a unique spelling and systematists have insisted on it. Would not this new variability or permissiveness lead to more of the same in other endings or spellings, and would not nonsystematists assume that variability in spelling is now permissible? The use of an -i ending regardless of the original ending is the better solution. Therefore I suggest that the Draft be changed as follows: 1. Article 31 should be reintroduced and should read: ‘“‘An epithet, if a genitive formed from a modern personal name of a male, must be formed by adding -i, not -ii, to the name’”’. 2. All references to -i endings should be removed from Recommendation 31A. 3. Article 33d should read: ‘‘Use of -i and -ii endings.- An epithet, if a genitive formed from a modern personal name of a male, whether formed by adding -i or -ii, will be written as if originally formed by adding -i.”’ (Comment by the Secretary: The form in which the Editorial Committee now proposes to reinstate Article 31 (see : 78) may remove some of the difficulties expressed by Dr. Spilman.) (8) Status of Names on the Official List; Proposed Modification to the Draft Code Article 78(f). By 1.W.B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London, SW7 5BD) 1. Applications to the Commission concerning names or nomenclatural acts finally result in an Opinion which embodies a tuling entering one or more names in the appropriate Official List of family-, genus-, or species- group names and/or Official Index of rejected and invalid names. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the status of names in these Lists should be clearly stated in the Code. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2. When the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was first established by the Monaco Congress 1913, names entered in the List as validated under the plenary power had an enhanced status and were not to be replaced by any other name. However, up to the time of the Paris Congress 1948, names entered in the Official List without the use of the plenary power were not protected against rejection if an older name for the taxon was found. At the Paris Congress 1948 it was decided to amend the Régles so that a name entered in the Official List of Generic Names was ‘not to be discarded in favour of some other name or used ina sense different from that specified in the Official List, unless and until the Commission, on having the facts laid before it, shall so direct’. When the Official List of Specific Names was established at the Paris Congress 1948, and the Official List of Family-group Names was established at the Copenhagen Congress 1953, the status of names in these Lists was made the same as that prescribed for the Official List of Generic Names. In other words, all names in the Lists had automatic overriding precedence over their senior homonyms and synonyms. This is clearly stated in the Introductory Note to each of the Official Lists. 3. In the present Code (2nd edition 1964) no mention is made of the status of names in the Lists and Indexes, but in general it has been accepted that all names in the Lists have the status defined at the beginning of each List, namely that they are not to be replaced by any other name. However, Article 83(a) states that all amendments affecting the Code, adopted by the Congresses prior to the London Congress 1958, are no longer valid unless reaffirmed in the Code. As no mention is made in the Code of the status of names in the Lists and Indexes it may be argued that all names in the Lists compete for priority as normal available names and have no enhanced status. 4. The Draft Code endorses this view and Article 78(f) reads: ‘““(ii) a name entered in an Official List and indicated therein as validated under the plenary power [Art. 79] is to be used as the valid name of any taxon to which it is attributed except that if such a name is found or considered to have an available senior homonym or available senior synonym the Principles of Homonymy and of Priority are to apply. If special conditions of precedence are attributed to such a name in the Official List (see (i) of this Section) those conditions are to be followed. An author who considers that the application of those Principles or conditions would disturb stability or universality or cause confusion is to maintain existing usage and must refer the case to the Commission for a decision [Art. 23b] .” pe Sm Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 In other words all names entered in all Lists, even if validated under the plenary power, compete for priority as normal available names and have no enhanced status (except in those special cases when a senior subjective synonym has been conditionally suppressed so as to enable its junior synonym to have precedence over it). 5. Thus Article 78(f) in the Draft Code is almost the opposite of the generally accepted statement in the Introductory Note to each of the Official Lists. Some reconciliation is necessary. 6. Names entered in the Official Lists fall into two clearly definable categories: (1) conserved names for which the plenary power has had to be invoked to legalize their usage either by making them available, or by suppressing their senior homonyms and synonyms; and (2) normal available names for which the plenary power has not been invoked, for example when the application of the rules of the Code has been endorsed, or when the type-genus and type-species are entered in the Official Lists in order to fix a family-group name. The usage of a name in the first category having been specially validated it is almost self-evident that any such conserved name should be given enhanced status and automatically protected from rejection if an available senior homonym or senior synonym of it is found, unless the Commission rules otherwise. If two such names in an Official List are found to be synonyms then the Principle of Priority should apply, unless the Commission rules otherwise. Any name in the second category should be treated as a normal available name and should be subject to the Principle of Homonymy and the _ Principle of Priority, unless the Commission rules otherwise. : 7. If a genus-group name is entered in the Official List, the ' name of its type-species is normally entered in the Official List of Specific Names. If, however, that name is known to be a junior subjective synonym it cannot at present be entered correctly either in an Official List or an Official Index. Once it is made clear in the Code that names in an Official List consist of two categories, | conserved names and normal available names, this anomaly would be overcome and the invalid name of the type-species could be | entered in the List as an available name. \3 8. In the interests of stability and clarity the Commission is | therefore asked to modify Draft Code, Article 78(f) as follows: | ® (i) nochange; (ii) a name conserved as a consequence of the use of the plenary power and entered in an Official List is not to ' \ be rejected in favour of another name or used in a ser *e 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature different from that specified in the Official List unless the Commission rules otherwise; (iii) if two names conserved as a consequence of the use of the plenary power and entered in an Official List are regarded as synonyms, the Principle of Priority is to apply unless the Commission rules otherwise; (iv) an available name not conserved as a consequence of the use of the plenary power but entered in an Official List has the same status as any other available name not in an Official List; (v) as Draft Code (iii). (9) Use of the Plenary Power: Proposed Modification to the Draft Code, Article 79(b). By I.W.B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London, SW7 SBD). 1. Article 79(a) of the present Code (2nd edition, 1964), and the corresponding Article 79(b) of the Draft Code, are both incomplete and difficult to understand. The Draft Code, Article 79(b) at present reads: “(b) Guiding principles. In exercising its plenary power, the Commission is to be guided as follows: (i) A name annulled [but printed in the Draft, in error, as suppressed] so as to validate the use of the same name published at a later date in another sense, is to be suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (ii) a name suppressed [but printed in the Draft, in error, as annulled] so as to validate a later name given to the same taxon is to be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of | Homonymy;” (iii) [no substantial change to Draft proposed] 2. In order to make the Article more clear and complete I request the Commission to replace Draft Code Section (b) with: (b) Guiding principles- In using its plenary power, the Commission is to be guided as follows: (i) If two names are homonyms the senior name may be suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy so that the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 junior name may continue to-ve used asa-valid name. If two names are objective synonyms the senior name may be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority so that the junior name may continue to be used as a valid name. If two names are regarded as subjective synonyms the senior name may be either permanently suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority as in (ii) above, or conditionally suppressed so that the senior name may only be used if it and the junior name are applied to different taxa. When confusion arises from the use + a name in more than one sense, that name may be suppressed or stabilized in a given sense. A name that is unavailable may be ruled to have been made available by a stated author on a stated date. If the Commission refuses to use its plenary power ina given case, the Opinion rendered is to specify the name(s) to be used or the action (if any) to be taken. 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE CONCEPT THAT TYPES ARE TYPES OF NAMES, IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Z.N.(S.) 2273 By W.D.L. Ride (CSIRO, P.O. Box 1666, Canberra City, ACT 2601 Australia and C.W.Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, C/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, USA) The conceptual basis for typification which the first and second editions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature follow is that a nominal taxon bears a name and is based upon a type. A nominal taxon is a taxonomic concept visualised by its proposer, represented by its type, and identified by its name. Thus, in the sense of the Code, it follows that a type is not the type of a name but of a nominal taxon. 2. Although the Code adopts the above concept as the basis for its language (for example, Article 63 of the draft third edition has: ‘“‘The type of a nominal taxon of the family group is that nominal genus upon which the name of the family group taxon is based’’), in application it requires, rather, that taxonomists treat types as though they were types of names. 3. In the course of our work on the Editorial Committee of the new edition of the Code, we have reached the conclusion that there is no justification for the continued use, in the Code, of the expression ‘“‘nominal taxon”. The concept is unnecessary to zoological nomenclature and its embodiment in the Code is a hindrance to comprehension by confusing its language. We propose that throughout the Code types should be treated as the types of names; the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature already does this. Article 7 (1972) states: “‘The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is determined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of the taxon is permanently attached, whether as a correct name or as a Synonym. Note 1. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical of representative element of a taxon; it is that element with which the name is permantly associated.” ARGUMENT 4. The argument that types in nomenclature are the types of names was expressed by G.G. Simpson in 1940 and 1961 ina Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 manner that we cannot better. With his permission, and his agreement with this proposal, we quote from Simpson, 1961: 30—31: ‘‘The zoological contents of taxa frequently and inevitably change with increases in knowledge and differences of judgment and opinions. That of course constantly raises problems as to whether a current taxon is really the same as one to which a name was originally applied. This problem is met, imperfectly, but usually adequately, by the designation of types. The type for the name of a species is an individual specimen, and the rule is that regardless of any other contents of the taxon a name belongs to the species in which its type specimen is placed. It frequently happens that types of two or more names are placed in one species, and this is when priority and the lists of nomina conservanda are called on to determine which name should actually be used. The type of the name of a genus is the name of a species and is thus indirectly tied to a type specimen. It is generally considered that the type of the name of a family is the name of a genus... ‘** _,.A nomenclatural type is simply something to which a name is attached by purely legalistic convention. It should have nothing to do with the nonnomenclatural processes of defining the species and should have no special role in identifying other specimens. Modern taxonomists are becoming increasingly careful in making this distinction, but the old confusion still permeates much of zoological thought and procedure. It is, indeed, perpetuated by the Rules, which continue to speak of the types of species, genera, and so on, when they should refer only to the types of names. It is nominalistic absurdity to confuse a set of objects with the name or symbol for that set.” 5. We do not discuss, here, issues of taxonomic theory such as those raised by the incompatibility of the expressed relationship between the type and the taxon inherent in Article 61 of the first and second editions of the Code, and that of the relationship between onomatophore and hypodigm, as expressed by Simpson in 1940. Such issues are irrelevant to the use of types in nomenclature. CONCLUSION 6. We have concluded that for the purposes of the Code — as a Code of nomenclature and not of theoretical taxonomy — the concept of the nominal taxon is unnecessary. As it is expressed in the Code it is not merely a substitute for “name” but is the taxonomic concept of the species derived from the original hypodigm (Simpson, 1940: 418-419). For the purposes of nomenclature the unique type (holotype, lectotype, neotype; if none of these, the syntypes) alone of that hypodigm retains 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature significance and forms the basis of our system of typification of names. The taxonomic concept estimated from it is historically interesting but irrelevant to nomenclature. PROPOSAL 7. Accordingly, we propose that wherever the expression “nominal taxon” occurs in the Code it should, as appropriate, be deleted, or replaced by “name”, or replaced otherwise and that wherever types are mentioned in the Articles (principally in Articles 61 to 75), and any cross-reference to them, the usage adopted will express the principle that “the type-of a specific or subspecific name is a specimen, that of a genus or subgenus is the name of a species, and that of a family-group name is the name of a genus”. References SIMPSON, G.G. 1940. Types in modern taxonomy. Amer. J. Sci., vol. 238: 413-431 —— 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. New York (Columbia University Press) “Type of Name” versus ‘“‘Type of a Nominal Taxon” By K.H.L. Key (CSIRO Division of Entomology, PO Box 1700 Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia) The question whether a type is the “type of a nominal taxon or the ‘“‘type of” a name, and the question of whether the expression ‘‘nominal taxon” should continue to be used (see submission of Ride and Sabrosky, and of Colless), are interlocking problems; and both implicate the definitions of ‘‘type” and “nominal taxon” to be accepted under the Code, and hence involve the Glossary. I will first examine the relationships between a “‘taxonomic”’ species and a “nominal” species as that term is actually used in the body of the Code. A (‘‘taxonomic”, or ‘‘zoological’’) species is an objective population of animals conforming to certain variously specified criteria (the most frequently cited being free interbreeding internally and reproductive isolation externally). It may be recognised as such or not; if recognised, its content and scope may be a matter of dispute. It may be described or not and named or not; if named, it may have one, or more than one, available name, but can have only one valid name under the Code. Its definition in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159 the present Glossary is inadequate. A nominal species is a putative species (i.e. it may or may not be a species, but is regarded as such by an author), cited under a particular available name, and hence delineated at least by a description, definition, or indication. It is not just a “named” species in the terms of the Glossary: such a species could have several names; and, as indicated above, it is not necessarily a species at all. (For example, if someone were to publish a nominal species Homo niger to cover the negroes, and described it by reference to skin-colour, hair, and lip characters, no zoologist would accept that as a taxonomic species.) It does not necessarily “‘have” a type specimen and often does not have one (if it has one “potentially” then it does not have one). The Glossary criterion that it is ‘objectively defined by its type-specimen” is thus inconsistent with the facts; the Code has a good deal to say about nominal species that do not have type specimens. Even if a nominal species does have a type specimen, that specimen does not objectively define it, because ‘‘it”” comprises individuals that may be substantially different from the type specimen; all that it does is to indicate one specimen that must be retained as a member of the nominal species, whatever else is included or excluded. The Glossary definition needs to be completely recast if it is to be consistent with the body of the Code.and with taxonomic practice. I believe the term and concept “‘nominal species” will have to be retained. The Code has practically nothing to say about species as such (i.e. about taxonomic species), and the concept is particularly unavoidable in the context of the type species of a genus (see below). I will now turn to the concepts ‘“‘type” and “‘type of. . .”’, still restricting myself for the moment to the species category. In semantic logic, a name has a “referent” - the thing that is being named. Under the Code, the referent of a name applied to a nominal species (as defined above) is a population including numerous individuals of different genetic make-up, usually different sexes, and different stages of development. It is not a type specimen. We may call a type specimen “James” if we like, but if we call it Musca domestica this is only short-hand for saying it isa member of the nominal species Musca domestica. A type specimen clearly is a member of the nominal species, chosen as a more manageable exemplar (not in any typological sense; quite arbitrarily in principle, though not in practice) to represent it in serving vicariously to specify (though not “‘define’’) the entity that is the true referent of the name. This is almost unobjectionably stated in Art. 61a of the third-edition draft: “‘ ...the type of a... nominal species-group taxon is a specimen. . . the standard of reference that 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature determines the application of a scientific name toa [nominal] taxon”. The definition of ‘“‘type” in the Glossary is unobjectionable, but very general. On the other hand, the definition of “holotype” in Art. 73a of the draft is inconsistent with the Code and with taxonomic practice. The nominal species is rarely, and then unfortunately, ‘“‘based on” a single specimen. The term is better defined in a manner more comparable with Art. 61a as “‘the single specimen representing the nominal species or subspecies as the standard for the application of its name”. The type specimen thus stands between the nominal species and its name, tying them together and in a sense interpreting the nominal species to the name and the name to the nominal species. As such, it belongs in a broad class of objects or devices that serve to link together two different things. Analogies are dangerous, but is a hinge the hinge of the door or of the door-frame; a label on a drawer the label of the drawer or of the contents? The controversy as to whether a type is “the type of a name” or “the type of a nominal taxon” is in fact meaningless. Depending upon the point of view at any moment it can be referred to as either: it is both. For clarity the word “of” in the expression ‘“‘type of. . . .” needs “explication”. If we say that a type is the type of a nominal species, we mean that it is a member of that species; if we say it is the type of a name, we mean that it is the standard of reference that determines the application of the name. The word “‘of” does not carry the same meaning in the two cases, and hence the two statements are not antithetical: both can be true and, under the Code, both are true. They are true, in fact, because the type of a nominal species is not any member of it, but a member chosen specifically to serve as the “standard of reference”, while the type of a name is a standard of reference chosen specifically from among the members of a particular nominal species. I conclude, therefore, that there is no objection to the present use of ‘“‘type of a nominal species”. While there is also no objection to “type of a name”, I think it would be confusing to some people if both terms were used in the Code, and I recommend sticking to the current practice for the sake of stability. Briefly, re the types of nominal genus-group taxa and, mutatis mutandis, of family-group taxa: I find it quite unacceptable that the type of a nominal genus should be a name (Ride & Sabrosky). This is not the correlative of a type specimen as type of a nominal species. The type of a genus must be at least a putative zoological entity, and a nominal species would seem to serve well if defined in the terms used in this submission. A conceivable alternative would be to make the type a type specimen, namely the : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161 type specimen of the nominal species that would at present be specified as the type species. However, this would entail major alterations to the concepts and wording of the Code, which in my view would rule it out of court. One last observation on types. The type specimen of the nominal species whose name is the valid name of the taxonomic species could properly (as it is habitually and conveniently) be called the type of the (taxonomic) species. Comment and Proposals on a Revised Type-Concept to be Adopted in the Third Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature By Donald H. Colless (CSIRO Division of Entomology, PO Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34: 173, comments were invited on a proposal to employ in the Revised Code the concept of “type ofa taxon name” to replace “type of a nominal taxon”. In what follows, I comment upon two aspects of that proposal, and submit one other. A. COMMENT ON THE REFERENT OF THE TERM ‘TYPE’ (1) The use of ‘nominal taxon’, instead of just ‘taxon’, reflects our deliberate avoidance of the ‘“‘essentialistic” notion that the type in any way exemplifies the “essential” qualities of anything. It exemplifies nothing but the way we should use a name that we have coined as a label to facilitate communication between us. (2) In effect, ‘nominal taxon’ is to be construed just as ‘scientifically named taxon’ with strong emphasis on ‘named’. Without that emphasis, we invite pointless metaphysical arguments. Even with it, we cannot avoid problems; e.g., which is the nominal taxon X-us y-us: that currently bearing the name, or that which should bear the name? (see B. below). (3) It can be argued quite properly that no antithesis is involved: suitably interpreted, something can be both the type of a taxon and the type of a name (see proposal by Key). However, they remain alternatives, from which we should choose the most useful. The required stress on the act of naming something therefore suggests that we might as well Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature make a clean break, and rid our Code of its last shred of essentialism, real or just apparent. To accept formally that a type is the type of a name, stresses its role as a practical tool for identifying quite precisely the referent of a taxon name (the prior taxonomic judgements are, of course, necessarily less precise). (4) Construing ‘type’ non-metaphysically as ‘exemplar’ or ‘indicator’, would we use ‘type of a taxon’ in any way differently from ‘type of a taxon name”? I think not. The latter is therefore to be recommended as conveying our intentions in a much clearer fashion. (5) I attach a suggested rewording of Article 61 in the draft Revision, to apply mutatis mutandis throughout the revised Code. B. PROPOSAL FOR A DEFINITION OF ‘NOMINAL TAXON’ As mentioned above, there are potential problems in the term ‘nominal taxon’, unless it is carefully explicated. Its practical utility will consist in its denoting (in each individual case) some concrete, identifiable object, rather than a purely conceptual one, or some Platonic “‘ideal”’. It should therefore denote some actual population of physical organisms to which an available name has been attached. There are two candidates : (a) that in which the type is currently located according to current taxonomic opinion; (b) that in which the type should be located under some criterion of “‘truth’”’. Candidate (b) suffers from the fact that it is in principle unrecognisable, with the exception of a single specimen: viz. the type of the species concerned, or of the species that is the type of the genus concerned, etc.; and such “recognition” is not empirical, but tautological (Colless, 1970, Syst. Zool., vol. 19: 251—253). In practice, then, we will equate the nominal species with candidate (a) just because there is no alternative. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the “‘true location” of a type is a viable notion above the species level; and even at the species level, border-line cases are possible Ut therefore seems.preferable to chaose candidate (a). For these reasons I propose that ‘nominal species’ be defined in the revised Code, not in general, but in particular, as follows: — the nominal taxon N is that taxon to which the available name N is currently attached. It may be noted that, under this definition: (a) The nominal taxa P and Q might be identical; and : (b) the physical content of nominal taxon N might change, in part or even wholly. These are not defects; they reflect the normal course of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 science, whereby, for instance, the ‘“‘nominal astronomical objects” Morning Star, Evening Star and Venus are now regarded as identical, and the “nominal class” of electrons was reduced by recognition of the positron. C. COMMENT ON THE TERM ‘TYPE TAXON’ (1) (2) (3) If the proposal discussed above is adopted, it might be thought the usage of ‘type-species’ and ‘type-genus’ will need adjustment. I have seen a draft proposal (Ride & Sabrosky) that the type of a genus, for instance, be henceforth the name of a species. That would be unfortunate because: (a) It is inconsistent with the type of a species being a specimen, (b) It is inconsistent with the role of a type as an exemplar of a name: “The name ‘X-us y-us’ is an exemplar of the name ‘X-us’ ’’, while true, would be a notably trivial statement. (c) Itis unnecessary if B. above is adopted. It is recommended, therefore, that the terms ‘type species’ and ‘type genus’ be employed as hitherto. I therefore suggest the following rewording of Article 61 of the Code: Article 61. The type Principle. (a) Statement of the Type Principle. — Each taxon name has, actually or potentially, its type. Thus, the type of a family-group name is a nominal genus, that of a genus- group name is a nominal species, and that of a species- group name is a named specimen [2 sentences unchanged] . The type of any taxon name, once fixed in conformity with the provisions of the Code, is not subject to change except by the plenary power of the Commission [Art. 79] , or exceptionally in the case of species-group names, as the result of neotype designation [Art. 75]. (b) Types and names of coordinate taxa.— The type of a taxon name is also the type of names of its coordinate taxa (see Articles 36, 43 and 46). The fixation of one entails the fixation of the others. (i) If different types are fixed simultaneously for a taxon name and for that of its coordinate taxon at lower rank, the former takes precedence. (c) Types and Synonymy.— If taxa whose names have 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature different types are subjectively united as a single taxonomic unit their names are subjective synonyms. If two or more names of taxa of the genus group or of the species group have the same type, these names are objective synonyms. [Final sentence unchanged. ] Proposal to Retain the Term ‘‘Nominal Taxon”’ in the Code (1) By C.W. Wright, C.B., M.A.(The Old Rectory, Seaborough, Crewkerne, Dorset, DT8 3QY, U.K.) Zoologically speaking, the fundamental entity is a species, a group, however defined, of real, three-dimensional individuals existing - indeed, persisting - in time. The names that zoologists, and others, require species to have must be universal and stable, and the Code exists principally to ensure this. Thus, to start with we have species as sets, unbounded, of individual animals, and individual names as labels for species. 2. Experience indicated that more was needed and types arrived (the “‘type-concept” was a later rationalisation). The basic notion was the type specimen, one designated individual to which a name was tied and by which the application of that name to a particular species was ensured. The type in this fundamental usage is a representative, though of course not necessarily typical in the ordinary sense, individual of a species and is its name bearer. 4. Logically, if not historically, later comes the notion of one species among several as the type species of a genus, as-a means of stabilising the application of a generic name to a group of species with a particular relation (subjectively assessed) to the designated type species. (Later still comes the notion of type genus of a family, a relatively trivial matter since family names are formed from the stem of the name of the type genus, until the universality of this provision was sapped by unfortunate provisions in the Code.) 5. Simpson’s (1960: 30—31) argument ignores the logic that was inherent in the growth of the system and was subsequently expressed in successive Codes. Simpson’s own statements repeatedly confute his case; e.g. ‘“‘a name belongs to the species in which its type specimen is placed” can only mean that a type specimen is the type of a species and that the application of the name is mediated through the type. 6. To speak, as Ride & Sabrosky do (para 6) of a “‘system of typification of names” is to invent a totally new notion that has | Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 never underlain successive Codes. Names are not “‘typified”’; species (and genera) are, in order that the application of names may be as certain as possible. Types thus have a further role, outside nomenclature, that we cannot ignore. Taxonomic identification of individuals depends ultimately, despite Simpson, on reference to type specimens. Here in logic the question of the name that should label a specimen is secondary to the question whether the specimen belongs to the same species as a type or type series. So with genera, the logically prior question is whether a new species should or should not be associated with a certain group of species of which a type species is the representative. The application of a name is logically secondary. 7. To alter, as Ride & Sabrosky suggest, the long-standing arrangement in zoology, would remove a key element in the logic of our system on which, as much as on expedience, its acceptability to zoologists, present and future depends. The fact that botanists have chosen a less sensible course should not encourage zoologists to throw away a valuable prop. (2) By R.V. Melville (c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) Mr Wright has dealt with the logical weaknesses in the arguments and conclusion put forward by Ride & Sabrosky. I wish to consider some more pragmatic aspects, and for this purpose it is necessary to consider the function of a name — which Ride & Sabrosky seem to have forgotten. 2. Zoologists deal with the species (to take but one category in the taxonomic hierarchy) at three conceptual levels. There is, first, the zoological species (if indeed there are natural discontinuities in biology) in the four dimensions of space and time, which can never be wholly known; secondly, there is the taxonomic species, which is the sum total of all the individuals “correctly” referred to the species at any one time; thirdly, there is the basic species, whose sole content is the type, that is, the entity to which the name of the species is inseparably attached. Of these, the first is unknowable, the second is ever changing with accretions of new material and changing taxonomic ideas, and only the third is certainly known and invariable. 3. A zoologist describing a new species is, in practice, describing his concept of a particular fraction of the Animal Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Kingdom which he holds to be different from all previously described fractions at that level. The name — which may be any suitable word that has not already been used for a species-group taxon in the same genus provided that it meets the other requirements of the Code — is no more than a label for his concept. It is the concept — the thing named — that is typified, and the function of the type is to guarantee the continuity of that concept through all the changing applications of the name as the current notion of the taxonomic species evolves. 4. Thus, to say that it is the name that is typified is to stand the matter on its head. One might as well say that it is the suitcase that identifies the baggage check - or, in Dr Key’s metaphors, the hinge that has the door or the label the drawer. It makes more sense, and comes nearer to reality, to speak of the name of the type. What is named is the original author’s concept, and because this may be based on numerous entities (several species in a new genus, or many individuals in a new species), zoologists have developed a conventional means of reducing these to one by the type method. We speak of the type as the “objective” basis of a name, but since the name denotes a zoologist’s subjective notion in the first place, this is a rather artificial use of the word “‘objective’’. 5. Ride & Sabrosky say (para 6) that “The taxonomic concept estimated from it [i.e., the type] is historically interesting but irrelevant to nomenclature”. The logical consequence of that proposition is that Articles 49 and 70 have no place in the Code, since they deal exclusively with the nomenclatural consequences of wrongly estimated taxonomic concepts (in short, with misidentifications). Yet these Articles (particularly Article 70) are among the most useful in the Code and enable the Commission to deal, in a manner acceptable to zoologists, with a host of problems for which there is no other recourse. 6. Colless’s otherwise clear and constructive contribution seems to me to err in two respects. First, in his Section B, he sees only two candidates for that which is denoted by the type: ‘‘(a) that in which the type is currently located according to current taxonomic opinion; (b) that in which the type should be located under some criterion of ‘truth’”. Here he overlooks the fact that the location of the type is determined by history; it is in the concept expressed by the author of the name, and current taxonomic Opinion cannot shift it away from that historically determined position. Secondly, towards the end of the same Section, he implies that ‘“‘the physical content of nominal taxon N might change... even wholly”. Here he mistakes the function of the type, which is to ensure that the physical content of a nominal taxon can never be Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167 wholly changed, but must remain permanently anchored to the type. If the physical content of a nominal taxon can be wholly changed, then there is no permanent standard of reference for verifying the application of its name, and stability of nomenclature, together with the continuity of named concepts, is a formal impossibility. 7.1 therefore believe that the proposal to adopt the concept “type of a name” seeks to undermine the logical basis of the Code and has profoundly harmful practical implications. I therefore recommend that it be rejected. 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THE GENDER OF SUBSTANTIVATED ADJECTIVES; WITH A PROPOSAL FOR THE SIMPLIFICATION OF ARTICLE 30.a.i. (2) Z.N.(S.) 2259 By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, USA) Although the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Appendix D, 4) recommends against the use of adjectives as genus names in the statement ‘“‘A Latin adjective or past participle should not be used for a genus-group name, e.g., Prasina, Productus,’’ such names are numerous in the literature, some dating back to the earliest authors. Because Greek adjectives are not mentioned, they would seem to be tacitly accepted. 2. Inasmuch as any word in its use as a genus-group name becomes ipso facto a noun (ICZN, Art. 11. f: A genus-group name must be a noun in the nominative singular or be treated as such), such names, if basically adjectival, may be called substantivated adjectives, a term recognized in the Oxford English Dictionary with a citation of usage dating back to 1552. They are also called substantivized adjectives. The definition given is: ““Substantivate, pa. ppl. Obs. rare + [f. med. L. substantivat-, pa. ppl. stem of substantivare, f. substantivus Substantive]? Made into or used as a substantive.” 3. There would seem to be little reason for objecting to the use of substantivated adjectives as genus-group names on more than one account. In the first place, inasmuch as it is required that such names be spelled with a capital or upper-case initial letter no confusion with identical words used as species group names is likely, because similarly the latter are now at least required to be spelled with minuscule or lower-case initials. From another standpoint the use of substantivated adjectives has a firm base in classical grammar, both in Latin and Greek. Indeed, so little distinction was made between noun and adjective in classical times that Donatus’ grammar, stated by Chase (1926) to be “‘by far the most commonly used grammar between 400 A.D. and 1500,” begins with the following: “‘Partes orationis quot sunt? Octo. Quae? Nomen pronomen verbum adverbium participium coniunctio praepositio interiectio”’ or in English: “‘How many parts of speech are there? Eight. What? Noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, participle, conjunction, preposition, interjection.” And in Russian, which, like Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 the classical languages, has 3 genders, adjectives are considered a subclass of ‘‘names” (imja, pl. imena), imja sushschestvitel’noe = noun or substantive; imja prilagatel’noe = adjective. Czech does similarly. Most modern languages readily substantivate adjectives. A great many words, often quite appropriate and simple, would be available for use as genus-group names, if these facts were officially recognized. 4. The chief problem in the use of substantivated adjectives as genus-group names is determination of the gender of those whose gender is not recognizable from their form, because both Latin and Greek adjectives have classes in which the adjectives have distinct forms for 3, 2, or no gender. In other words, some adjectives, like albus, alba, album, have a distinct form for each of the 3 genders; others may have the same form for masculine and feminine and a different form for neuter (fortis, m. and f.; forte, n.); and a third rather large class has the same form for all 3 genders (ferox, euodes). The last example is of a Greek adjective which has 2 forms in Greek (euodés, m. and f.; euvodes, n.) distinguished by the next to last letter, eta » for m. f. and epsilon e for neuter, but both are transcribed into Latin by the same letter e. 5. The substantivated adjectives which do not in themselves indicate their gender are those whose gender must be determined by other criteria. The many genus-group names ending in -odes and -oides are in this category. They are compounds formed by one or more elements to which the formant -odes / -oides is added. This formant is itself derived from a Greek neuter noun eidos ‘form’ and the ending -és / -es. It thus forms compounds strictly comparable to Latin compounds with -formis, such as uniformis, filiformis, mostly Neo-Latin, and it too is derived from a noun, the Latin feminine noun forma plus the adjective-forming ending -is. 6. A few of the more complete Latin grammars deal with the matter of adjectives used substantively as follows, examples and usage being omitted. (a) Hale & Buck (1903, 1966). Paragraph 250.‘‘Certain adjectives and Participles are used as Substantives. 1. In the Singular Number, the Masculine denotes a class of persons, the Neuter a quality, or a corresponding abstract idea ... 2. In the Plural, the Masculine denotes a class of persons, the Neuter either a class of things or a number of instances of a quality .. . 251. Many words which came to be used as simple Nouns were originally Adjectives or Participles.. .” (b) Allen & Greenough (1888). Paragraph 288. ‘Adjectives are often used as Nouns (substantively), the masculine usually to denote men or people in general of that kind, the feminine women, 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and the neuter things- . . . a. Certain adjectives have become practically nouns, and are often modified by other adjectives or by the possessive genitive:- . . . b. When ambiguity would arise from the substantive use of an adjective, a noun must be added: - ...c. Many adjectives are used substantively either in the singular or the plural, with the added meaning of some noun which is understood from constant association: - . . . Paragraph 289. Neuter adjectives are used substantively in the following special senses: - a. The neuter singular may denote either a single object or an abstract quality:-.. . b. The neuter plural is used to signify objects in general having the quality denoted, and hence may stand for the abstract idea:-...c. A neuter adjective may be used as an appositive or predicate noun with a noun of different gender: - triste lupus stabulis the wolf [is] a grievous thing for the fold ... d. A neuter adjective may be used as an attributive or a predicate adjective with an infinitive or a substantive clause:-...” (c) Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895). ‘‘Paragraph 204 (Syntax of Subject). ‘“‘Notes — 1. Masculine and feminine adjectives, and to a less degree participles, are used as substantives, but with the following limitations: (a) Many adjectives in -arius and -icus (the latter mostly Greek), designating office or occupation, and words expressing friendship, kinship, or other relationship are often used as substantives both in the Sing. and the Pl. of the masculine and feminine: . . . (b) Adjectives are very often used as substantives in the masc. Pl. When they designate a class: . . . (c) On the use of participles as substantives see 437 (viz., The participle may be used as a substantive ...) (d) When persons are not meant, a substantive is understood: . . . 2. Neuter adjectives and participles are freely employed as substantives in both numbers. . . 3. Adjectives of the Second Declension are sometimes used as neuter substantives in the Gen., after words of quantity or pronouns .. . 4. Instead of the neuter adjective, the word res, thing, is frequently used, especially in forms which are identical for different genders, and consequently ambiguous...” (d) Danielli, Saccomanno, & Tantucci (1959) (my translation from Italian). Paragraph 39.‘Adjectives in Latin, as in Italian, may be used without a substantive to which they refer (substantivated adjectives, Italian aggettivi sostantivati). This occurs (1) with adjectives for which it is easy to infer the substantive that usually accompanies them: . . ., (2) with adjectives (or participles) which become masculine or feminine personal nouns . . ., (3) with masculine plural adjectives which may indicate a class of persons. . . , and (4) with neuter adjectives commonly only in the 3 direct cases (nominative, accusative, and vocative) in singular and plural. . a ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 7. A similar situation in regard to substantivated adjectives prevailed in Greek, but in that language the presence of an article in 3 gender forms (ho, he, to; similar to German der, die, das) more frequently defined the gender of the substantivated adjective with which it was used. 8. Smyth (1920, 1956) gives a convenient summary of the situation in classical Greek: Paragraph 1021. ‘‘An attributive adjective (or participle) generally with the article, often dispenses with its substantive, and thus itself acquires the value of a substan- tive. a. This occurs when the substantive may be supplied from the context; when it is a general notion; or when it is omitted in common expressions of a definite character, when the ellipsis is conscious. Paragraph 1022. Masculine or feminine, when the substantive is a person: . . . Paragraph 1023. Neuter, when the substantive idea is thing in general: .. . Paragraph 1024. In words denoting a collection of persons or facts: . . .; and in words denoting festivals ... Paragraph 1025. With participles, especially in Thucydides: . .. The action of the verb is here represented as taking place under particular circumstances or at a particular time. These participles are not dead abstractions, but abstract qualities in action. Paragraph 1026. A substantivized adjective may appear in the neuter plural as well as in the neuter singular: . . . Paragraph 1027. In common expressions a definite noun is often implied (such as hemera day, hodos way, cheir hand). Paragraph 1028. The context often determines the substantive to be supplied: .. . Paragraph 1029. From such substantivized adjectives arose many prepositional and adverbial expressions of which source the Greeks themselves had probably lost sight. Many of these seem to be analogues of phrases once containing hodos . . . Paragraph 1039. Adjectives used substantively may take an attributive . . .” 9. From all the foregoing it would seem clear that the substantivated adjective takes its gender, as does an adjective in any use, from that of the substantive to which it refers, or, as it is sometimes expressed, the word that it modifies or qualifies or that governs it. In more modern grammatical terminology, the adjectival phrase is said to consist of a head (-word), which is a substantive, and words (adjectives and determiners) subordinate to it. There is nothing in a substantivated adjective in itself in the classical languages, when it is of a form which may be used with head-words of more than one gender, to indicate its gender. It is for that reason that the Latin grammarians state that in some circumstances a word _ such as res, thing, must be supplied in order to obviate ambiguity. _ Clearly, in the case of substantivated adjectives, the headword is _ implied. {Tz Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 10. There are those who consider that the gender of substantivated adjectives is (or should be) determined by the gender of the word from which the penultimate element of a compound is derived; as, for example, they consider the genus name Santaloides to be neuter because the genus name from which the compound is derived, Santalum, is neuter. This is clearly contrary to classical or other grammatical practice. The notion has been attributed to Brown (1954) and Stearn (1966). 11. Brown (1954, p. 53) is somewhat ambiguous in his statements: ‘“‘In such instances the gender of the compound is that of the governing noun. Here, for example, belong the many substantives having -oides and -opsis as adjectival terminations. If both components of a compound are adjectival and the compound is the generic term of a binomial, its gender may remain dubious unless clearly indicated by the author. Such words need not and should not be created for use as generic terms. They may be avoided by transformation of the adjectival terminations into noun forms whose gender is definite. In making noun compounds having adjectival terminations in -oideus, -oidea, -oideum, and the like, the word-coiner should be careful to adjust the adjectival ending to the gender of the governing noun.” 12. If the term “governing noun” in the quotation be taken in its classical grammatical sense, Brown certainly does not refer to gender determined by the derivational base-word, but the last clause is hard to understand in this sense. Curtis W. Sabrosky, who knew the late Roland W. Brown well, tells me that he did indeed subscribe to the idea of the gender being determined by the gender of the derived base. Incidentally, opsis is not an adjectival ending, but a Greek noun. And the termination oideus, -oidea, -oideum is not classical, but Neo-Latin. 13. Stearn, neither in his proposal for the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Stearn, 1954) nor in his 1966 textbook, partook of the notion of gender by derivation. In his proposal, which has been accepted into the present (1972) Botanical Code as Recommendation 75A (4), he stated ‘‘Generic names ending in -oides or -odes are adjectives given the status of nouns; the qualified word such as planta (f.), herba (f.), filix (f.) or botane being understood.” and “It is appreciated that the ancients might have given such names the gender of the first element. . . To adopt such a procedure nowadays . . . would introduce unnecessary complications without any compensating advantages and would be contrary to the prevailing view that generic names ending in the same element should have the same gender.” In his 1966 book he states (p. 265) that ‘‘Botanical names ending in -odes and -oides are Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 now all treated as feminine” but on the following page he states that “In classical Latin such words took the gender of the noun providing the stem - thus sesamoides was neuter like sesamum - and their gender is not evident from their form.” No evidence of this was seen in the grammars I searched. The example given by Stearn, neuter sesamoides from neuter sesamum, is in Latin lexicons, so also are masculine dendroides from neuter dendron and neuter cynoides from common (masculine or feminine) cyon. 14. The point made by Stearn in the second quotation in the preceding paragraph that “generic names ending in the same element should have the same gender”’ is well taken, as shown by such a rule adopted into the Botanical Code, admittedly as a Recommendation, but the many such in that Code are commonly accepted as having the force of rules. Stearn also states that the -odes | -oides names are usually masculine in zoology. To determine what the usual gender of the implied ‘‘governing” nouns is among the many various ones such as animal (n.), avis (f.), vermis (m.), insectum (n.), piscis (m.) would be both difficult and useless. There is some justification for the botanists’ settling upon feminine, but the dictionary citation form, masculine, would seem most logical for zoology for the purposes of standardization, regularity, and ease of application of nomenclatural rules. Uniformity by rule would certainly be simpler than the present provision of using the original author’s designation of gender in those all-too-few cases where an author did designate or indicate a gender. 15. ICZN already recognizes the principle of considering variables as masculine in Article 30.a.i. (2): ‘“‘A noun of variable gender, masculine or feminine, is to be treated as masculine, unless its author states, when he first publishes the name, that it is feminine, or so treats it in combination with an adjectival specific name.” Such generic names as those in -odes / oides certainly qualify for consideration as nouns of variable gender, and not only masculine or feminine but neuter as well. 16. I would go further for the sake of regularity and ease of application of rules and propose that the above provision be pared down to simply: A noun (or substantivated adjective) of variable gender is to be treated as masculine. References ALLEN, J.H. & GREENOUGH, J.B. 1888. (revised by J.B. Greenough et al., 1903). New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges. Boston: Ginn and Co. 490 pp. BROWN, R.W. Composition of Scientific Words. Privately published, Baltimore, Md. 882 pp. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CHASE, W.J. 1926. The Ars Minor of Donatus. Univ. Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History, no, 11.55 pp. DANIELLI, D., SACCOMANNO, A. & TANTUCCI, V. 1959. Grammatica Latina. 6th ed. Bologna: Capelli Editore. 262 pp. GILDERSLEEVE, B.L. & LODGE, G. 1895. Latin Grammar. 3rd ed., revised. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd. HALE, W.G. & BUCK, C.D. 1903 (reprinted 1966). A Latin Grammar. University, Alabama: Univ. Alabama Press. 388 pp. SMYTH, H.W. 1920 (revised by G.M. Messing and reprinted 1956). Greek Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. 784 pp. STEARN, W.T. 1954. Proposal no. 117. Jn Proposals for Modification of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Taxon vol. 3 (2): 33-34. — 1966. Botanical Latin. London: Thomas Nelson, Ltd. and New York: Hafner Publ. Co. 566 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175 OPINION 1115 VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME NYSSON LATREILLE (HYMENOPTERA, SPHECIDAE) AS FROM 1796 RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the spelling Nysson, first published by Latreille in [1802), is hereby ruled to be a justified emendation of Nysso Latreille, 1796, with the author and date of the latter; (b) the stem of the generic name Nysson Latreille, 1796, for the purposes of Article 29, is hereby ruled to be NYSSON-. (2) The generic name Nysson Latreille, 1796 (gender, masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Shuckard, 1837, Sphex spinosus Forster, 1771, and as validated under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2067. (3) The specific name spinosus Forster, 1771, as published in the binomen Sphex spinosus (specific name of type-species of Nysson Latreille, 1796) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2648. (4) The family-group name NYSSONINAE (correction of “Nyssoniens”, ‘‘Nyssonii’”) Latreille, 1804 (type-genus Nysson Latreille, 1796, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 491. (5) The generic name Nysso Latreille, 1796, an incorrect Original spelling, through the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, of Nysson, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2094. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2055 An application by R.B. Benson, Ch. Ferriére and O.W. Richards for the validation of the spelling Nysson Latreille was first published in 1947 (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 1: 214) under the reference Z.N.(S.) 133, which was a collective reference for a number of Hymenopteran cases submitted by those authors. For lack of any further action it was struck out of the list in 1963 (Bull. vol. 20: 81). An enquiry as to the possibility of reopening the case was received from Dr Arnold Menke (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) on 14 August 1972. A new application, jointly written by Dr Menke, Dr R.M. Bohart (University of California, Davis) and Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Professor O.W. Richards was received on 23 September 1973. It was sent to the printer on 24 October 1973 and was published on 28 June 1974 in Bull. vol. 30: 217-218. 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 statutory periodicals (Constitution, Article 12b) and to eight entomological serials. Dr George Steyskal (a colleague of Dr Menke’s) pointed out that Nysson is a masculine participle used in its capacity as a generic name as a noun, and that its stem is properly Nyssont-. Since the family-group names based on Nysson have always been spelt with the stem NYSSON-, the plenary powers would have to be used to conserve this usage. Dr Henning Lemche (Buil. vol. 32: 30) proposed that the two formal proposals combined in para (1) of the application should be separated, with a consequential division of para (4). No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1977)26 for or against the proposals set out on p. 218 of vol. 30 of Bull. zool. Nom. as modified in Bull. vol. 32: 30. The Secretary drew attention to Dr Steyskal’s comment and added that, in his view, if the Commission approved the application, it would make Nysson a justified emendation of Nysso, with the author and date of the latter. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - sixteen (16), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis (in part), Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Nye, Heppell, Ride Negative Votes - Dupuis [as will be seen, this was counted as, in effect, an affirmative vote], Holthuis (in part) Leave of Absence: Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were received from Brinck and Habe. No votes were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: “I am against the use of the plenary powers to rule that the stem of Nysson is Nysson-. The Official List is the right place to cite names in their grammatically correct form. The change from the incorrect NYSSONIDAE to the correct NYSSONTIDAE will certainly cause no great confusion in nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ATT “T regret that in a previous Opinion the Commission refused to correct incorrectly formed family-group names that had been inadvertently placed on the Official List, though I can see the advantages of not unnecessarily changing names that are on the List. But to place names deliberately on the List knowing them to be incorrect is another matter. Please, therefore, count me as voting against the use of the plenary powers to rule that the stem of Nysson is Nysson-.” Eisenmann: ‘Although I do not think the emendation of Nysso to Nysson is justified under the extremely strict language of the present Code, I believe it is warranted under the plenary powers to preserve well established usage with the same author and date. For the same reason I approve the family-group name NYSSONINAE and the stem Nysson-.” Mroczkowski: ‘The original date for Nysson Latreille is [1802], not (1802-1803). Moreover I agree that our ruling should be that the author and date for Nysson is Latreille, 1796.” Cogger: “I concur with the Secretary that if this proposition is approved, the result will be that Nysson will date from Latreille, Dupuis: “‘Yadopte Nysson Latreille, 1796. Bien entendu, dans cette affaire simple, ot tous les entomologistes du passé ont jugé sainement, je vote contre le libellé inutilement compliqué de VOpinion tel qu’il nous est proposé. “Nul mignore que louvrage de Latreille 1796 a été pauvrement imprimé en province, dans les années difficiles de la Révolution. Il ne faut donc pas s’étonner s’il renferme des fautes typographiques. Les requérants ont effectivement envisagé ‘merely a typographical error’ et reconnu que Latreille n’a pas crée un nom ‘arbitrarily’; malgré cela, ils adoptent l’hypothése d’une émendation injustifiée. Tout au contraire, il me parait aisé de donner la preuve certaine (‘clear evidence’ demandée par Menke et al.) que Nysso est une erreur typographique (printer’s lapsus) pour Nysson et appelle, de ce fait, une émendation justifiée. “Tl est clair, en effet, qu’a tous ces noms nouveaux de 1796, tirés du grec, et qui se terminent par ‘on’, Latreille donne la méme graphie en latin et en francais (Cnodalon: 23, Trypoxylon: 121, Pemphredon: 128). L’exception, ‘Nysson-Nysso’ est donc bien une inadvertance (Art. 32a, ii). Nysson est ainsi la correction d’une orthographe originale latine incorrecte et, par conséquent, une émendation justifiée (Art. 33a, i) d’un nom qui doit conserver sa date originale. Parce que cette correction était évidente pour les gens lettrés de son époque, parce qu’elle était déja implicite en 1796 dans le nom francais Nysson, Latreille n’a pas jugé utile 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ultérieurement de perdre son temps a la souligner.”’ The Secretary wrote to M. Dupuis to point out that, although he had voted against the proposals, his vote was in favour of the note added to the voting paper. M. Dupuis replied that he was firmly opposed to any ruling which implied the suppression of Nysso or that Nysson was an unjustified emendation, and enquired (reasonably enough) whether he had been invited to vote on the original proposals or on the Secretary’s rider. Ride: ‘‘The consequential matters raised by the Secretary require a major modification in the application which should be reflected in the Opinion. In particular, Nysso Latreille, 1796 would not be suppressed. I agree with the Secretary’s rider and in consequence ask that the Opinion declare Nysson Latreille to be a justified emendation of Nysso Latreille and placed on the Official List in that form.” The Secretary replied to Dr Ride that, in his view, there was no evidence that Nysso Latreille, 1796 was anything other than a correct original spelling which could be disposed of only by the use of the plenary powers - either to suppress it, or to rule that Nysson is a justified emendation. Dr Sabrosky, who had seen copies of M. Dupuis’ letter and of the correspondence with Dr Ride, wrote as follows: Sabrosky: “I see no reason to call Nysson a justified emendation. I see nothing in the original publication itself to show that Nysso is anything but a properly proposed name. All the other evidence adduced in support of Nysson depends on knowledge of grammar, later usage by Latreille, usage by others than Latreille, all of which is esoteric knowledge for which one must depend on other sources. I voted for Nysson, but under suspension of the rules. We do not know whether dropping the final n was a printer’s error, or whether Latreille changed his mind on the advice of scholars. “After reading the letters by the Secretary and M. Dupuis, I examined Latreille (1796) more carefully, and am more than ever convinced that Nysso can only be considered a correct original spelling, hence requiring suspension for a change. M. Dupuis cites the names where -on is the termination of both French and Latin forms of names, and he considers from these that the ‘Nysson- Nysso’ instance was an error that should have correctly been ‘Nysson-Nysson’. However, I believe it is more reasonable to believe that Latreille (at that time) intended Nysso, to correspond with a great deal of usage by earlier authors. So, in his 1796 work, Latreille used the following with the French in -on and the Latin in 0: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179 Bibion-Bibio Nysson-Nysso Cebrion-Cebrio Papillon-Papilio Charanson-Curculio Rhagion-Rhagio Ciron-Siro Scorpion-Scorpio Frelon-Crabro Tenebrion-7enebrio Mulion-Mulio “In other words, there is plenty of precedent for names ending in -o. I note also that in synonymy under Nysson-Nysso Latreille cites ‘Crabro Fab. Oliv.’, and one can well believe that he proposed Nysso to agree with Crabro. “T have no objection to the adoption of Nysson at this late date in the taxonomy of Hymenoptera, but it will have to be done by the use of the plenary powers in respect of the original spelling, Nysso.”’ ; 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: Nysso Latreille, 1796, Préc. Car. gén. Ins. :125 Nysson Latreille, [1802] , Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., vol. 3: 340 NYSSONINAE (as ‘‘Nyssoniens”, ‘‘Nyssonii’’) Latreille, 1804, Déterville’s Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. 24: 178, 180 spinosus, Sphex, Forster, 1771, New Sp. Ins. : 87 The following is the original reference to a designation of type-species accepted in the present Opinion: of Sphex spinosus Forster, 1771, as type-species of Nysson Latreille, 1796, by Shuckard, 1837, Essay Indig. Fossorial Hym. : 99 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (77)26 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. 1115. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 May 1978 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1116 ACANTHOMYS LEUCOPUS GRAY, 1867 (MAMMALIA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name terraereginae Alston, 1879, as published in the binomen Mus terraereginae, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name leucopus Gray, 1867, as published in the binomen Acanthomys leucopus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2649. (3) The specific name terraereginae Alston, 1879, as published in the binomen Mus terraereginae, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1042. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1724 An earlier abortive application in this case by Calaby, Horner & Taylor in 1966 (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 22: 330-331) was revived by Dr W.D.L. Ride in 1973. His paper was received on 5 July 1973, was sent to the printer on 24 October 1973, and was published on 30 June 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 175-176. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case, having been given on the earlier occasion, was not repeated in the Bulletin, but was sent to the statutory serials (Constitution Art. 12b) and to two mammalogical serials. Dr Lemche commented that if, as seemed desirable, the Commission validated Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867, under its plenary powers, then no action was called for concerning the junior synonym Mus terraereginae. In reply, Dr Ride wrote as follows to the Secretary: “1. The case of Acanthomys leucopus. . . was reviewed by me in the light of the amendments to Art. 59 made at Monaco subsequent to Calaby, Horner & Taylor’s application. In paragraph 6 of my review I asked - (i) for the Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress the name M. terraereginae Alston, 1879; and (ii) for the Commission to designate under Art. 59b(i) A. leucopus Gray, 1867, to be the valid name of the species for which A. leucopus and M. terraereginae are objective synonyms - the latter being a replacement name for the former Bull zool Nomencl vol 3% part 3 February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 **2. Commissioner Eisenmann wrote to me on 30 August 1974 as follows: ‘I thoroughly agree that under Code Art. 59b (i) leucopus Gray should be ruled revived and the current valid name, even though validly rejected by Alston in 1877 when he transferred it to Mus. What troubles me is that part of your proposal asking for suppression of terraereginae, which seems to me unnecessary and undesirable, and in principle inconsistent with the treatment of replacement names in Art. 59b (i). I would leave it as a junior synonym, available if in the future mammalogists should decide once more that the Australian and American mammals should be deemed congeneric.’ ' “3. | agree that if A. leucopus becomes the valid name under Art. 59b(i) there is no special reason for the suppression of Mus terraereginae Alston, 1879. But there is little likelihood of its ever coming into use through secondary homonymy, because A. leucopus has a junior subjective synonym, Hapalotis personata Krefft, 1868, which is available and has priority over Mus terraereginae Alston. I therefore formally withdraw my proposals concerning Mus terraereginae Alston, 1879. “4. In this case, use by the Commission of Art. 59b(i) does not require the use of the plenary powers. I therefore ask the Commission to rule, (i) that the specific name Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867, is the valid name of the objective synonyms A. leucopus and Mus terraereginae Alston, 1879; and (ii) that the name Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION : On 23 February 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on voting paper (77) 1 for or against the proposal relating to Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867, as set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 175-176 and as modified in an accompanying note in which the main points of Dr Ride’s letter quoted above were given. At the close of the voting period on 23 May 1977, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes - twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Alvarado, Tortonese, Rohdendorf, Mroczkowski, Willink, Heppell, Bayer, Kraus, Brinck, Binder, Corliss, Starobogatov, Ride, Dupuis, Nye, Cogger Negative Vote - Sabrosky. A late negative vote was returned by Professor Welch. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Sabrosky: “‘This cannot be voted on under the ordinary powers of the Commission, even under Article S9b(i). That provision says first that the ‘junior secondary homonym rejected before 1961 is permanently rejected’. Hence A. leucopus Gray is permanently rejected. But if use of the replacement name is contrary to existing usage, the junior secondary homonym may be restored subject to reference to the Commission which may use its plenary powers ‘if necessary’. Use of those powers is certainly necessary to restore a permanently rejected name. Nevertheless, if a two-thirds majority of the votes is in favour of the action requested, I will accept it as a plenary powers decision, in view of the fact that use of the plenary powers was originally requested, and I would vote in favour.” Ride: “Since the issue of the voting paper and its accompanying note, Dr Sabrosky has drawn my attention to an ambiguity in Art. 59b(i). It is not clear whether the statement ‘by use of the plenary powers if necessary’ is a direction to use those powers where the replacement name is nevertheless valid. Accordingly, if a majority adequate to apply the plenary powers is reached, I consider that it would be desirable to seek authority from the Commission, under the One-Month Rule, to apply them.” As a majority sufficient to apply the plenary powers had been reached in V.P.(77)1, the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the One-Month Rule on V.P.(O.M.) (77)6 on 22 November 1977 for or against using the plenary powers in the case. At the close of the voting period on 22 Se 1977 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes - fourteen (14) received in he following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Corliss, Ride, Eisenmann, Tortonese, Alvarado, Vokes, Sabrosky, Mroczkowski, Binder, Nye, Bayer Negative Votes - two (2): Heppell, Cogger. Late affirmative votes were returned by Willink, Welch and Starobogatov. Mr Heppell commented: “I should like to believe the use of the plenary powers was unnecessary in such a case, but if there is any residual doubt, the general principle concerning their use should certainly be incorporated into the new edition of the Code.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: leucopus, Acanthomys, Gray, 1867, Proc. zool. Soc. London, for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 1867: 598 terraereginae, Mus, Alston, 1879, Proc. zool. Soc. London, for 1879: 646. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on voting papers (1977)1 and (1977)(O.M.)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in the former voting paper has been 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. 1116. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 June 1978 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COLUBER CHIAMETLA SHAW, 1802 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): REVIVED PROPOSAL FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1704 By Hobart M. Smith and Rozella B. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA) In 1965 one of us (H.M.S.) presented a proposal for the suppression of Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802, on the grounds that it was a nomen oblitum (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 235-6). The proposal was supported by Professor Carl Gans but opposed by the late James L. Peters (1967, Bull. 24: 138). He claimed that the junior name involved, Drymobius margaritiferus (Schlegel, 1837), had not been referred to outside the systematic literature, and only rarely in that literature. Thus the changes of name (for two subspecies, from D. wmargaritiferus margaritiferus and D.m. fistulosus Smith, 1942 to D. chiametla chiametla and D.c. margaritiferus) would soon be accepted by the few specialists concerned. A reply (Bull. 24: 269) mentioned the existence of about 125 references to margaritiferus in the literature relating to Mexico and Guatemala alone (the species ranges from southern Texas to northern South America). It is perhaps the commonest snake in lowland Mexico and is represented by large numbers of specimens in museums and zoos. It is admittedly true that it is little known outside the systematic and zoogeographical literature except for a few ecological works. 2. The revised Articles 23 and 79 adopted by the Monaco Congress in 1972 require two conditions to be met before a prima facie case can be presented to the Commission for the suppression of an unused senior synonym: affirmation that the senior name has not been used as a valid name for the past 50 years, and that the threatened junior name has been used in at least 10 different works by five different authors during the same period. As the original proposal in this case came from our laboratories, it is incumbent on us to complete the documentation necessary for consideration of the case by the Commission. 3. Usage of the senior synonym.- We know of only four usages of the specific name chiametla as a valid name after its first proposal: two by Merrem (1820: 135; 1822: 594), and one by Wagler (1824: 14) all, as first pointed out by Gans (1964: 35), as Natrix chiametla; and one by Boie (1827: 533) as Coluber chiametla in a comment on Merrem, 1820. The only other citations Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 of the name have followed Gans’ rediscovery of its misuse by Wagler for Liophis miliaris (Linnaeus, 1758), the references cited above in connection with this application, and further discussion of this case by Peters and Orejas-Miranda, 1970. In none of these was the name adopted as a valid name. 4. We can therefore state without reservation that the name chiametla has not been used as a valid name for the past 145 years, during which time its junior synonym Herpetodryas margaritiferus Schlegel, 1837 (now transferred to Drymobius) has consistently been applied to the same species. 5. Usage of the junior synonym.- It might be construed as prejudicial if we were to cite usages of D. margaritiferus subsequent to 1965, when the issue of the priority of Coluber chiametla was first raised and therefore maintenance of current usage was required. We therefore cite only a few of the more influential usages before that date: Amaral, 1929: 155; Alvarez del Toro, 1960: 158, 202; Ditmars, 1936: 188, 203; Bogert & Oliver, 1945: Be ae: Duellman, 1965: 651-679; Schmidt, 1953: 192; Schmidt & Davis, 1941: 131; Smith & Taylor, 1945: 57; Shelford, 1963: 440; Stuart, 1963: 27; and Taylor, 1951: 89. These works include monographs, checklists, synoptic reviews and semipopular works. Well over a hundred other references could be found if desired. 6. We therefore ask the Commission (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name chiametla Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber chiametla, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name margaritiferus Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Herpetodryas margaritiferus; (3) to place the specific name chiametla Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber chiametla, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ALVAREZ del TORO, M., 1960. Los reptiles de Chiapas. Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, Mexico, Inst. Zool. del Estado. 204 pp., 111. AMARAL, A. do, 1929. Estudos sébre ophidios neotropicos. XVIII. Lista remissiva das ophidios do regiao neotropica. Mem. Inst. Butantan, vol. 4: i-viii, 129-271. BOGERT, C.M. & OLIVER, J.A. 1945. A preliminary analysis of the herpeto- fauna of Sonora. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 83 (6): 297-426, figs. 1-13, pls. 30-37, 2 maps. 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BOIE, F., 1827. Bemerkungen ueber Merrem’s Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Erste Lieferung: Ophidier. Jsis v. Oken, vol. 20: 508-566. DITMARS, R., 1936. The reptiles of North America. New York, Doubleday Doran. xvi, 476 pp., 135 pl. DUELLMAN, W.E., 1965. A biogeographic account of the herpetofauna of Michoacan, México. Univ. Kansas Publs. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 15: 627-709, figs. 1-5, pls. 29-36. GANS, C., 1964. A redescription of, and geographic variation in, Liophis miliaris Linné, the common water snake of south eastern South ; America. Am. Mus. Novit., (2178): 1-58, figs. 1-23. MERREM, B., 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien (Tentamen Systematis Amphibiorum). Marburg. xv, 191 pp., | pl. 1822. Tentamen systematis amphibiorum. J/sis v. Oken, vol. 15: 688-704. PETERS, J.A., 1967. Comment on the proposed rejection of Coluber chiametia Shaw, 1802. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 24: 138. —— & OREJAS-MIRANDA, B.R., 1970. Catalogue of the neotropical Squamata: Part 1. Snakes. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 297: i-viii, 1-347, ill. SCHMIDT, K.P., 1953. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. 6th ed. Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press. viii, 280 pp. —__— & DAVIS, D.D., 1941. Field book of snakes of the United States and Canada. New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons. xiii, 354 pp., 103 figs., 34 pls. SHELFORD, V:E., 1963. The ecology of North America. Urbana, Illinois, Univ. Illinois Press. xxii, 610 pp., ill. SMITH, H.M., 1965. Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802 (Reptilla [sic]: Serpentes): proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 22: 235- 236, pl. 5. iss 1967. Additional comment on the proposed rejection of Coluber chiametla. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 24: 269. & TAYLOR, E.H., 1945. An annotated checklist and key to the snakes of Mexico. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 187 : i-iv, 1-239. STUART, L.C., 1963. A checklist of the herpetofauna of Guatemala. Misc. Publs. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, (122): 1-150, map, frontis. TAYLOR, E., 1951. A brief review of the snakes of Costa Rica. Kansas Univ. Sci. Bull., vol. 34: 3-188, figs. 1-7, pls. 1-23. WAGLER, J.G., 1824. Serpentum Brasiliensium species novae, ou histoire naturelle des ... publié par Jean de Spix. Monaco. viii, 75 pp. a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 STERNA CERULEA BENNETT, 1840 (AVES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N(S.) 2233 By Murray D. Bruce (8 Spurwood Road, Turramurra, N.S.W. 2074, Australia), D.T. Holyoak (Department of Geography, University of Reading, No. 2 Earley Gate, Whiteknights Road, Reading RG6 2AU, England) and J. - C. Thibault (15 Rue Daubenton, Paris V, France) This application is designed to preserve the long established and generally used specific name of Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840, Narr. Whaling Voy. 2: 248, a common and widespread tern of the tropical and subtropical Pacific Ocean that was described by Bennett from a specimen obtained at Christmas Island. It is currently placed in the genus Procelsterna and is known by the English name of Grey Noddy. Sterna australis Gmelin, 1789, Syst. Nat. | (2): 608 (based on the Southern Tern of Latham, 1785, Gen. Synopsis Birds 3 (2): 365, from Christmas Island, Pacific Ocean) was identified for the first time by Stresemann (1950, Auk 67:78, 86). Stresemann pointed out that Sterna australis Gmelin is a senior synonym of Sterna cerulea Bennett, but he did not adopt the earlier name and he expressly recommended that Bennett’s name should be retained in the interests of uniformity and stability of usage. The name Sterna australis Gmelin has not been used for the species by any one, so far as we are aware. 2. The Grey Noddy has been universally known by the name Sterna cerulea Bennett for over a century. A sample of the literature for the last fifty years makes the scale of its usage apparent (Appendix1). 3. Revival of Sterna australis Gmelin, 1789, in place of Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840, would disturb the stability and universality of usage of Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840. Articles 23 (a, b) and 79 (b) provide that where a junior name has been used for 50 years or more to the exclusion of the senior synonym, by at least five authors in ten publications, a prima facie case exists for rejecting the senior synonym. The list of publications in Appendix 1 demonstrates such established usage of Sterna cerulea Bennett. In. accordance with Article 80, Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840, should be maintained as the valid name until the decision of the Commission is published. ee ", Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3. February 1979 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. We have considered the alternative solution of giving Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840, nomenclatural precedence over Sterna australis Gmelin, 1789. The only advantage to be gained from that procedure would be if the Grey Noddy were found to consist of several sibling species. As the type-locality for both nominal species is the same (Christmas Island), and as the Grey Noddy has been investigated in detail, we hold that it would be simpler to suppress the unused senior synonym S. australis. 5. We are currently preparing a check-list of the birds of the tropical Pacific giving distributional information (Bruce) and a handbook to the birds of the south-east Pacific (Holyoak and Thibault) and consequently we request a prompt decision on this question. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is accordingly requested: (1) to suppress by exercise of the plenary powers the specific name australis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Sterna australis Gmelin, 1789, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name australis Gmelin, 17/89, as published in the binomen Sterna australis Gmelin, 1789, (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above), on the Official Index of Specific Names Rejected in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name cerulea Bennett, 1840, as published in the binomen Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Appendix 1 1927, Mathews, Syst. Av. Australas. vol. 1: 144, 145. 1928, Alexander, Bds. of the Ocean: 135. 1934, Peters, Check-list Bds. World vol. 2: 345. 1944, Munro, Bds. Hawaii: 62. 1945, Mayr, Bds. southwest Pacific: 26. 1951. Baker, Univ. Kansas Publs., Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 3: 164. 1959, Moynihan, Amer. Mus. Novit. 1928: 24, 38. 1960, Gallagher, Jbis vol. 102: 49.6, 502. 1967, King, Preliminary Smithsonian Identification Manual: Seabirds of the tropical Pacific Ocean: 81. 1970, Schreiber and Ashmole, Jbis vol. 112: 364, 365, 380, 386, 389. 1973, Thibault, Alauda vol. 41: 114, 117, 304, 305, 311. 1974, Holyoak, Oiseau, Rev. fr. d’Orn. vol. 44: 157. 1975, Holyoak, Oiseau, Rev. fr. d’Orn. vol. 45: 231. 1976, duPont, South Pacific Bds.: 64. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 REQUEST FOR THE CONSERVATION OF CONUS FERGUSONI G.B. SOWERBY III, 1873, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (GASTROPODA: CONIDAE). Z.N{(S.) 2239 By John K. Tucker (/05 E. Fayette, Effingham, Illinois 62401, U.S.A.) For many years malacologists have used the binomen Conus fergusoni G.B. Sowerby III, 1873: 145, based on “several specimens collected at Panama by Mr Ferguson”’ for a common and distinctive species of Panamic cone shell (the term “‘Panamic” indicates the Pacific side of the isthmus). However, a review of the identity of certain poorly known species of Conus reveals that C. fulvocinctus Crosse, 1872: 214, described from the B. Thomas collection, “Habitat ad littora Africae occidentalis’, is a senior synonym of C. fergusoni. 2. Conus fulvocinctus Crosse has previously been considered a valid species of West African distribution (Tomlin, 1937; Wagner and Abbott, 1967). These authors apparently based their identifications on Crosse’s (1872) citation of West Africa as the type-locality. However, examination of a photograph (courtesy of the British Museum, Natural History) of the holotype of C. fulvocinctus indicates that the type-locality is erroneous since the holotype of C. fulvocinctus is a specimen of the species later described as C. fergusoni G.B. Sowerby III. The only West African species that C. fulvocinctus is even remotely similar to is C. ambiguus Reeve. There is little possibility that the holotype of C. fulvocinctus is conspecific with C. ambiguus Reeve. The following differences in shell morphology were noted in a comparison of the photograph of the holotype of C. fulvocinctus to a series of C. ambiguus (25 specimens collected from Senegal, Cape Verde Islands, and Angola). The largest specimen of C. ambiguus that I have seen or that has been mentioned in the literature was 51 mm long and most specimens are 25—45 mm long. The holotype of C. fulvocinctus is well over 70 mm long, a size that is commonly reached and exceeded by C. fergusoni. Further the holotype of C. fulvocinctus and specimens of C. fergusoni do not have the scattered spiral ridges on the body whorl and the well developed spiral cords on the spire whorls which are present in C. ambiguus. The spire whorls of the latter are marked by irregular brown flammules or blotches whereas those of C. fulvocinctus are not so Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature marked. The holotype of C. fulvocinctus has a light brown band below the shoulder. Indistinct bands such as this are commonly found on specimens of C. fergusoni of this size (Nybakken, 1970). While C. ambiguus may have irregular areas of brown on an otherwise white shell none of the specimens I have examined or seen figured in the literature have these brown areas restricted to a band below the shoulder. 3. Conus fulvocinctus has been used as a valid name at least twice in the last fifty years (see Tomlin, 1937 and Wagner and Abbott, 1967) and cannot be said to be a nomen oblitum. However, the name is functionally obsolete since it has never been correctly associated by subsequent authors with the Panamic cone shell upon which it was based. 4. The binomen Conus fergusoni, however, has been consistently applied to the Panamic species from the time Sowerby proposed the name up to the present time (see Abbott, 1974; Dall, 1910; Emerson and Old, 1962; Hanna, 1963; Hanna and Strong, 1949; Hill, 1959; Keen, 1958; Marsh, 1968; Melvin, 1966; Nybakken, 1970; Sowerby, 1887 for instance). Although I was not able to locate the holotype of C. fergusoni, Sowerby’s description and figure are consistent only with the Panamic species and subsequent authors have undoubtedly identified the species correctly. 5. Since the name C. fergusoni has been universally applied to the Panamic species and since the revival of the forgotten name C. fulvocinctus for the Panamic species would disrupt nomenclatural stability in a genus already badly beset with nomenclatural problems, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name fulvocinctus Crosse, 1872, as published in the binomen Conus flavocinctus, is not to be given priority over the specific name fergusoni G.B. Sowerby III, 1873, as published in the binomen Conus fergusoni, by anybody who believes those two names to be synonyms; (2) to place the specific name fulvocinctus Crosse, 1872, as published in the binomen Conus fulvocinctus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name fergusoni G.B. Sowerby III, 1873, as published in the binomen Conus fergusoni, by anybody who believes the two names to be synonyms; (3) to place the specific name fergusoni G.B. Sowerby Ill, 1873, as published in the binomen Conus fergusoni, on Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name fulvocinctus Crosse, 1872, as published in the binomen Conus fulvocinctus, by anybody who believes the two names to be synonyms. REFERENCES ABBOTT, R.T., 1974. American seashells. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 663 pp. CROSSE, H., 1872. Descriptions d’espéces nouvelles. Journ. Conchyl. vol. 20 (ser. 3 vol. 12): 210—214. DALL, W. H, 1910. Summary of the shells of the genus Conus from the Pacific ‘coast of America in the U.S. National Museum. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. vol. 38: 217—228. EMERSON, W.K., & OLD, W.E., JR., 1962. Results of the Puritan-American Museum of Natural History expedition to western Mexico 16. The recent mollusks: Gastropoda, Conidae. Amer. Mus. Novitates no. 2112, 44 pp. HANNA, G.D., 1963. West American mollusks of the genus Conus II. Occas. Papers California Acad. Sci. no. 35, 103 pp. HANNA, G.D., & STRONG, A.M., 1949. West American mollusks of the genus Conus. Proc. California Acad. Sci., ser. 4 vol. 26: 247—322. HILL, H.R., 1959. The cone shells of tropical west America. Veliger vol. 2: 30-32. KEEN, A.M., 1958. Sea shells of tropical west America. Marine mollusks from Lower California to Colombia. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford. viii + 624 pp. MARSH, J.A., 1968. Cone shells of the world. Jacaranda Press, Brisbane. 185 pp. MELVIN, A.G., 1966. Sea shells of the world. Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc Rutland, Vermont. 167 pp. NYBAKKEN, J., 1970. Radular anatomy and systematics of the west American Conidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Amer. Mus. Novitates no. 2414, 29 pp. SOWERBY, G.B., III, 1873. Descriptions of five new cones. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1873: 145—146. SOWERBY, G.B., III, 1887. Thesaurus, second supplement to monograph of the genus Conus. vol. 5: 247—275. TOMLIN, J.R. LE B., 1937. Catalogue of Recent and fossil cones. Proc. Malacol. Soc. London vol. 22: 205—330. WAGNER, RJ.L., & ABBOTT, R.T., (eds.) 1967. Standard catalog of shells 2nd Ed. D. van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, New Jersey. xi + 303 pp. er C4 TT, cy aOM Li esl, . bere nip ritfiye pave oRaicopeg STiigig Beto Sich yt! Melo wp band”? sitt “esyo! Sonbiaedg! edeiguideed bi deseo nemoees com ni’ desvia! aang wae, et poetor Tr wavambow hay tena Obijiasek en, igo. othe (cba yap igh respieagisbabial, mol neerud? 40 we an an Otherwye wikis eNOS ot eomipa twenty chasiséxamined or. mes \! eee a Unt | Abseieter have. Tigse brown Brees rostnioted: to a F 4 ie Sd bel Ww tne Si ale ey 23M ASS: a8 Te ¥ wel oBMORnen Papsncth ony fas "eetn ARE Pay etc St \ , : o8 bas us reaeyy ) a a wapligty ot, toa ht det 2h -* t tu, lewis. view 4 . iS Gls - Mis vt . ace L -. af, on du) ‘al sce ant HY isi i ‘i mY eereepe Sef cay Ane eve We eit MEP ty pay +4 Dt itt a5 et > ngntyeren Aan) thf act Ha? a res +s te Sew ot EE SRR NE ies lt cy Hes Pisani YOM Oe tad pent ieee oT eben Ward oN 1 cae, We oe eb GSD pata ital 2 eat event rye Yh Pa a! wine, 3 » EW. a nes AAD | Seeger b REY 98 Aiincwal elite a oa/ del ges eet " Mbiieh A 4”, ; Ge mn vad eo tt hal twtn, ee reer ra ebtaleerort summer he Hy. U8 Vs ch OR REM, it? Be * A ren & 1 eae L gan ia 44, Rel? wie Halt) An), dai A alee ns eo BANS aa 5 ae rege? (3 red “evi sy3 "2 JE A phish eb ae ie ae ee nm . a he a owe eaiftoyn ital’ woth mat yes eotyou Yo abede + tn .wmoine® pee FAT tre eh ed ED ot La atu nie aly OG iC i? reviva fF gait 78 asthe 28 eB iw soa 16 eo whe pant aut ag muey’ a 6 pet caaty ecqiv sdat wth a enn ahs one Saas i sn ume Lo ERytes wrens yeah, Meg moet | is raquested + ee va see 2h zim iia ilies 2 a, RRs elie sau, Sp a ant ac rei) via uote he 465 We wi ' La wt -\weX ak 2 enh dake: a el Serr the 7 ae ote Wweaahc’ Tarne ferris: 4 PY moeree © q Le sig wragentnsn Gk NRL SS ag te ~_ naxpumnaind P88 FAN et | who Delleves those [Rt afeitt a eee eh 2H) — erty 3 ae fa) FER a chsh Pe ia f ALB b Bet Cane ea momen on: me pre : sie iy heh : siieceta: name Ferguson ks 50 wetty bit ihe r BE whhabed in the hincimen Camus: fergus0td. oy J whe hehewes the iyo named tobe, ayonyins; 3) i © the specifle namie ferpasant 4,8. Ge snotty (473, as piybiidhed tx the hinonwn Cones fe CONTENTS ih 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 .... Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary TS 1 COREA CARO cose = Sate ws he ara S Sse swears IM IIUITICEMACTIER fo) 6 hc) ie OE ene div do v's dive ae Ons International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: Financial Report and Accounts for 1977 .............. OPINIONS Opinion 1115, Nysson Latreille, (Hymenoptera, SPHECIDAE): reaped as fret 17 OO oS 5 «odes aw ore eee wh oe ate Opinion 1116. Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia); validated under the plenary powers .....46%.......-2-. NEW AND REVIVED CASES Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802 (Reptilia, Serpentes); revived proposal for suppression under the plenary powers Rage aamiaeride TA. STALE). 5 5 e-s hee ase sns Seo ala pollo ole Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840 (Aves): proposed conservation under the plenary powers (M.D. Bruce, D.T. Holyoak & een EEANSEE 2) 5.4" 26'< ihre ser rote awe toca ise aes Beate Conus fergusoni G.B. Sowerby, III, 1873 (Gastropoda, CONIDAE): proposed conservation under the plenary DER TAS POCRCE NS. ft ete, . Ge nde oom uae gee COMMENTS Comments from zoologists on Draft Third Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (R.B. Clark; G.C. Steyskal; B. Bolton and others; H. Silfverberg; M. Mroczkowski and others; K.H.L. Key; mee eaiitiaen: LOW BS BE) ia: acco < donee Wide a owiscw wis aoe 8 Proposal to adopt the concept that types are types of names W.D.L. Ride & €.W. Sabrosky;. K.H.L.. Key; D.H. Colless; C.W. Wright; R.V. Melville) ............. Gender of substantivated adjectives; with proposed simplification of Article 30a (1) (G.C. Steyskal) ........ Page L29 129 131 {32 175 180 184 187 189 136 156 Z Pitta tet. ; is { © 1a oy = hha . Me. - if sa “thy c's) ee 2TVaTYOD sl a sye% a ' aa vegoloss Xo decent lntvolinrstil st vd beditaestg gaat noteztmste Jtenoitematal at vd tnamsonsmarea Io sia enoiiesiiggs no° gator to #witslonsrot! lsaigolooS a0 | = Off ..<. wylelkamo insigoioo’S Yo nivellyS ods ini Hed | \lsnelisnzetal sdf yd sen sidkeoq “ol? Io: (Some visnalg asi. Yo- ssutsionomoy! InigolooS no. noleeimemoD HIP Pe rg OY. A a 29289 mistt: nana ‘tae ~ es 211 STOOL, ; ‘wuirialomemo Mt Lane rolooS S Tor seuil tenonten BER ni odedads blv. \TVRE I stamessA Aine 008 Se 2VIOTARYO — i . ABACIIAHI2 enotgoniemgt) , offers sic 2ITt note OPE is. Seew ee % ~. OT wont 2 bstebiley | (eitemensi) tae! ¥BTO wyoousl eemotinm Al JOLTE SS al ee » mistog yisnslg or? ihn beh ZAZA) GAVIVIA AVA Wa 4 ai bevive w(estnoqtsd. ,silitqoH) <0Bt eae ali smmatis zaevog. wmansig, S13 wbet noieesxqquz- 20} Lsaog | ae ee iy) Etter a2. G51 & dine ‘Mi nodmneeno> bseoqorg AeavA) ORL tonne sin yrs & steoyiott TF. sound ..M) exewoq ‘visnelq sit — SO cat ls oa) aed sae’ ES EPs (ilveditT ane inbogowasD) ever a eae og 40 we aia of} ohir aailsvieenoo beeoqory a .. - S81. : o> ed we Ae 84205 stone ae ot 2 aoe a 2AVMNOOD (> of} Jo nobih tiidT Pex no aiaigo jobs morta susteiearmaA.-levigolooS to ebod Isactantaigin| -1edto ‘bas notich 4 staleysi2 “se chal? 2 VOR «J.B. Aserorio bis Idawodsoou .M grodsovthi2: i A ME i ae a so. sete ne ce een MWS :emige 3 coma 16 geqyt ors soqiyt jerh ees. oft gobs. Of: vod «LEA jvoleonisd obhiA =|. La a er Por (olitvioh .V. A eirighnW .W.0.,evalloD ARR hayodesg. -ditw jeoviosibe bsiivinstedue to 3 eee (ladzeysde..D OAT) AOE. olsticA 20, gaton ne 4 ae Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the only regular source of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of donations and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. © 1979 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Norman Carter at 11 Broad Street, Teddington, Middlesex. Volume 35, Part 4 31st MAY 1979 pp. 193 — 266 T.P.I — VIII THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A ie \ “ The Official Organ of o¢ ye % \S % > } THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON Neat ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LONDON: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD ISSN 0007-5167 Price Four Pounds (All rights reserved) THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ‘ % os % A. The Officers of the Commission Keo x) President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. 1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History) 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 SBD) (30 January 1968) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (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 Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin - cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucumén, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Instituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departmento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof.E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, CH 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, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) 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, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. Ms MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut 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) Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (Department of Science and the Environment, Central Office, Scarborough House, Phillip, P.O. Box 449, Woden, AC.T. 2606, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) (President) Diptera Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr.O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Troms6, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromso, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Mon. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Mr. N.D. Riley, C.B.E. Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G.F. deWitte B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ............00000. Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases.............. List.or Hew appucations 2. as. 2, 22 Jaina, Special:Announcements’ 2220)... SiGe... . Sew: Report Report of the Committee on Typification of Species of PESTOZGG «ss STE oe ee a sc Bed we Opinions Opinion 1117. Refusal of request for two rulings concerning the names of species of Sphaerodac- Pus CROTUIA LACEPUNIA) 0 ect sc ees cee Opinion 1118. Conservation of Tribolbina carnegiei Latham. 1952 (Arachnida) £:.. eS eo ad 38 Opinion 1119. Amaurobius C.L. Koch, 1837, and Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 (Araneae): conserved under the plenary powers {0 ws. 3. ote. Opinion 1120. Noctua armigera Hubner, [1808] (Lepidoptera) coliserved’s o's SERS. Peed Opinion 1121. Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, designated under the plenary powers as type species of Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, VO ZL EEISCON cic chs win nue eric ee cree ees re ee Opinion 1122. Loligo opalescens Berry, 1911, given nomenclatural precedence over Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (Cephalopoda) ............. Opinion 1123. PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897, given nomenclatural precedence over PLATY- CHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (Mammalia) . . Opinion 1124. Lichia Cuvier, 1817 (Pisces) conserved . Page 193 £35 200 209 2h? 216 221 223 pe 4 | 229 233 New and Revived Cases Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Insecta, Hemiptera, BELOSTOMATIDAE); proposed conservation in place of Jliastus Gistel, [1847]. (Arnold TES ag er heey dl aa Peer bea? Toxostoma crissale ‘“‘Henry” [= Baird], 1858 (Aves: MIMIDAE); proposed conservation in place of Toxostoma dorsale; with a proposed addition to Article 32 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. (John P. Hubbard) .. Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863: proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers (Diptera; TACHINIDAE). (C.W. URS rss wg ae ore as ee ee Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782 (Crustacea, Decapoda); request for the use of the plenary powers to validate a neotype. (L.B. Holthuis) .. Chromodoris_ californiensis Bergh, 1879 (May): proposed conservation over Chromodoris glauca Bergh, 1879 (March) (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Crreeberrsc a B Bura)..... sb toca chews ae Comments Comment on the proposal to remove the homonymy of TETHYIDAE in gastropods, sponges and ascidians; (LB: Holthuis) s.5.< «23 ids VOSS Pee Comment on the proposal to place Hylobates lar (Linnaeus, 1771) (Mammalia: Primates) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (L.B. Holthuis. Reply by C.P. Groves) ........ Cataphractus punctatus Bloch, 1794 (Pisces). Comment on proposed invalidation of neotype. CE IAEUMIN oo ES din atte owe eit wee woe ee ae Further comment on SATURNIIDAE vs. ATTACIDAE (Insecta: Lepidoptera). (C.W. Sabrosky) ....... 236 239 243 248 253 196 197 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 35, part 4 (pp. 193—266, T.P., I—VIII) 31 May, 1979 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- stances 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) Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Belostomat- idae); proposed conservation in place of Jliastus Gistel, [1847] Z.N.(S.) 2161. (2) Toxostoma crissale ‘‘Henry” [= Baird], 1858 (Aves: MIMIDAE); proposed conservation in place of Toxostoma dorsale; with a proposed addition to Article 32 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Z.NAS.) 2215. (3) Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863: proposed desig- nation of a type species under the plenary powers (Diptera, TACHINIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2234. (4) Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782 (Crustacea, Decapoda): request for the use of the plenary powers to validate a neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2235. (5) Chromodoris californiensis Bergh, 1879 (May): proposed conversation over Chromodoris glauca Bergh, 1879 (March) (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2253. (c) The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 35(3) on 19 February, 1979. Those 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) * (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) *(11) *(12) (13) Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 (Primates: GALAGIDAE): proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the holotype and to designate a neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2285. (T.R. Olson). MEROPIDAE (Aves); proposed change of author and date (Direction 6). Z.N.(S.) 2286. (P.S. Tomkovich & G.N. Kashin). Geoemyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation. Z.N.S.) 2287. (H.M. Smith, C.H. Ernst & R.B. Smith). Polynoe Savigny, 1818 (Polychaeta}, type species of Z.N.(S.) 2288. (A. Muir). Rafinesque, 1822 ‘‘ On the turtles of the United States’’, proposed suppression. Z.N.(S.) 2289. (H.M. Smith, D. Chiszar & R.B. Smith). Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITIDAE), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2290. (J.A. Watson & F.J. Gay). Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, to be given precedence over Atechna Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2291. (H. Silfverberg). Geoffroy, 1762, ‘‘Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris”, proposed validation of 36 generic names in: (Crustacea, Arachnida, Insecta). Z.N.AS.) 2292. (I.M. Kerzhner). Helophorus Fabricius, 1775, (Coleoptera, HYDRO- PHILIDAE), validation of as correct original spelling: designation of type species: validation of emendations of names of subgenera. Z.N.(S.) 2293. (R.B. Angus). Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 (Araneae, SALTICIDAE) designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2294. (M.E. Galiano). Basterotia Mayer in Hdédrnes, 1859, proposed conservation: Raleta and Tomala Gray, 1842, proposed addition to Official Index (Mollusca, Bivalvia). Z.N.(S.) 2295. (H.E. Vokes). Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2296. (P.G. Allsopp). Rafinesquina Hall & Clarke, 1892, (Brachiopoda) proposed designation of type species for. Z.N.(S.) 2297. (W.L. Harmon). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ELECTION OF NEW MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION The following new members have been elected to the Commission by a vote under the Three-Month Rule terminating on 27 December 1978: Prof. Dr Gerhard Hahn (BRD — Palaeontology) in place of Prof. Dr Erben, resigned; Prof. Dr O. Halvorsen (Norway — Parasitology) in place of Dr H. Lemche (Denmark), deceased; Dr V.A. Trjapitzin (USSR — Entomology) in place of Dr B. Rohdendorf, deceased. CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE TRUST The Rt. Hon. the Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. has resigned from the Trust. Lt.-Col. F.J. Griffin, O.B.E. has resigned as Secretary and Managing Director (a post he had held since Francis Hemming’s resignation in 1958) and has been succeeded by Dr F.G.W. Jones, at present Deputy Director of Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts., U.K. Lt.-Col. Griffin remains an ordinary member of the Trust. VACANCIES ON THE COMMISSION On pages 66 and 131 of this volume nominations were invited for candidates to replace the five members of the Commission whose terms of service expire at the close of the meeting in August this year of the International Union of Biological Sciences. Nominations should be sent as soon as possible and should state the names, nationalities and fields of specialisation of the candidates, evidence of their willingness to serve, their curriculum vitae and list of publications. FINANCIAL HELP FOR THE COMMISSION It is a pleasure to record the receipt of subscriptions under the IUBS scheme from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Schweizerische Zoologische Gesellschaft and the Schweizerische Entomologische Gesellschaft. c/o British Museum (Natural History) R.V. MELVILLE Cromwell Road Secretary, International London SW7 5BD Commision on Zoological United Kingdom Nomenclature February 1979 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY OF TETHYIDAE IN GASTROPODS, SPONGES AND ASCIDIANS Z.NAS.) 1780 (see vol. 34: 247-251) By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands) I wish to make the following comments on this case: 1. The first designation of a type species for Tethya Lamarck, 1814 (Porifera) that I can find is by H. Milne Edwards, July 1849, in the Atlas of the Zoophytes in G. Cuvier’s Régne Animal (ed. 4, the Disciples’ editions), vol. 20 (1836-1849), pl. 95. This is the famous edition which is described on the title page as “Edition accompagnée de planches gravées, représentant les types de tous les genres’’, which the Commission has already accepted as a valid fixation of type species provided that the other requirements of the Code are met. On pl. 95, the genus ‘‘Thethya Lamarck”’ [sic] is represented by a single species, “Théthye orange. Thethya lyncurium Lamarck, Alcyonia aurantium Pallas”. As T. lyncurium is an originally included species of Tethya, its designation as type species by Milne Edwards is valid. (The date of the plate in question was determined by Cowan, 1976,J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist., vol. 8 (1): 41, 64). 2.I do not agree that Pyura chilensis Molina, 1782, is a nomen nudum. In Molina’s book (1782, vol. 1: 196) the definition of Pyura gen. nov. is first given. On p. 348 this definition is repeated and immediately followed by “‘1. Pyura Chilensis”. In my opinion this is clearly a description of a new genus with a single new species and the description of the genus fits the species. Pyura chilensis is thus an available name, and the name of the type species, by monotypy, of the genus Pyura at that. (Note by the Secretary: Dr Holthuis is undoubtedly right on both his points. The effect on my proposals to the Commission is as follows: Under (2) (a), for “by subsequent designation by Topsent, 1920” read “by subsequent designation by Milne Edwards, 1849”. Under (2) (b), read ‘“Pyura Molina, 1782 (gender, feminine), type species, by monotypy, Pyura chilensis Molina, 1782”. Under (3) (b), read ‘“chilensis Molina, 1872, as published in the binomen Pyura chilensis ...” (remainder unchanged). I am grateful to Dr Monniot for confirming that the species figured by Schacht (1851, Arch. Anat. Phys. wiss. Med. , Jahrg. 1851, pl. 6, figs. 8-10) and named by Miller (ibid., : 201 footnote) Cynthia chilensis, is indeed the species known today by the name Pyura chilensis and is the only large ascidian that lived in Chilean coastal waters in Molina’s day. R.V.M.) Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO PLACE HYLOBATES LAR (LINNAEUS, 1771) (MAMMALIA: PRIMATES) ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1844 (see vol. 34: 75—79) By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuulijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) There is nothing in Linnaeus’s original description that makes it necessary to restrict the lectotype to the two (or three) figures cited by Linnaeus. The specimens figured are certainly syntypes, but there must be at least five syntypes in all, since Linnaeus cites five localities. Thus the largest (or the smallest) specimen from Malacca could be made the lectotype, although this, without having seen the specimen or even a figure of it, would be inelegant, even if legal. Dr Groves’s request to the Commission to fix the name Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771 to the Malayan white-handed gibbon, with type-locality Malacca, cannot be granted until the concept ‘Malayan white-handed gibbon’ is fixed by a type specimen. A nominal species must be defined by a type-specimen, not by a vernacular name. The best solution is for Dr Groves to select a neotype for Homo lar so as to conserve existing usage. If he does this within the terms of Article 75 he can attain this part of his objective without the help of the Commission. Reply by C.P. Groves I am grateful to Dr Holthuis for having simplified the problem of Homo lar. 1 hereby designate a neotype under the provisions of Article 75 as follows: (1) The characters I regard as differentiating the Malayan white- handed gibbon are stated by Groves, 1972, in Rumbaugh (edit.) Gibbon and Siamang, vol. 1: 74-75. (2) The neotype is British Museum (Natural History) no. 55.1488, adult skin and skull from Bukit Cheraka, Klang, Jeran, Selangor coast (lat. 13° 11’ N, long. 101° 19’ E). Though small for an adult, this specimen approaches Buffon’s plate 3 in having the fur on the upper legs noticeably paler than the medium brown of the general fur. (3) So far as I know, there is no question of any of the specimens on which Linnaeus’s synonymy is based surviving in any collection. (4) The specimen is consistent with Buffon’s plate 3. However, since the reference to that figure was queried by Linnaeus, I must respectfully differ from Dr Holthuis and ask for the help of the Commission using its plenary powers to ratify my designation. (5) The locality falls within the Malacca of Linnaeus’s day (the locality given for the specimen figured in Buffon’s plate 3). (6) See (2) above. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr P.H. Napier has examined the neotype here designated and confirms that it is a suitable specimen. I therefore wish to replace paragraph 10 (1) (a) of my application by the following: (a) to ratify the neotype for Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771, designated herein. CATAPHRACTUS PUNCTATUS BLOCH, 1794 (PISCES). COMMENT ON PROPOSED INVALIDATION OF NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.) 1950 By R.V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (see vol. 32, p. 63) In a letter dated 15 May 1975, Professor Ernst Mayr criticised this application because (a) it did not show the existence of a confused zoological problem such as would validate the original neotype-designation, and (b) it gave no supporting evidence that the alleged syntypes were really the specimens on which Bloch had based his name — an important point in view of the failure of many eminent scientists to recognize Bloch’s specimens in the Berlin collections. If the first criticism were upheld, then clearly the original neotype- designation by Nijssen & Isbriicker (1967) would be invalid under the Code, and no action by the Commission would be called for. However, that paper, as well as the work by Nijssen, 1970, cited in the application, clearly shows that a confused taxonomic problem did indeed exist, and that progress was impossible until the identity of Bloch’s species was settled. If the second criticism were upheld, then the Commission might be in danger of taking a decision on invalid grounds, even if it was called upon to take a decision at all. I therefore wrote to Dr Nijssen about Professor Mayr’s second criticism, and he replied on 5 June 1975 as follows: “In a letter of 10 July 1970 (copy enclosed) Dr Karrer stated that in the registration files of the Berlin Museum two specimens of Cataphractus punctatus Bloch were registered as types with the catalogue number 3149. We have no reasons to doubt this. Dr Karrer is recataloguing the collection of Bloch. She undoubtedly knows more about the Berlin collection than anybody else. Since the specimens involved do not contradict the information given by Bloch, there seems no reason to doubt their origin, together with the information given by Dr Karrer. The species is known only from Surinam. No specimens of early date were found in other collections, except for one specimen coll. K. Heller, 1915, identified by F. Steindachner’’. am Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 FURTHER COMMENT ON SATURNIIDAE vs. ATTACIDAE (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTERA) Z.N.(S.) 1997 By Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) In Bull. zool. Nom., published on 31st March 1977 (vol. 33: 139-142), Lemaire has opposed the application by Sabrosky & Ferguson for precendence of the family name SATURNIIDAE over ATTACIDAE (1975, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 32: 149-153). One cannot but admire his strong belief in the Official List and the actions of the Commission, and his initial albeit reluctant adoption of the name ATTACIDAE was based on that belief. However, Lemaire has overlooked the heart of the application. The family name ATTACIDAE was placed on the Official List in contravention of proper procedure. Notice of the proposal to place ATTACIDAE on the Official List was never published in the Bulletin, and zoologists were never given an opportunity to comment. An action taken in this way has no merit and merits no respect. It was not solely a question of the Commission being “insuffisamment informée” as to the existence of an earlier name, as Lemaire stated; zoologists were given no chance at all to inform the Commission of the earlier name and above all of its preponderant usage. In my opinion, justice demands that the Commission rectify this mistake. As for usage, Lemaire has cited an impressive number of publications that have adopted the name ATTACIDAE since the 1957 decision. But these are chiefly papers by specialists. Has he considered the widespread and familiar usage of the name SATURNIIDAE in all the rest of the world, by specialists, non-specialist entomologists, writers of textbooks, and general zoologists? Nye et al. (1977, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 33: 137—139) have cited a variety of such recent works. They did not attempt an exhaustive list, nor will I, but I would add a few more recent references to illustrate further the geographical range of the usage of the name SATURNIIDAE: BORROR, D.J. & DeLONG, D.M. 1971. An introduction to the study of insects (ed. 3). 812 pp. New York CHINERY, M. 1973. Insekten Mitteleuropas. 389 pp. Hamburg and Berlin EIDMANN, H. & KUHLHORN, F. 1970. Lehrbuch der Entomologie. 633 pp. Hamburg and Berlin GUAGLIUMI, P. 1972-73. Pragas de Cana-de-Acticar Nordeste do Brasil. 622 pp. Rio de Janeiro ISSIKI, S. 1975. Early stages of Japanese moths in colour. 238 pp. Osaka, Japan RICHARDS, O.W. & DAVIES, R.G. 1977. Imms’ General Textbook of Entomology (ed. 10). 2 vols. 1354 pp. London WOLFSBERGER, J. 1971. Die Macrolepidopteren-Fauna des Monte Baldo in Oberitalien. 335 pp. Verona, Italy Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TYPIFICATION OF SPECIES OF PROTOZOA. Z.N.G.) 185 By R.V. Melville (Chairman) (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London) 1. Establishment, Terms of Reference and Membership of the Committee. 1.1.The committee was established by the International Commission on Protozoology at the Fifth International Congress of Protozoology, New York, June 1977, as a consequence of the action of a group of German workers who had rejected early names for species of Sarcocystis and related genera. It was clear that their action was rooted, at least in part, in the impossibility of designating meaningful types for the species concerned under the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and that changes in the rules governing types in the species group (Code Chapter XVI) would be needed to meet this problem. 1.2. The terms of reference of the committee were: “To study the problem of typification of species of protozoa and to report to the International Commissions of Protozoology and Zoological Nomenclature by June 1978”. The report is a little later than ordered because of the difficulty in arranging a meeting of the Committee. 1.3. The members of the committee (apart from the Chairman) were: R.S. Bray (Medical Research Council, London), J.O. Corliss (University of Maryland, U.S.A.), J. -M. Doby, (University of Rennes, France), P.C.C. Garnham (Imperial College Field Station, Ascot, U.K.), N.D. Levine (University of Illinois, U.S.A.) and F.C. Page (Culture Centre for Algae and Protozoa, Cambridge, U.K.). 2. Methods of Work of the Committee. 2.1. The committee worked by correspondence from 9 September 1977 to 7 June 1978 and defined the problems to be studied with increasing clarity and mutual understanding. However, it became clear at an early stage that agreement on positive proposals would only be reached if a meeting of the committee could be arranged. Professor Garnham and Professor Levine accordingly approached the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A. for help with the organisation and funding of such a meeting. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 2.2. In the event, our meeting was sponsored jointly by the Fogarty Center, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and was held at the Fogarty Center on 26—28 June, 1978. Dr. Victor Sprague (Chesapeake Biological Laboratory) attended by invitation. During its meeting the committee consulted Dr. Richard Carter (National Institutes of Health), Dr. P. -M. Daggett (American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, Maryland), Dr. H.G. Sheffield (National Institutes of Health) and Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). The commmittee is grateful to these consultants for their advice freely given, but takes entire responsibility for this report. 2.3. The Chairman and members of the committee wish to record their sincere gratitude to the sponsors for their generous and efficient help in making the meeting possible. Without it, our work could not have advanced so far or so fast, nor could our conclusions be put forward with the confidence that we feel in those presented herein. 3. The Agenda of the Committee Meeting. 3.1. Professor Levine, in drawing up the prospectus for the meeting, had identified six topics for discussion. The committee examined these in the following order: The use of collective group names in the protozoa Specifying type specimens of species of protozoa with two or more stages in their life cycle 3. Specifying type specimens of species of protozoa among multiple specimens in the same preparation 4. Specifying type specimens of species of protozoa of which individuals cannot be preserved 5. Designating suitable depositories for type specimens of species of protozoa 6. The Sarcocystis problem. Ne 3.2. Although it was the Sarcocystis problem that had led to the establishment of the committee, so that it would have been normal to have considered it first, it was deferred because of a letter to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature then being prepared by Professor J.K. Frenkel (University of Kansas Medical Center, U.S.A.) on his own behalf and on behalf of the German workers mentioned below. Copies of this letter reached the committee on the last day of the meeting and it is referred to in the final section of this report. } 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. The Use of Collective Group Names in Protozoa. 4.1.The major achievement of the German group (Professor M. Rommell, Veterinary School of Hanover, B.R.D., Dr. A.O. Heydorm, Free Univeristy of Berlin, B.R.D. and their collaborators) was to have shown that, at least in some cases, herbivorous mammals thought to be parasitised by a single species of Sarcocystis with a simple life cycle, were in fact parasitised by two or more species, and that these species passed through a second, previously undetected or unrecognised, sexual cycle, each in a single predator species. Development of their original work led to the recognition of a number of genera for the reception of species originally described in Sarcocystis. At the same time, the German workers suggested that specific names (some with claims to priority) based on single stages should be rejected; they proposed replacement names based on a combination of the generic names of the intermediate and definitive hosts. This was, of course, contrary to the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in general and to the Law of Priority in particular. (It may be mentioned that no evidence of a complex life cycle is yet available for the great majority of the 80 or more named species of Sarcocystis). 4.2. The term “collective group” has grown up through long usuage among helminthologists. It denotes a taxon at the level of the genus to which are referred species that can be distinguished as such, but whose generic position is not clear. These are usually species known only from a single, immature, stage of a complex life cycle, and it is assumed that when the other stages are known it will be possible to assign each species to its correct genus. Collective groups thus serve as holding stations for unallocated species and, as such, require no type species (Code Article 42c). It seemed possible, a priori, that collective groups might also be used in the protozoa, for example for species of Sarcocystis known only from muscle cysts in the herbivorous intermediate host. 4.3.In considering this possibility, the committee noted that the name Microsporidium in the Phylum Microspora had come to be used as a group name. It noted also that the relationship between generic names and collective group names is not fully clarified in the Code. The process whereby names originally proposed for genera (of which the type species may have been fixed, originally or subsequently) come to be accepted as collective group names is by no means clear. Furthermore, there is room for argument as to how far a species held in a collective group because it is certain that its Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 life cycle is incompletely known is biologically analogous to a species whose life cycle is fully known and whose generic position can be determined. The German work has shown that individuals originally placed in a single species known only from a single stage may have to be distributed among two or more species (which may be placed in more than one genus) when the life cycles are worked out. Even among free-living protozoa, recent work has shown, for example, that individuals formerly referred to the ‘‘collective” species ‘Paramecium aurelia’”’ must be distributed among a dozen or more species, although their generic position is not in doubt. 4.4. For these reasons the committee feels unable to recommend the unrestricted application of collective group names to the protozoa and notes the many possibilities of an open nomenclature for expressing various degrees of uncertainty. It therefore addresses the following recommendation to the International Commission for Protozoology: The collective group approach is not excluded in protozoology. It is well established in certain areas (e.g. Microsporidium among the Microspora), but should be applied in other fields only with caution, and the use of an Open nomenclature is generally to be preferred (e.g., “Plasmodium sensu lato” and “Plasmodium sensu stricto”, ““Haemogregarina sl.” and ‘‘Haemogregarina s.s.”). Should a collective group name be used, it should be different from that of a genus whose type species has been fixed under the Code, e.g. Sarcosporidium rather than Sarcocystis or Isospora. The Commission is asked to draw this recommendation to the attention of protozoologists, and especially of teachers, editors and referees in protozoology. 5. Types of species with two or more Stages in their life cycle. 5.1.The problem of specifying types of species with two or more stages in their life cycle was the most difficult confronted by the committee. It amounted to specifying what, in such protozoa, could fulfil the function served by a holotype in most metazoan groups. Because of the complexity and diversity of the life cycles of parasitic protozoa, it was more than a mere generalisation of the Sarcocystis problem. In addition, the committee’s terms of reference did not exclude the free-living protozoa, in which also the life cycle may be complex. 5.2. The committee had first to clarify its understanding of the function of a type. This it took to be to serve as a permanent 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature standard of reference for verifying applications of a name (Code Article 61). Where species (and subspecies) are concerned, the Code does not require that a type be designated when a new taxon is established; but it does require that if a type is designated (originally or subsequently), it must consist of a single individual. Since no single individual can fulfil the function of a type as herein defined in protozoa with complex life cycles (especially the parasitic forms), it is clear that the relevant provisions of the Code (Articles 61, 72) actually prevent the stabilisation of nomenclature by means of type designations for species. The committee quickly realised that some means had to be found of designating multiple types, consisting of more than one specimen, for certain species-group taxa, while respecting as far as possible the logical requirement that a type be objectively unitary. 5.3. This problem appeared to divide at once into two parts, one related to species that could be expected to consist of a series of individuals which would either form part of a clone, or represent only a single stage of a life cycle, and the other to species that could only be adequately represented by a series of exhibits, representing some or all of the differing stages of the life cycle. In the first case, a single preparation displaying numerous individuals (perhaps a million in the Microspora) can serve as a type. The second case, however, is more complex. 5.4. Of the 7 phyla into which the protozoa are currently divided, 6 include parasitic forms. The rage of diversity is thus very wide. It may be that in some families and orders of parasites, genera and even species can be distinguished at every phase in the life cycle; but it does not necessarily follow that such a species can be typified by a unique holotype, since, at some stages, the similarities between it an its relatives may appear more striking than those between its own successive stages. In other groups, some stages may be indistinguishable at specific, generic, or even at higher levels (coccidean oocysts provide an example). Yet it would be shortsighted to omit representation of such stages in a multiple type, since the present of (for example) an oocyst stage in the life cycle is itself an important characteristic. Moreover, developments in technique may allow distinctions to be drawn in future where they cannot be drawn now. This, however, does not affect the principle of the multiple type as such. 5.5. The committee considered at some length how to reconcile these constraints with the opposite constraint that the type of a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 species must be a single specimen. It concluded that a multiple type must consist of directly related individuals — that is, of individuals taken at one stage in the life cycle and cycled under controlled conditions through the various host species until it is possible to draw off and preserve samples of each stage from a single strain which, itself, can continue to exist. The committee recognises the difficulty of attaining this standard and accepts that many known species, and many still to be discovered, will not be typified for many years. It also accepts the implication that many species cannot, in future, be typified when first established. At the same time it remarks, first, that typification of species is not a mandatory requirement of the Code and, secondly, that protozoologists have not usually been habitual designators of types for their species. The committee firmly asserts that the fact that a species cannot be (or, in the past, has not been) typified when it is established is no reason for rejecting its name when advances in knowledge make typification a practical possiblity. 5.6. At this point it becomes clear that a new term must be proposed to designate a multiple type. The term must be capable of bearing the prefixes ‘“tholo-’”, “‘para-”, “‘syn-”, “lecto-” and “‘neo-” in the same way as the word “type” does. It is therefore desirable to coin a term of Greek derivation, and the committee proposes “hapantotype”, of which the first part is derived from the Greek “Gnas, amavros meaning “together”. This is to signify that a hapantotype is made by putting together the several components needed to provide the standard of reference required by users of the name. These components are to be deemed inseparable. Thus, while a series of syntypes and a hapantotype each consists of a number of specimens, a lectotpye can be designated from the former, but not from the latter. A “lectohapantotype”, if one were designated, would only be valid if it included all the components required for a “holohapantotype”’. 5.7. A hapantotype will thus consist of two or more preparations illustrating differing stages in the life cycle of a species. It may, however, be necessary in some instances to go further than this. In many parasitic forms, the lesions developed in some part of the host provide crucial evidence for specific differentiation. This evidence (‘“‘work of an animal” in the sense of the Code), when it is directly associated with the parasite itself (e.g. the filaments on erythrocytes infected with Nycteria medusiformis; enlarged nuclei of liver cells of hosts of Hepatocystis) will in any case form part of the hapantotype. But if no parasite is present in the lesion (as in the aftermath of Eimeria necatrix infections), the latter cannot form 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature part of the hapantotype. In cases in which the duration of stages of the life cycle is important in specific differentiation, this character may be represented in the hapantotype by a series of preparations taken at appropiate intervals. 5.8. The committee also considered whether material prepared and preserved by modern methods should be admissible in contributing to hapantotypes. For example, in some species of protozoa, electron microscope preparations might be considered to be covered by the provision (in the draft Third Edition of the Code) that part of a specimen may form the type of a species. We refrain, however, from adding sections prepared for the electron microscope to the list of possible components of hapatotypes, for two reasons: first, because in the current state of knowledge, there is doubt as to the durability of such material; secondly, because an electron micrograph shows only a very small fraction of the individual, and the orientation of the section photographed is critical. We therefore leave it to future workers to make proposals to the Commission when techniques have advanced further. 5.9. Frozen specimens in liquid nitrogen are a possible source from which hapantotypic material might be taken for fixation and deposition in a collection. The committee was advised, however, that there are serious hazards in using frozen material as a sole source. When (as is ususal) several ampoules of a given species are stored together, the may be very wide variation between ampoules in the number of cells present and in their viability. Risks also arise from the presence of mixed populations and from the selective effect of freezing. Such material can therefore at present play only a supplementary role in constructing a hapantotype. It is for individual workers to decide for themselves whether or not their material is suitable for typification by frozen specimens. 5.10. The committee also recognises the value of biochemical and immunological characters (e.g., isoenzymes) in determining species. If the molecules used in this way can be preserved (as in paper chromatography) they may form part of a hapantotype, provided they are taken from the same directly related individuals as the other components. . 5.11. The committee concluded its discussion of the point by proposing an addition to Article 72b of the Code to make provision for hapantotypes. (Because that section, in the draft Third Edition of the Code, is already complicated, we suggest that it be broken Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 down into subsections for ease of reading, and therefore present the whole section here.) We formally ask the Internaional Commission “2s Zoological Nomenclature to amend Article 72b of the Code as ollows:- (b) Meaning of the term “type” in the species group.- In the provisions of this Chapter the term “type” may mean any of the following: (i) an animal; (ii) part of an animal; (iii) a colonial organism existing in nature as a single entity, or part of such an organism; (iv) in fossils, any of the objects specified in (i) to (iii), or a natural replacement, a natural cast, or a natural impression of any of them; (v) in certain extant species of protozoa, if the provisions of (i) to (iii) cannot be applied, either (1) a number of individuals assumed to be directly related and presented in a single preparation, or (2) a suite of preparations of directly related individuals or parts of individuals representing differing stages in the life cycle (hapantotype); Recommendation... Whenever possible, in light- microscope preparation, the locations of individuals considered by the zoologist establishing a new species- group taxon to be of crucial importance in demonstrating his concept should be distinctly marked. (vi) in the special case of Section c(i) of this Article, the work of an animal. [Note. The proposal concerning Article 72b (v) of the Code was discussed at a meeting held during the Fourth International Congress of Parasitology in Warsaw in August 1978. The following amended version was there put forward: (v) in certain extant species of protozoa, when necessary in the interests of stability of nomenclature, and if (but only if) the provisions of (i) to (iii) of this Section cannot be applied, either (1) a number of preserved, directly related individuals presented in a single preparation, or (2) a suite of preserved preparations of directly related individuals or parts of individuals representing differing stages in the life cycle (hapantotype).] 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. Specifying type specimens of species of protozoa among multiple specimens in the same preparation. 6.1. This question hardly seems to arise in the cases covered by Article 72b (v) (1), since all the cells in such a preparation are assumed to be of equal value. In a hapantotype, however, it may well be that a cell will show progressive changes during its passage through a single stage, and that certain cells in each preparation may show these particularly well. We hope we have covered this point in the Recommendation we have added to Article 72b. 7. Specifying type specimens of species of which individuals cannot be preserved. 7.1. The committee takes this to be a transitory problem. The fact that methods have not yet been devised for preserving material of certain species is, we feel sure, a temporary technical problem to which the solution will soon be found. This is particularly relevant to the preservation of oocysts of Eimeriina, the suborder that includes Sarcocystis, which caused our committee to be set up. 8. Designating depositories for types of protozoa. 8.1. The preservation of type specimens of protozoa poses problems not met in all animal groups. Depositories should, first, meet the criteria of Recommendations 72A and 72D of the Code. In addition, material must be kept at a constant temperature, in controlled atmospheric conditions, and in the dark. Other criteria are demanded by certain groups. We recommend that the International Commission on Protozoology compile a list of suitable institutions and, to the best of its ability, encourage the deposition of types (including hapantotypes) in institutions included in this list. Paratypic material should be deposited in other listed institutions as a measure of security. 9. The Sarcocystis problem. 9.1.Since this is the subject of a formal approach to the Commission by Professor Frenkel and his colleagues, it should be treated as sub judice until a ruling is published. In particular, the Chairman of the committee, as Secretary of Commission, abstains from expressing any view at this point. It is, however, certain — and some members of the committee have stated so publicly — that the German workers were wrong to reject specific names of long standing as they did. When they found that there were at least three species of Sarcocystis in cattle instead of one, their proper course would have been to apply the Law of Priority and arbitrarily restrict the oldest available name to one of those species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 OPINION 1117 REFUSAL OF REQUEST FOR TWO RULINGS CONCERNING THE NAMES OF SPECIES OF SPHAERODACTYLUS (REPTILIA LACERTILIA) RULING.- (1) The request to place the subspecific name continentalis Werner, 1896, as published in the combination Sphaerodactylus argus continentalis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is hereby refused. (2) The request to restrict the application of that name to the species represented by Sphaerodactylus lineolatus Taylor, 1956 (non Lichtenstein & von Martens) is refused. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1566 An application for the placing of the subspecific name continentalis, as published in the combination Sphaerodactylus argus continentalis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and for a ruling restricting the application of that name in a particular sense, was first received from Professor Hobart M. Smith (then of University of Illinois) and Dr Paul V. Terentiev (University of Leningrad) on 3 August 1962. It was sent to the printer on 31 January 1963 and published on 21 October 1963 on pp. 367—369 of vol. 20 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. An adverse comment was received from Dr Carl L. Hubbs (University of California). No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 June 1975 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1965)18 for or against the proposals set forth in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 20: 368—369. At the close of the voting period on 3 September 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — four (4) received in the following order: Bonnet, Riley, Brinck, Jaczewski Negative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Holthuis, Mayr, China, Vokes, Binder, Simpson, Munroe, Sabrosky, Miller, Alvarado, do Amaral, Lemche, Uchida, Tortonese, Obruchev, Forest, Boschma, Kraus, Mertens, Ride Late negative votes — three (3): Evans, Hubbs, Stoll. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomencalture Holthuis: “I entirely agree with Dr Hubbs.” Mayr: “I agree with Hubbs that this case does not require action by the Commission. If the decision by Smith & Alvarez de Toro is wise it will be accepted by herpetologists without action by the Commission. The absence of diagnostic characters in the type is not unusual in zoology.” Vokes: “I agree with Dr Hubbs that momina dubia should be treated as such - and left as such.” Simpson: “I agree with Hubbs and would add that endorsing the application by Smith & Terentiev would practically amount to amending or adding to the Code.” Sabrosky: “I oppose zoological decisions by the Commission. If I were a herpetologist I would follow Smith & Alvarez de Toro (1961) and use continentalis Werner, until proved otherwise.” Alvarado: “1 found the objection by Dr Hubbs so strong that I think it preferable to await more extensive information on the case.” Lemche: “‘The proposal must be rejected because improperly presented. Two independent definitions of S. argus continentalis are sought to be authorised, (1) the “holotype” in Leningrad, and (2) the figures given by Taylor (1956). If a holotype is present, there is no need for action; if it does not suffice for identification, the name should not be used.” Brinck: “About 80 per cent of the names of invertebrates from before 1800 are nomina dubia if the descriptions are examined on the basis of present day knowledge. Present interpretations (when final) are based on examination of types and restriction by revisers. To me it is evident that old names (at times regarded as nomina dubia) retain availability and authorship as of the original description. As everybody who scans numerous scientific journals knows, nomina dubia are still published, and this will continue, I am afraid, for some time!” Ride: “This application, and Dr Hubbs’s comments, raise wider issues which require clarification if general confusion is to be avoided in applications which concern nomina dubia. “It must first be made clear that in Opinion 126 the Commission did not rule that momina dubia become nomenclaturally available as of the date of fixation (clarification). . etc. This Opinion is of historical interest only (Art. 78f); moreover, it relates only to the names in d’Orbigny’s 1850 Prodrome (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 4: 297, para 19.2). Secondly, the first reviser oa has no application in the Code to the fixation of nomina ubia. “However, although the Code does not specifically set out a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ZE1 procedure for dealing with nomina dubia, such names can be fixed, or rendered unavailable, through its provisions (which include the plenary powers). Thus: (a) where a name has remained unused as the valid name of a taxon for a long period, its continued presence as a nomen dubium constitutes a threat to the stability of names in current use and its suppression under the plenary powers is indicated; (b) where a name is in use as the valid name of a taxon and it is found to be a nomen dubium, it is usually desirable to fix it in its accustomed usage. But for it to be a nomen dubium, it must have either (i) no surviving type and an inadequate description, or (ii) an indeterminable type. Names in case (i) can often be dealt with through the selection of a neotype (Art. 75), but those in (ii) should be referred to the Commission with a request for the suppression of the original type specimen and its replacement by one which undoubtedly belongs to the species to which the name is currently applied. “In the case of Sphaerodactylus argus continentalis Werner, 1896, the name is indeterminable because of the unsatisfactory nature of the holotype. The applicants state that the name has remained unused as the valid name of any taxon since its original proposal (except in a single paper, in press, by one of the applicants and Dr Alvarez de Toro). Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the name does not warrant conservation. But since its continued presence as a nomen dubium constitutes a threat to stability, some action is required which involves the use of the plenary powers and I am of the opinion that the Commission ought to be asked to vote on its suppression.” CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)18 were cast as set out above, that the proposal 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. 1117. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 September 1978 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1118 CONSERVATION OF TRIBOLBINA CARNEGIEI LATHAM, 1932 (ARACHNIDA) RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name inflatus Peach, 1882, as published in the binomen Eoscorpius inflatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Tribolbina Latham, 1932 (gender, feminine), type-species, by original designation, Tribolbina carnegiei Latham, 1932, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2068. (3) The specific name carnegiei Latham, 1932, as published in the binomen TJribolbina carnegiei (specific name of type-species of Tribolbina Latham, 1932), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2650. (4) The specific name inflatus Peach, 1882, as published in the binomen Eoscorpius inflatus, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1043. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N(.(S.) 1588 An application for the suppression of Eoscorpius inflatus Peach, 1882, was first received from Dr Ian Rolfe (Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, U.K.) on 2 January 1963. It was sent to the printer on 31 January 1963 and published on pp. 388—389 of vol. 20 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 21 October 1963. 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 statutory serials and to two palaeontological serials. The application was supported by Dr R.B. Wilson (Geological Survey of Great Britain, Edinburgh Office), by Dr R.H. Bate (British Museum (Natural History) London) and by Dr Carl Hubbs (University of California). No adverse comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 23 August 1965 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1965)27 for or against the proposals set out on p. 389 of vol. 20 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. At the close of the voting period on 23 November 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — twenty-four (24), received in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 244 following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Riley, Simpson, Obruchey., Alvarado, Munroe, Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Boschma, Mayr, Ride, Forest, Kraus, Binder, Mertens, Jaczewski, Evans, Brinck, Bonnet Negative Vote — Sabrosky Voting Paper not returned — Hubbs. Dr Sabrosky commented: “Even if the vote is favourable, as it probably will be, with the support of several zoologists and objection by none, I respectfully request reconsideration in the light of the following: “IT consulted Dr Gregory Sohn, specialist on Ostracoda for the U.S. Geological Survey, and he has furnished the following data: (1) Tribolbina is a small genus, with only two described species, and it is of no economic importance; (2) in the relatively short time since its description in 1932 it has rarely been mentioned, and then often with a question because so little is known about it — “1934. Merely listed in the bibliography of Paleozoic Ostracoda by Bassler & Kellett (Memoir 1, Geol. Soc. America) 1958. Mere mention in synoptic list of ostracods by Mertens 1960. Listed as a genus incertae sedis in the Russian treatise on ostracods 1961. In the Ostracod volume of the American ‘Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology’ a diagnosis was given, but the genus was not illustrated and it was questionably referred to the Family BEYRICHIIDAE 1962. In the most recent compilation of all genera of Ostracoda, an objective listing (‘Ostracod taxonomy’ by H.V. Howe, Louisiana University Press), Tribolbina was recorded with a question in the family BEYRICHIIDAE 1962. Sohn, in a paper revising certain genera of Ostracoda, referred to Tribolbina, but only incidentally. “This evidence indicates that the name Tribolbina is relatively little known and of small importance and minor usage, as" well as still uncertain in position. Surely the Commission cannot be in the position of conserving all minor names with trivial amounts of usage. We might as well give up rules altogether. “Please note that Articles 67j and 70a, cited in paragraph 8 of the application, are not relevant to this case. The type species of Tribolbina is T. carnegiei Latham, and no question has been raised 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of its misidentification.” Dr Rolfe was invited to reply to this comment. He said: “Contrary to what Sohn affirms, it was in fact the aim of my submission to show that the type species of Tribolbina had been misidentified. To reiterate this in terms of Art. 70a(i), the nominal species Eoscorpius inflatus Peach, 1882 was wrongly named Tribolbina carnegiei by Latham in 1932. “There is no question of invalidating Tribolbina, as Sohn apparently wishes to do, nor does the generic name require any special ‘conserving’ action by the Commission. The issue is to decide whether E. inflatus or T. carnegiei should be designated as type species of Tribolbina, an issue which Sohn disregards. “Neither the ‘size’ of a genus, nor its economic importance, nor its lack of certain familial position, nor the minor usage of its name, is relevant to this issue. It may be added that such criteria are not primary considerations in zoological nomenclature, though they may be involved in cases of conflicting usage. “The placing of Tribolbina and T. carnegiei on the appropriate Official Lists will not prevent their future synonymy with other ostracod names, should this ever be demonstrated. “The usage listed by Sohn reinforces the claim for the designation of 7. carnegiei as the valid name of the type species rather than E. inflatus, since the former has clearly been widely published as type species and neither stability nor uniformity of nomenclature would be served by substituting the senior synonym.” NOTE BY THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION When I came to examine this file, I found a minute by Dr W.E. China (Assistant Secretary at the time the vote was taken) directing that the Opinion be prepared. It is not clear why this was not done at the time. Dr Sohn seems to have misunderstood the application, which was concerned, not to conserve the generic name, but to settle the valid name of the type species of the genus. Miss Latham gave an unnecessary new name to an ostracod which Peach had described as a scorpion (it is not, of course, claimed that Article 70a applies to Peach’s misidentification). Two nominal species are involved, with different names and different types. Dr Rolfe clearly considered that Miss Latham, having formed a taxonomic concept that represented the same entity as Peach’s concept, gave it the wrong name. It does not seem to me that this is a misidentification in the terms of Article 70a, which is not intended to deal with subjective junior synonyms established under misunderstandings. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 Nevertheless, two considerations have led me to publish the present Opinion. First, Dr Rolfe (who is an acknowledged authority on fossil scorpions at a higher level than he is on fossil ostracods) honestly sought to clarify a confused situation in the group he was revising. Secondly, the massive vote of the Commission must be respected, while the case scarcely merits being reopened. 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: carnegiei, Tribolbina, Latham, 1932, Trans. roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 57: 358-9 inflatus, Eoscorpius, Peach, 1882, Trans. roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 30: 405—406 Tribolbina Latham, 1932, Trans. roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 57: 358. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)27 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. 1118. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 2 October 1978 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1119 AMAUROBIUS C.L. KOCH, 1837, AND COELOTES BLACKWALL: 1841 (ARANEAE): CONSERVED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (b) the specific name atropos Walckenaer, 1830, as published in the binomen Drassus atropos, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (c) the generic name Cavator Blackwall, 1840, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Thorell, 1870, Clubiona atrox Latreille, 1806; (Name No. 2069); (b) Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Clubiona _ saxatilis Blackwall, 1833 (Name No. 2070). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) fenestralis Strom, 1768, as published in the binomen Aranea fenestralis (Name No. 2651); (b) saxatilis Blackwall, 1833, as published in the binomen Clubiona saxatilis (type-species of Coelotes Blackwall, 1841) (Name No. 2652); (c) terrestris Wider, 1834, as published in the binomen Aranea terrestris (Name No. 2653). (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) Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1836 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No. 2095); (b) Cavator Blackwall, 1840 (as suppressed under the Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 plenary powers in (1) (c) above) (Name No. 2096); (c) Ciniflo Blackwall, 1840 (a junior objective synonym of Amaurobius Koch, 1837) (Name No. 2097); (d) Caelotes Blackwall, 1849 (an unjustified emendation of Coelotes Blackwall, 1841) (Name No. 2098). (5) The specific name atropos Walckenaer, 1830, as published in the binomen Drassus atropos (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1044. (6) The family-group name AMAUROBIINAE Thorell, 1870 (type-genus Amaurobius C.L. Koch, 1837) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 492. (7) The family-group name CINIFLONIDAE Blackwall, 1840 (type-genus Ciniflo Blackwall, 1840), invalid because the name of its type-genus has been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 4872. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1625 An application concerning the generic names Amaurobius C.L. Koch, 1837, and Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 was first received from Dr Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and Dr Otto Kraus (then of Natur- Museum und Fortschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., BRD) on 12 December 1963. It was sent to the printer on 17 December 1963 and published on 23 April 1964 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 21: 15S0—153. Supplementary proposals were added by the same authors on 13 August 1965 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 22: 140-141. The original proposals were supported by R.L. Hoffman (Radford College, Radford, Virginia, USA), B.J. Kaston (Central Connecticut State College, New Britain, Conn., U.S.A.), J. Denis (Aumale, Seine-Maritime, France), J.A.L. Cooke (Department of Zoology, Oxford University Museum), W. Ivie (American Museum of Natural History, New York), J.L. Cloudesley-Thompson (then of University of Khartoum, Sudan), Ole Béggild (Vesthimmerlands Gymnasium, Aars, Denmark), K.H. Hyatt (British Museum (Natural History), London), Hans Tambs-Lyche (University of Bergen, Norway), H. Nemenz (Vienna University), G. Schmidt (Konstanz, Germany), J. Braendergaard (Copenhagen, Denmark), R. Braun (Institut fiir Allgemeine Zoologie, Mainz, BRD), and H. Wiehle &.. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature M. Harm (Dessau, BRD). Dr L. van der Hammen and Fr. Chrysanthus O.F.M. Cap. (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) wrote to approve most of the proposals but to object to the fact that the applicants had treated Drassus atropos Walckenaer as identical with Clubiona saxatilis Blackwall, because work by Chrysanthus then unpublished (but see Tijdschr. Ent., vol. 108: 61—71, 1965) had shown that they were distinct species, and hence that saxatilis Blackwall, 1833 was the valid name for the type-species of Coelotes Blackwall, 1841. It was this objection that led the applicants to publish their supplementary proposals mentioned above, whereby they asked that the plenary powers should be used to designate a neotype for Drassus atropos Walckenaer, 1830, so as to stabilise general usage of that name. Fr. Chrysanthus presented his arguments in detail in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22: 216—217 and suggested that Drassus atropos Walckenaer, 1830, should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. He was supported by P. Bonnet (Toulouse, France), G.H. Locket (Stockbridge, England), A.F. Millidge (Coulsdon, England), J.A.L. Cooke (Department of Zoology, Oxford University Museum), J.R. Parker (Carlisle, England) and L. van der Hammen (Leiden, Netherlands). Levi & Kraus (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 23: 82) maintained their view that D. atropos should be stabilised. Notice of the proposed use of the plenary powers in the original proposals of Levi and Kraus, and in those of Chrysanthus, was given in the same parts of the Bulletin and was sent to the statutory serials as well as to nine entomological serials. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 January 1967 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1967)8 as follows: in Part 1, for or against the use of the plenary powers in the case; in Part 2, either for Alternative A (the proposals of Levi & Kraus as set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 21: 152—153 and vol. 22: 140—141) or for Alternative B (those of the proposals by Levi & Kraus in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 21: 152—153 that were accepted by Chrysanthus supplemented by Chrysanthus’s own proposals in vol. 22: 217). At the close of the voting period on 25 April 1967, the state of the Se a as follows: art Affirmative Votes — twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, China, Mayr, Jaczewski, Lemche, Munroe, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 Boschma, Vokes, Tortonese, Uchida, Bonnet, Obruchev, Binder, Evans, Mertens, Kraus, Stoll, Forest, Ride, Alvarado Negative Votes — none (0) Late Affirmative Votes — do Amaral, Brinck Voting Papers not returned — Hubbs, Simpson. Abstention — Sabrosky. Past 2 For Alternative A — six (6), received in the following order: China, Mayr, Tortonese, Uchida, Mertens, Kraus For Alternative B — fourteen (14), received in the following order: Holthuis, Jaczewski, Lemche, Munroe (a conditional vote with the majority), Boschma, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev, Binder, Evans, Stoll, Forest, Ride, Alvarado. A late affirmative vote for Alternative A was received from Brinck and for Alternative B from do Amaral. No voting papers were returned by Hubbs and Simpson. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by ruling given in the present Opinion: AMAUROBIINAE Thorell, 1870, European Spiders: 119, 121 Amaurobius C.L. Koch, 1836 (1 October), in Panzer, Deutschlands Insekten (Herrich-Schaeffer), Heft 141: 5-6; in Herrich- Schaeffer, Deutschlands Crust. Myriap. Arachn., Heft 8:5—6 Amaurobius C.L. Koch, 1837, Uebersicht Arachnidensyst. vol. 1: 15 atropos, Drassus, Walckenaer, 1830, Faune francaise, Aranéides, vol. 27: 171 Caelotes Blackwall, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (2), vol. 4: 276 Cavator Blackwall, 1840, Proc. linn. Soc. London, vol. | (8): 66, and Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (1), vol. 6: 229 Ciniflo Blackwall, 1840, Proc. linn. Soc. London, vol. 1 (8): 66, and Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (1), vol. 6: 229 CINIFLONIDAE Blackwall, 1840, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 18 (4): 606 Coelotes Blackwall, 1841, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 18 (4): 618 fenestralis, Aranea, Strém, 1768, Trondh. Selsk. Skr., vol. 4: 362 Saxatilis, Clubiona, Blackwall, 1833, London Phil. Mag. J. Sci., (3), vol. 3: 436 terrestris, Aranea, Wider, 1834, Mus. Senck., vol. 1: 215. 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (67)8 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in Part 1 and in Alternative B of Part 2 of 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. 1119. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 OPINION 1120 NOCTUA ARMIGERA HUBNER, [1808] (LEPIDOPTERA) CONSERVED RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name barbara J.C. Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Noctua barbara, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name armigera Hubner, [1808], as published in the binomen Noctua armigera, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2654. (3) The specific name barbara J.C. Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Noctua barbara, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1045. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1670 An application for the suppression of Noctua barbara J.C. Fabricius, 1794, was first received from Dr D.F. Hardwick (Entomology Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) on 10 November 1964. It was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 18 May 1965 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22: 101. 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 statutory serials as well as to nine entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 19 April 1967 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1967)26 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22: 101. At the close of the voting period on 19 July 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Boschma, Obruchev, Binder, Holthuis, Uchida, Munroe, Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Forest, Stoll, Mertens, Kraus, Bonnet, Ride, Evans Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were received from Brinck and Jaczewski. No voting papers were returned by Hubbs and Simpson. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: armigera, Noctua, Hubner, [1808], Sammi. europ. Schmett., vol. 4: fig. 370 barbara, Noctua, J.C. Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst., vol. 3 (2): 111 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)26 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. 1120. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 OPINION 1121 CHANDA NAMA HAMILTON-BUCHANAN, 1822, DESIGNATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AS TYPE SPECIES OF CHANDA HAMILTON-BUCHANAN, 1822 (PISCES) RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Chanda Hamilton- Buchanan, 1822, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, is designated as type species of that nominal genus. (2) The generic name Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 (gender, feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2071. (3) The specific name nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, as published in the binomen Chanda nama (specific name of type species of Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2655. (4) The generic name Hamiltonia Swainson, 1839 (a junior objective synonym of Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2099 and with an endorsement that it is not to be used, even if Chanda is found to be invalid, without reference to the Commission. (5) The specific name ovata Swainson, 1839, as published in the binomen Hamiltonia ovata (a junior objective synonym of Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1046. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N(S.) 1946 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, as the type species of Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, was first received from Dr P.K. Talwar (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta) on 18 November 1970. It was sent to the printer on 18 March 1971 and published on 8 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 28:.104—105. 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 statutory Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature serials and to an ichthyological serial. The application was opposed by the Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 69). It was supported by Dr S. Khera (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta); and by Dr P.J. Whitehead, Dr P.H. Greenwood and Dr E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London), who submitted an alternative set of proposals (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 107—110). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (78)2 in Part 1 of the voting paper for or against paragraphs (3), (1) and (4) [in that sequence] of the proposals set out in Bull: zool Nom. vol. 31, p. 110, and in Part 2 of the voting paper, for or against the proposals in para (2), ibid. At the close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 the state of the ee a as follows: art Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Brinck, Vokes, Cogger, Sabrosky, Habe, Tortonese, Binder, Willink, Nye, Alvarado, Corliss, Starobogatov, Heppell, Bernardi, Welch, Bayer, Ride Negative Votes — none (0) Part 2 Affirmative Votes — six (6) received in the following order: Eisenmann, Vokes, Cogger, Habe, Nye, Heppell Negative Votes — thirteen (13) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Binder, Willink, Alvarado, Corliss, Starobogatov, Bernardi, Welch, Bayer Ride abstained from voting in Part 2 No voting papers were returned by Dupuis, Kraus and Mroczkowski. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Eisenmann: “If Hamiltonia is ruled - as suggested in paragraph (2) of the modified proposals - a junior objective synonym and we avoid placing it on the Index, it remains available should Chanda prove to be invalid as a junior homonym of some other name. I see no necessity for putting Hamiltonia on the Index or for including paragraph (4) of the Ruling.” Sabrosky: “I have examined Swainson (1839) in detail and agree with Whitehead and others that Swainson was proposing replacement names for the ‘barbaric’ names of Hamilton-Buchanan (and other authors), when he clearly cited such names in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 parentheses or in a footnote. I noted especially the footnote to Opisthosomus Swainson (: 277): ‘Grunnellus Auct. ‘‘Nomina generica quae ex Graeca vel Latina lingua radicem non habent, rejicienda sunt” - Illiger, Prod. xvii’. I agree, therefore, that Hamiltonia was a replacement name for Chanda, hence the type species of the two must be the same. “Swainson cited Hamilton-Buchanan’s fig. 37 for his name ovata, which is assumed to replace Chanda nama Hamilton- Buchanan. It would seem common sense to admit that nama was included by that bibliographic reference, but the case is somewhat confused by the citation of fig. 37 twice. Moreover, it might be argued that nama was not mentioned by name. “Bleeker (1874), listed as the first actual type designation for Hamiltonia, is said by Whitehead and others only to have ‘implied’ that ovata was the same as nama, and thus this might be challenged as a valid type designation. Swain (1882), however, was clear. He designated H. ovata as type of Hamiltonia and showed the synonymy with C. nama, thus linking Hamiltonia and Chanda under Art. 69a(iv). Because of some uncertainty regarding Bleeker’s designation, Swain’s may be the earliest valid type designation. “It seems to me that the case would be more easily handled if Swain (or Bleeker) were clearly accepted as type designation, and Hamiltonia listed as a junior objective synonym, without being placed on the Official Index with an annotation. I agree with the Secretary in principle that names on the Official Index should not be subject to automatic revival, but I believe strongly that the Index should not be loaded with mere junior synonyms that could at any time become valid names if their senior synonyms were found to be junior homonyms. It is a waste of time, and could mean future work for the Commission, to place junior synonyms on the Official Index. An Index should be reserved for names that must be placed there as a result of action under the plenary power.” Heppeil: “I am against placing Hamiltonia on the Official Index at all. I merely endorse the recognition of it as an unjustified replacement name.” Ride: “I see no need to vote on Part 2. Hamiltonia is a junior objective synonym of Chanda.” NOTE BY THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION The difficulty that confronted those members of the Commission who sent comments with their voting papers arises from the peculiarity of the proposals by Whitehead, Greenwood & Trewavas. They asked that Hamiltonia be recognised as a junior objective synonym of Chanda, but not permanently rejected. Yet 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the objective character of the synonymy between Hamiltonia and Chanda was the consequence only of a plenary powers decision as to (a) which of two nominal species of Swainson’s was represented by Hamilton-Buchanan’s fig. 37, and (b) which (in view of the potential confusion between the actions of Bleeker and Swain respectively) was to be the type species of Chanda. Hence, once the plenary powers decision on the type species of Chanda had been taken, the position of Hamiltonia was determined thereby, and not by any other consideration whatever. Thus the placing of Hamiltonia on the Official Index flows from the plenary powers decision and not from the automatic application of the Code, and that is why it must not be removed from the Index without reference to the Commission. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, An account of the fishes of the Ganges: 103, 370 Hamiltonia Swainson, 1839, Nat. hist. class. fishes amph. rept., vol. nama, Chanda, Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, An account of the fishes of the Ganges: 109 ovata, Hamiltonia, Swainson, 1839, Nat. hist. class. fishes amph. rept., vol. 2: 250 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)2 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. 1121. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature tr tO ~ OPINION 1122 LOLIGO OPALESCENS BERRY, 1911 GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER LOLIGO STEARNSII HEMPHILL, 1892: (CEPHALOPODA) RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name opalescens Berry, 1911, as published in the binomen Loligo opalescens, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name stearnsii Hemphill, 1892, as published in the binomen Loligo stearnsii, whenever those two specific names are regarded as synonyms. (2) The specific name opalescens Berry, 1911, as published in the binomen Loligo opalescens, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2656 and with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name stearnsii Hemphill, 1892, as published in the binomen Loligo stearnsii, whenever those two specific names are regarded as synonyms. (3) The specific name stearnsii Hemphill, 1892, as published in the binomen Loligo stearnsii, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2657, and with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name opalescens Berry, 1911, as published in the binomen Loligo opalescens, whenever those two specific names are regarded as synonyms. HISTORY OF THE CASE. Z.N.(S.) 2041 An application for the suppression under the plenary powers of Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892, was first received from Dr Gilbert L. Voss (Division of Biology, University of Miami, Florida, USA) on 26 March 1973. After correspondence with the applicant it was sent to the printer on 14 January 1974 and published on 31 July 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 51—53. 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 statutory serials and to three malacological serials. No comment was received. On 4 November 1977 the Secretary asked Dr Voss if he would have any objection to his application being treated under the “relative precedence”’ procedure instead of by outright suppression. He replied on 12 January 1978 that he was concerned only to reach stability and had no objection to the change suggested. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1978)3 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 52—53. At the close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski, Brinck, Vokes, Sabrosky, Cogger, Tortonese, Binder, Willink, Nye, Alvarado, Corliss, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Welch, Ride. Negative Votes — two (2): Habe, Bernardi. No votes were returned by Dupuis and Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Habe: “The specimens of Loligo stearnsii Hemphill studied by him are housed in the California Academy of Sciences, so that this name should be retained.” Heppell: “I vote for placing L. opalescens on the Official List of Specific Names. If this does not grant it automatic relative precedence over any other supposed synonym the Official List is worthless in its present form.” Bernardi: ‘“‘Voss montre clairement que Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892, n’est pas un nomen nudum et que les syntypes de cette espéce existent. Il serait préférable de conserver ce nom, désigner un lectotype et pour ‘prevent confusion’ il suffit d’écrire désormais L. stearnsii, 1892 = L. opalescens Berry, 1911 lorsqu’on cite cette espéce.” Ride: “I vote for suppression - a prima facie case is established. I do not vote for the relative precedence procedure.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: opalescens, Loligo, Berry, 1911, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 40 (1838): 591 stearnsii, Loligo, Hemphill, 1892, Zoe, vol. 3: 51 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)3 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. 1122. R.V. MELVILLE, Secretary at ca issi Zoological Nomenclature International Commission on pn og a Octoher 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 OPINION 1123 PLESIADAPIDAE TROUESSART, 1897 GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER PLATYCHOEROPIDAE LYDEKKER, 1887 (MAMMALIA) RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group name PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897 (type genus Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877) is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family-group name PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (type genus Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855), whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 (gender, masculine), type species, by monotypy, Platychoerops richardsonii Charlesworth, 1855 (Name Number 2072); (b) Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877 (gender, masculine), type species, by monotypy, Plesiadapis tricuspidens Gervais, 1877 (Name Number 2073). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) richardsonii Charlesworth, 1855, as published in the binomen Platychoerops richardsonii (specific name of type species of Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855) (Name Number 2658); (b) tricuspidens Gervais, 1877, as published in the binomen Plesiadapis tricuspidens (specific name of type species of Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877 (Name Number 2659). (4) The following Family-Group Names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers and endorsements specified: (a) PLESIADAPIDAE- Trouessart, 1897 (type genus Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877) (Name Number 493) with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (type-genus Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855) whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms; (b) PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (type genus Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855) (Name Number Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 230 Bulletin of Zoolagical Nomenclature 494) with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897 (type- genus Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877) whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. (5) The generic name Platychoerops Klunzinger, 1879 (Pisces), a junior homonym of Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2100. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2052 An application for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the family-group name PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 was first received from Dr Philip D. Gingerich (then of Yale University) on 28 June 1973. It was sent to the printer on 24 October 1973 and published on 28 June 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30: 207—209. 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 statutory serials and to two mammalogical serials. Dr Holthuis pointed out that the family-group name PLATYCHOEROPIDAE could not be suppressed so long as the name of its type genus — Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 — remained available. His comment was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 177. His suggestion that PLESIADAPIDAE should be given nomenclatural precedence over PLATYCHOEROPIDAE was accepted by the applicant. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1978)5 in Part 1 for or against the proposition that the correct spelling of the generic name proposed by Charlesworth in 1855 is Platychoerops, and in Part 2, for or against giving PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897 nomenclatural precedence over PLAT YCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887. At the close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Part 1 Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Brinck, Vokes, Sabrosky, Cogger, Habe, Mroczkowski, Tortonese, Binder, Willink, Nye, Alvarado, Corliss, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi, Ride, Welch Negative Votes — none (0) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 Part 2 Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Eisenmann, Brinck, Vokes, Sabrosky, Habe, Mroczkowski, Tortonese, Binder; Nye, Alvarado, Corliss, Starobogatov, Bayer, Bernardi, Ride Negative Votes — five (5): Holthuis, Cogger, Willink, Heppell, Welch “ No voting papers were returned by Dupuis and Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Heppell: “1 support the proposals as set out on p. 208 of the application except as they concern the family name PLAT YCHOEROPIDAE, but I cannot agree with Dr Holthuis that this name as published by Lydekker, 1887, cannot be suppressed by the Commission while Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 remains an available name. If it is suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy, any subsequent author may establish a family based on that genus, and the name of that family would take its priority from that author’s publication of it. Other authors if they so wished could regard the name as a junior synonym of PLESIADAPIDAE. I therefore vote for the suppression of PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy.” Ride: ‘‘While I vote for the proposal, I should have preferred the original proposal except that PLATYCHOEROPIDAE should have been suppressed for both priority and homonymy. If such action were taken, the need foreseen by Dr Holthuis could be met by the proposal of a new PLATYCHOEROPIDAE, junior to PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897.” [I have considered the comments by Dr Heppell and Dr Ride and their implications. Clearly, if the revised proposals are adopted under the plenary powers (as they have now been adopted), then there is already a family-group name PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887, for use in its own right to designate a taxon distinct from PLESIADAPIDAE at any level in the family group, or to be treated as junior synonym. I cannot, therefore, see what would be gained by allowing another proposal of an identical family-group name, with a different author and date, except confusion. I do not consider that their comments justify a re-opening of the case, with a fresh advertisement of the possible use of the plenary powers, and have accordingly proceeded to issue the present Opinion. R.V.M.] 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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: PLAT YCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887, Cat. Foss. Mamm. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), vol. 5:3 Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855, Rep. brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. vol. 24 (Liverpool, 1854), Not. Abstr.: 80 Platychoerops Klunzinger, 1879, Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 16: 255 PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897, Cat. Mamm., vol. 1:75 Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877, J. Zool. Paris, vol. 6: 76 richardsonii, Platychoerops, Charlesworth, 1855, Rep. brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. yol. 24 (Liverpool, 1854): 80 tricuspidens, Plesiadapis, Gervais, 1877, J. Zool. Paris, vol. 6: 76 CERTIFICATE I certify that the yotes cast on Voting Paper (78)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. 1123. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 October 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 OPINION 1124 LICHIA CUVIER, 1817 (PISCES) CONSERVED RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1809, is hereby suppressed for the Purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Lichia Cuvier, 1817 (gender, feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Regan, 1903, Scomber amia Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2074. (3) The specific name amia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scomber amia (specific name of type species of Lichia Cuvier, 1817) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2660. (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) Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1809, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 2101); (b) Aypacanthus Rafinesque, 1810, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1809 (Name Number 2102); (c) HAypacantha Rafinesque, 1810, an incorrect subsequent spelling of HAypacantus Rafinesque, 1809 (Name Number 2103). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.) 2058 An application for the suppression of the generic name Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1810 (sic) was first received from Professor Tortonese (then of Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, I taly) on 2 January 1974. It was sent to the printer on 14 January 1974 and published on 31 July 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 27-28. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and sent to the statutory serials as well as to an ichthyological serial. The application was supported by the Commission Internationale pour l’Exploration de la Mer Méditerranée (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 99-100). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION vol On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 234 Rulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1978)6, in Part 1 for or against the use of the plenary powers in the case, and in Part 2, either for Alternative A (to give nomenclatural precedence to Lichia Cuvier, 1817 over Hypacanthus Rafinesque, 1809 and to rule that the latter is a justified emendation of Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1809), or for Alternative B (suppression of Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1809 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy). The following explanatory note accompanied the voting paper. NOTE TO ACCOMPANY V.P. (78)6 Professor Tortonese originally applied in this case for the suppression of Hypacanthus Rafinesque, 1810. His modified proposal to give Lichia Cuvier, 1817, precedence over that name implies the addition of Hypacanthus to the Official List. Before that can be done, there is a question about the spelling of that name which must first be answered. In paragraph 8(1) of his application (Bull. vol. 31: 28), Professor Tortonese suggested that the three spellings used by Rafinesque - AHypacantha, Hypacanthus, Hypacantus - were all published in 1810, but it seems that this was not the case. The sequence of the names appears to have been: Hypacantus, 1809, Caratt. alc. nuov. gen. spec. anim. pianti Sicilia, pt. 1: 43 (for this date, see Fitzpatrick, T.J., 1911, Rafinesque, a sketch of his life with bibliography (Des Moines): 69) Hypacanthus, 1810, Indice d’Ittol. Sicil.: 19 Hypacantha, 1810, ibid.: 67, as an emendation of Hypacanthus. However, although Hypacantus is the original spelling, and Hypacanthus (from internal evidence) an incorrect subsequent spelling, the latter spelling is the one that has been most commonly used (though scarcely ever as a valid name), and should clearly be the one to be placed on the Official List. I therefore suggest that those members of the Commission who prefer the ‘relative precedence” procedure should vote for or against extending the use of the plenary powers to declare Hypacanthus a justified emendation of Hypacantus. Some members, on the other hand, may think that this makes too much of a small matter, and prefer to vote simply for the suppression of Hypacantus. This latter alternative does indeed seem justified by the facts and by the strongly expressed support of the C.1.E.S.M. At the close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 the state of the voting was as follows : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PA be Part 1 Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Brinck, Vokes, Sabrosky, Cogger, Habe, Tortonese, Binder, Willink, Nye, Alvarado, Corliss, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi, Welch, Ride Negative Votes — none (0) Part 2 For Alternative A — seven (7) received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Habe, Tortonese, Nye, Alvarado, Starobogatov For Alternative B — thirteen (13) received in the following order: Melville, Eisenmann, Brinck, Sabrosky, Cogger, Binder, Willink, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi, Welch, Ride Bayer voted against Alterative A; Holthuis and Starobogatov voted against Alternative B. No voting papers were returned by Dupuis and Kraus. 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: amia, Scomber, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 299 Hypacantha Rafinesque, 1810, Indice d’Ittol. Sicil.: 67 Hypacanthus Rafinesque, 1810, Indice d’Ittol. Sicil.: 19 Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1809, Caratt. alc. nuov. gen. spec. anim. pianti Sicilia, pt. 1: 43 Lichia Cuvier, 1817, Regne Animal, vol. 2: 321. The following is the original reference to a designation of type species for a nominal genus accepted by the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Scomber amia Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Lichia Cuvier, 1817, by Tate Regan, 1903, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 12: 348-350. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in Alternative B of Part 2 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. 1124. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 6 October 1978 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LETHOCERUS MAYR, 1853 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, BELOSTOMATIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION IN PLACE OF JLIASTUS GISTEL [1847]. Z.N.S.) 2161 By Arnold Menke (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560 U.S.A.) The purpose of this petition is to ask the Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress for purposes of priority the generic name TIliastus Gistel [1847] so that continued usage of the well-known giant water bug genus Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 will be maintained. 2. /fliastus was published in two different books with identical entomological textual content: Gistel (1848 :149, reprinted 1851) and Gistel [1847] in Gistel & Bromme ([{1847]- 1850: 490). Apparently the insect part of the latter work has priority. Both Sherborn’s ‘Index Animalium’” and Neave’s “‘Nomenclator Zoologicus” cite Jliastus as [1847] in Gistel & Bromme although only the date 1850 appears on the title page. In any case, the name predates Lethocerus Mayr by several years. In the two Gistel works the wording of the belostomatid sections is identical. /liastus is mentioned within his treatment of the genus Belostoma: ‘‘Hieher Jliastus (mihi) grandis, eine Nepa, unbekannt woher (in meiner Sammlung). 3” lang und 1 1/2” brett (eigens zu beschreiben [it never was]). Die grésste Wanze die ich je gesehen.” This appears on: 149 of the 1848 work and on :490 of the [1847] work. Although Jliastus is cited under the general heading of Belostoma, it is not clearly a manuscript name cited in synonymy, especially since it is separately indexed and preceded there by an asterisk indicating that it is a new taxon. 3.The association of the name Nepa grandis, the well- known (even in those days) Linnean giant water bug, with the name Iliastus, makes it the type-species by monotypy. Thus, the availability and identity of Jliastus is assured. Linnaeus’ grandis, described in 1758 in Nepa, is a member of the belostomatid genus currently known as Lethocerus. 4.As I have already pointed out elsewhere (Menke, 1976:169), Gistel’s generic name has gone unused since it was published except for its inclusion in nomenclators such as “Index Animalium,” ‘“‘Nomenclator Zoologicus” and Schulze, Kukenthal Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 et al. ‘“Nomenclator Animalium Gernerum et Subgenerum.” Lethocerus, on the other hand, has been used by many authors in a variety of papers (taxonomic, biological, morphological, physiological etc.) since Kirkaldy (1908:164) noted its priority over other names. Furthermore, Lethocerus is the type-genus of the subfamily LETHOCERINAE (Lauck & Menke, 1961:646). To satisfy the requirements of Art. 79(b) the following authors are cited as proof of this widespread usage of Lethocerus: Hungerford (1920:148), Moller (1921:43), De Carlo, (1930:196, 1964:337), Hoffmann (1931:661), Cummings (1933:198), Rankin (1935:479), Picado (1937:303), Herring (1951:157), Menke (1960:285, 1963:261), Lauck & Menke (1961:647), Brooks & Kelton (1967:38), Parsons (1968:349), Tawfik (1970:299), Popov (1971:112) and Nieser (1975:120). This list is by no means exhaustive. 5. In view of the foregoing the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take the following action: (1) Use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Iliastus Gistel [1847] and 1848 (as well as the 1851 reprint) for the purposes of the Law Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) Place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Lethocerus Mayr, 1853, (gender masculine), type- species Lethocerus cordofanus Mayr, 1853, by monotypy; (3) Place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cordofanus Mayr, 1853, as published in the binomen Lethocerus cordofanus (the specific name of the type-species of Lethocerus Mayr, 1853); (4) Place the following generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology; (a) Iliastus Gistel, [1847], 1848 and 1851, (Suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above). Literature Cited BROOKS, A.R. & L.A. KELTON, 1967. Aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Mem. Ent. Soc. Canada, no. 51, 92 pp. CUMMINGS, C., 1933. The giant water bugs. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. , vol.21: 197-219. 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature De CARLO, J.A., 1930. Familia Belostomidae. Generos y especies para la Argentina. Rev. Soc. Ent. Argentina, vol. 3: 101-124. 1964. Genero Lethocerus Mayr. Physis, vol.. 24: 337-350. GISTEL, J., [1847] in GISTEL, J. & F. BROMME, [1847] - 1850. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte aller drei Reiche, fur Lehrer and Lernende, fiir Schule und Haus, Hoffmann, Stuttgart, 1037 pp., 48 pls. —___— 1848. Naturgeschichte des Thierreichs. Fur hohere Schulen. Hoffmann, Stuttgart, xvi + 216 + 4 pp., 32 pls. (reprinted in 1851). HERRING, J.L., 1951. The aquatic and semiaquatic Hemiptera of northern Florida, part 4: classification of habitats and keys to the species. Fla. Ent., vol. 34: 146-161. HOFFMAN, W.E., 1931. Studies on the bionomics of the water-bug, Letho- cerus indicus in China. Verhandl. Internatl. Verein. Theor. angewand. Limnol., vol. 5: 661-667. HUNGERFORD, H.B., 1920. The biology and ecology of aquatic and semi- aquatic Hemiptera. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., vol. 21: 1-341. KIRKALDY, G.W., 1908. A synonymic note on certain Belostomidae. Can. Ent. vol. 40: 164. LAUCK, D.R. & A.S. MENKE, 1961. The higher classification of the Belostom- atidae. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., vol. 54: 644-657. MENKE, A.S., 1960. A review of the genus Lethocerus in the Eastern Hemi- sphere, with the description of a new species from Australia. Australian J. Zool. vol. 8: 285-288. —____ 1963. A review of the genus Lethocerus in North and Central America, including the West Indies. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., vol. 56: 261-267. 1976. The status of belostomatid names published by J.N.F.X. Gistel. Ent. News. , vol. 87(5&6): 167-170. MOLLER, H., 1921. Uber Lethocerus uhieri Mont. Zool. Jahrb., vol. 42: 43-90. NIESER, N., 1975. The water bugs of the Guyana Regions. Stud. Fauna Suri- name Guyanas, no. 59,310 pp. PARSONS, M.C., 1968. The cephalic and prothoracic skeletomusculature and nervous system in Lethocerus. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), vol. 47: 349-406. PICADO, C., 1937. Estudo experimental sobre o veneno de Lethocerus del- pontei (De Carlo). Mem. Inst. Butantan, vol. 10: 303-310. POPOV, Y.A., 1971. Historical development of Hemiptera, infraorder Nepo- morpha. Trudy Paleon. Inst. Acad. Sci. USSR, vol. 129: 1-227 [in Russian]. RANKIN, K.P., 1935. Life history of Lethocerus americanus (Leidy). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. vol. 22: 479-488. TAWFIK, M.F.S., 1970. The life history of the giant water bug Lethocerus niloticus Stael. Bull. Soc. Ent. Egypte, vol. 53: 299-310. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 TOXOSTOMA CRISSALE “HENRY” [= BAIRD], 1858 (AVES: MIMIDAE); PROPOSED CONSERVATION IN PLACE OF TOXOSTOMA DORSALE; WITH A PROPOSED ADDITION TO ARTICLE 32 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Z.N.(S.) 2215 By John P. Hubbard (2097 Camino Lado, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501, U.S.A.) S. F. Baird, in describing (in Henry, T.C., 1858a, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 10: 117—118, May) a North American thrasher (Toxostoma) under the “authorship” of T. C. Henry (the collector), intended to use the specific name crissalis (later emended to crissale to conform with the neuter gender of the generic name), and so it appeared in Baird’s manuscript submitted, through John Cassin, for publication in the Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia (see Hubbard, 1976, Nemouria, No. 20,7 pp.). As the result of errors made during the editing or printing of the description, the name actually appeared as Toxostoma dorsalis [correctly dorsale|, the specific name inadvertently borrowed from another taxon being described in the same paper, i.e. Junco dorsalis (= Junco caniceps dorsalis). The Toxostoma has a rusty crissum, with the dorsal area concolorous with the rest of the upper parts, while the Junco has a reddish dorsal patch; hence their respective intended names. 2. When Baird received the publication containing the incorrect specific name in May 1858, he immediately wrote to Cassin to express his dismay and to request that a correction be made immediately of that and other errors in the publication. These corrections were made in June 1858, and the correct name Toxosotoma crissalis {correctly crissale] appeared (Henry, 1858b, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 10: 117—118, June). The corrections were made in the form of a reissue of the two pages concerned. Instructions were issued at the end of vol. 10 of the Proceedings to the effect that the old pp. 117—118, issued in May 1858, were to be discarded and replaced by the new pages issued in June 1858 (see Hubbard, 1976). In some sets of the serial these instructions were followed, for the May version of those pages is not to be found. 3. With the issue of the corrected pp. 117—118, the name T. dorsalis (or dorsale) disappeared from use for 62 years, and the species was called Toxostoma crissalis (or crissale) with Crissal Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Thrasher as the official English name, in all the literature (see A.O.U. Check-list North American Birds, lst, 2nd and 3rd editions, 1886, 1895, 1910). 4. In 1920 Oberholser (Auk, vol. 37: 303) resurrected the name dorsalis (or dorsale), based on the fact that it had priority over crissalis (or crissale) under the A.O.U. code. Ten years later (1930, Cleveland Mus. nat. Sci. Publ., vol. 1: 83—124) he reiterated the assertion that dorsalis (= dorsale) should be used rather than crissalis (= crissale), and in 1931 the A.O.U. Check-list replaced crissale with dorsale, while keeping the English name Crissal Thrasher. This occurred after a period of 73 years in which crissale had been in nearly universal use among ornithologists, including such eminent workers as S.F. Baird, Elliot Coues, R. Ridgway, A. Wetmore, A. van Rossem, and others. 5. The rationale for reverting to the name dorsale was that it had priority over crissale, even though admittedly published as the result of a printer’s or editor’s error and contrary to the author’s intentions. Erroneous names can be changed under the Code (without application to the Commission) only as regards contraventions of mandatory provisions (see Article 32a, i) or as ‘regards errors evident in the original publication (see Article 32a, ii) “without recourse to any external source of information” (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 83). Clearly, there is no basis in the present Article 32 of the Code for zoologists to accept the intended name crissale over the first published name dorsale, in the absence of action by the Commission. Thus resort must be had to the Commission’s plenary power or to amendment of the Code itself. 6. Usage of dorsale in place of crissale since 1931 has been general and widespread, but not universal. Phillips (1962, Anal. Inst. Biol. Univ. Mexico, vol. 33: 331—377) and Phillips, Marshall & Monson (1964, Birds of Arizona, Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson) are among those who have not accepted this nomenclature. Phillips has been particularly adamant in rejecting dorsale, arguing that to do otherwise is to allow “printers’ devils” rather than scientists to establish nomenclature. Thus, over a century after the species was described, the usage of dorsale versus crissale has not been settled to a point of universal acceptability. 7. My first request is, therefore, that the specific name crissale be validated in place of dorsale on the following grounds: (a) the name of the taxon was intended to be crissale and it was so submitted (as crissalis) in manuscript to the editor and printer of the Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia (see Hubbard, 1976); (b) crissale (in the form crissalis) was immediately published (c) (d) (e) (f) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 by Baird as the correct name after it had been inadvertently replaced by dorsalis. This correction was supported by John Cassin and concurred in by the editor of the Proceedings; the latter issued printed instructions to the binders of the 1858 volume to replace the erroneous pages by the corrected ones, and in some copies the erroneous pages have in fact been destroyed; crissale is an appropriate name, referring to the rusty crissum of the otherwise generally drab brown bird. On the other hand, dorsale was inadvertently ‘‘borrowed” from another taxon that was concurrently described, and it is an inappropriate and confusing name for Toxostoma crissale; crissale conforms with the established common name of ‘“‘Crissal Thrasher’’, long used for and universally applied to this bird; crissale (or crissalis) was the only name used for this taxon from June 1858 to 1920 (62 years) and remained the name in general use until 1931 (73 years); crissale has not disappeared from use but has continued to be preferred by some workers. 8. In consequence, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1) (2) (3) to use its plenary powers to rule that crissale is the correct original spelling of the specific name first published in May 1858 as dorsalis, in the binomen Toxostoma dorsalis; to place the specific name crissale Baird, 1858, as published in the binomen Toxostoma crissalis {sic} and as ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be a correct original spelling, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the specific name dorsalis Baird, 1858, as published in the binomen Toxostoma dorsalis, an incorrect original spelling of crissale as published in the binomen Toxostoma crissalis [sic] in consequence of the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 9. My second request is for an amendment to the Code to cover cases of which the present one is a particularly clear example, although analogous cases are certainly numerous. It seems that a 242 Bulletin of. Zoological Nomenclature need exists to provide guidelines to scientists and to members of various nomenclatural bodies as to what types of erroneous names can be corrected. The amendment proposed below would not mean a wholesale and unchecked reversion to junior synonyms or other names not currently in use; all such corrections would require a vote of concurrence of the Commission, but by a simple majority under the ordinary powers, not a two-thirds majority under the plenary powers. It would provide a more flexible approach to a particular, but not uncommon, type of situation. 10. I therefore propose that a new Section e to Article 32 of the Draft Third Edition of the Code be added, as follows: “(e) Unintended original spelling.- If a name in the original publication can be demonstrated by evidence internal or external to the work itself to be other than that intended by the original author, the proposed correction must be referred to the Commission which may decide by a simple majority vote which is the correct original spelling of the name concerned, provided that (i) the author’s intention must have been subverted by a copyist’s or printer’s error, a lapsus calami, or an editorial change not authorised by the author; (ii) linguistic or orthographical errors made with the consent of the original author are not to be amended under the provisions of this Section. Example.- The epithet dorsalis (correctly dorsale) in the binomen Toxostoma dorsalis Baird, May, 1858 was published without Baird’s consent. He had intended the binomen Toxostoma crissalis (correctly crissale), as is demonstrated by his original manuscript, by correspondence, and by publication of the intended name in a reissue of the original context in June 1858. The decision on which is the correct original spelling may be made by the Commission by a simple majority vote.” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 LESPESIA ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, 1863: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (DIPTERA, TACHINIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2234. By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington 20560, D.C., U.S.A.) The present application is intended to stabilize the generic name of one of the largest and most important genera of parasitic flies (TACHINIDAE) in the Western Hemisphere, Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863: 567. In older literature, the species were referred to Frontina Meigen, but when that generic name was found to be misapplied, the name Achaetoneura Brauer and Bergenstamm, 1891, was adopted and was used in the generic revision by Webber (1930). Subsequently (Mesnil, 1950) it was found that Lespesia, described from France, was actually based on American material, perhaps imported with some species of American silk worm brought into France after disease had decimated the numbers of the silkworm, Bombyx mori (Linnaeus). Achaetoneura was thereupon rejected as a synonym of Lespesia, and this name has been used in Mesnil’s generic key (1950), in the now standard revision of the genus by Beneway (1963), and in the nearctic and neotropical catalogues of Diptera (Sabrosky and Arnaud in Stone et al., 1965: Guimaraes, 1971), as well as in published records and biological studies during the past 20 years. Now complications have appeared in the identification of the type species. This application is submitted under the misidentified type species rule (Article 70a). 2.The type species of Lespesia has been considered to be Erycia ciliata Macquart. The checkered history of ciliata may be outlined as follows: a. Erycia ciliata Macquart, 1834: 294 male ‘Environs de Lille.” This type is still in existence in the Museum at Lille and has been studied by Herting (1976: 3) (see subparagraph i). b. Senometopia ciliata Macquart, 1835: 113. Male, “4 Lille” The name is marked ‘“‘Nob.” [i.e. Macquart] , which in some cases signifies a citation of one of “our” previously published names but in other cases accompanies a newly published name. The description is identical with that of 1834 except for omission of one character and slightly Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature different punctuation. It is accepted as a different generic combination. c. Senometopia ciliata Macquart cited as a synonym of Sturnia scutellata Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: Macquart, 1849: 358. d.Masicera scutellata) (Robineau-Desvoidy), with references to Erycia ciliata and Senometopia ciliata listed in synonymy ; Macquart, 1850: 458. e. Lespesia ciliata (Macq.); Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863: 569, in the first publication of Lespesia. Male, presumably from Saint-Sauveur, Yonne, 150 km. S.E. of Paris, although published in his work on the Diptera of the “Environs de Paris.” He described a male reared at his home from a Bombyx sp. and stated that ‘“‘Les caractéres génériques ont été décrits d’aprés ce Male.” He also found a female in the Museum at Paris that he believed to be the female of the species; it was labelled Masicera ciliata by Macquart himself, and Robineau-Desvoidy adopted the name ciliata and credited it to Macquart, even though he had not found the description (‘“‘je n’ai trouvé nulle part la description.’’). f. Lespesia ciliata; Mesnil, 1950: 108. Mensil pointed out that Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863, had incorrectly identified his male specimen as ciliata Macquart, and that his male - which Mesnil called ‘‘Typus” - agreed with the type of the American Achaetoneura hesperus Brauer and Bergenstamm, 1891: 334 (30), (Vienna Museum), considered by Webber (1930) - and still considered - a synonym of A. frenchii (Williston) (1899: 1923). Mesnil therefore adopted Lespesia in place of Achaetoneura. is g. Lespesia ciliata (Macquart) (syn. Achaetoneura samiae Webber, 1930: 15); Beneway, 1963: 644. Beneway’s revision is currently the standard one for this difficult genus. The synonymy was based on examination by G.W. Byers of the male [reared by Robineau-Desvoidy] erroneously considered to be the type of Erycia ciliata Macquart. The male genitalia were not then examined, however, but subsequently Paul H. Arnaud, Jr. dissected the specimen and found that it belongs to a different species, that recognized by Beneway as L. datanarum (Townsend) (1892: 287). h. Herting (1974: 16) reviewed the relevant specimens during his revision of the palaearctic tachinids described by Robineau-Desvoidy and Macquart, with the following results: male (actual basis of Lespesia) = L. datanarum (Townsend), according to Arnaud from examination of the male genitalia. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 female (labelled Masicera ciliata by Macquart, see note 2e) = Sturmia bella (Meigen, 1824). true ciliata Macquart = Sturmia scutellata Robineau- Desvoidy (referred by some authors to Blepharipa Rondani, 1856, as a segregate from Sturmia). i. Herting (1976: 3) further revised the palaearctic TACHINIDAE described by Macquart and noted again that the true type male of Erycia ciliata Macquart is Sturmia scutellata, which he synonymized with Sturmia pratensis (Meigen). j. The male genitalia figured as ZL. datanarum by Beneway (1963) and agreeing with those of the male called L. ciliata by Robineau-Desvoidy, are unique in the genus and are easily recognized as the genitalia of L. anisotae (Webber) (1930: 13), which Beneway synonymized under datanarum. Unfortunately, males reared from Datana have distinctly different male genitalia. It is possible that anisotae might also attack Datana, at least on occasion, but the holotype of datanarum is a female, and thus far I have been unable to distinguish females of datanarum and anisotae. It seems best, therefore, to record the misidentified ciliata as anisotae, which may or may not prove to be equal to datanarum. 3. It is far clearer than in most cases that the characters of the genus Lespesia were drawn from a particular specimen, the male reared by Robineau-Desvoidy. This specimen was said to be ciliata Macquart, the name adopted from a female in the Museum at Paris labelled Masicera ciliata Macquart and presumed to be the female of the species. If this had been only a manuscript name, the species could justifiably be cited as L. ciliata Robineau-Desvoidy, but unfortunately the combination with Masicera was one of several different generic combinations for the original Erycia ciliata Macquart. I can only conclude that Lespesia is based on L. ciliata (Macquart), but misidentified by Robineau-Desvoidy. 4. Two alternatives can be considered: a. To accept ciliata Macquart as type-species of Lespesia, in which case Lespesia, 1863, would fall as a junior synonym of Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, or of Blepharipa Rondani, 1856, for those authors who recognize the latter as distinct from Sturmia. b. To accept as type species of Lespesia, by use of the plenary powers, the species misidentified as ciliata Macquart, i.e., anisotae (Webber), which is the species on which Lespesia was based. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. Choice of the first alternative would upset Lespesia and require return to the use of Achaetoneura, but the name Lespesia has now become well established in the American literature, even though in relatively recent times as pointed out in the opening paragraph. There would be no effect in the palaearctic literature, as both Lespesia and ciliata would be junior synonyms. Choice of the second alternative would preserve the status quo by conserving the now well-established name Lespesia. Again there would be no effect in the palaearctic literature. On balance, choice of the second alternative is most desirable. 6. Accordingly the International Commission is requested to take the following actions- (1) under the plenary powers, to designate as type species of Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863, Achactoneura anisotae Webber, 1930; (2) To place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 (gender: feminine), type species, Achaetoneura anisotae Webber, 1930, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) of this paragraph; and (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology anisotae Webber, 1930, as published in the binomen Achaetoneura anisotae (type species of Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863). 7. This application has been reviewed by and is supported by Paul H. Arnaud, Jr. (San Francisco, Calif.), J.H. Guimaraes (Sao Paulo, Brazil), and D.M. Wood (Ottawa, Canada). LITERATURE CITED BENEWAY, D.F. 1963. A revision of the flies of the genus Lespesia (= Achaet- oneura) in North America (Diptera: TACHINIDAE). Kans. Univ. Sci. Buil. vol. 44: 627-686. BRAUER, F., and BERGENSTAMM, J.E. von. 1891. Die Zweifliigler des kaiserlichen Museums zu Wien. V. Denkschr. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math. -nat. Cl., vol. 58: 305—446. (Also published separately, Wien, 1891: 142 pp.) {I have cited both pages] GUIMARAES, J.H. 1971. Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). Family 104: 333 pp., in A Catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. HERTING, B. 1974. Revision der von Robineau-Desvoidy beschriebenen europdischen Tachiniden und Rhinophorinen (Diptera). Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk. (Ser. A) no. 264: 46 pp. 1976. Revision der von Macquart beschriebenen paldarktischen Tachiniden und Rhinophorinen (Diptera). Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk. (Ser. A) no. 289: 10 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 MACQUART, J. 1834. Insectes Diptéres du Nord de la France. Athéricéres: Créophiles, .. .” Mém. Soc. Sci. Agric. Lille 1833: 137—368. 1835. Histoire naturelle des Insectes, Diptéres. Vol. 2: 703 pp. 1849. Nouvelles observations sur les Diptéres d’Europe de la tribu des Tachinaires (Suite). Ann. Soc. Ent. France (2) vol. 7: 353—418. 1850. Ditto (Suite). Ann. Soc. Ent. France (2) vol. 8: 419—492. MESNIL, L.P. 1950. Larvaevorinae (Tachininae) [cont’d.] Family 64¢: 105-160 (Lfg. 164), in Lindner, Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. [Published June 12, 1950; the date “1951” in the list of dates on the reverse of the title page of the volume is a typographical error, according to the publisher’s statement relayed by Professor Lindner]. ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, J.B. 1863. Histoire naturelle des Diptéres des envi- rons de Paris. Vol. 1:1143 pp. SABROSKY, C.W. and ARNAUD, P.H., Jr. 1965. Family Tachinidae. pp. 961—1108, in Stone et al., A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico, 1696 pp. TOWNSEND, C.H.T. 1892. Notes on North American Tachinidae, with descrip- tions of new species. Paper VII. Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. vol. 19:284—289. WEBBER, R.T. 1930. A revision of the North American tachinid flies of the genus Achaetoneura. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. vol. 78(10): 1—37. WILLISTON, S.W. 1889. The dipterous parasites of North American butter- flies. pp. 1912-1924, in Scudder, S.H., Butterflies of the eastern United States and Canada, vol. 3, pp. 1775—1958. Cambridge, Mass. 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CANCER VOCANS MAJOR HERBST, 1782 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): REQUEST FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE A NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.) 2235. By LB. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The present case is that of a species, the type of a well-known genus, the identity of which until very recently has always been misinterpreted by authors. The application of the specific name to the species for which it was originally intended will cause an undesirable confusion, which could be avoided if the Commission, under its plenary powers, validates a neotype for the species, which does not fulfil the conditions set by Article 75 c (4) and (5) of the Code, and thus cannot be selected in the normal way. 2. The genus Uca Leach, 1814, type species by monotypy: Uca una Leach, 1814, is a well known genus of fiddler crabs (Brachyura, OCYPODIDAE). In Opinion 712 (1964, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 21(5): 339) the name Uca was placed on the Official List of Generic Names as Name No. 1648. The specific name major Herbst, 1782, as published in the combination Cancer vocans major, an objective senior synonym of Uca una Leach, was at the same time placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (as Name No. 2019), as it is the oldest available name for the type species of the genus Uca. Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782; Ocypode heterochelos Lamarck, 1801; Cancer uka Shaw & Nodder, 1803; and Uca una Leach, 1814 are objective synonyms of each other as all are based on the figure and description given by Seba (1759, Locupletissimi Rerum Naturalium Thesauri, vol. 3: 44, pl. 18, fig. 8) of the species that he named Cancer uka una, Brasiliensibus. 3. H. Milne Edwards (1837, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2: 51), when describing a new species of fiddler crab from Cayenne, to which he gave the name Gelasimus platydactylus, expressed the opinion that “‘c’est 4 cette espéce que me parait devoir étre rapportée la Gélasime figurée par Seba (t. II, P1.18, fig. 8) ... La figure de Seba a été reproduite par Herbst sous le nom de Cancer vocans major’. Since that time most authors accepted this synonymy. Until 1918 both the names platydactylus and heterocheles (or heterochelos) were used for it; after the publication in 1918 of Rathbun’s fundamental monograph of the American grapsoid crabs (1918, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. 97: 381) Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 the name heterochelos adopted by Rathbun got the upper hand. In 1962 it was found (Holthuis, 1962, Bull. Zool Nomencl. vol. 19(4): 240) that heterochelos is an objective junior synonym of major Herbst, and that the latter name should be used. The name major, having been placed on the Official List, then was commonly accepted, e.g. in such handbooks as Chace & Hobbs’ “The freshwater and terrestrial Decapod Crustaceans of the West Indies . . --” (1969, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. 292: 213) and Crane’s (1975: 136) ‘Fiddler Crabs of the World, Ocypodidae: genus Uca” 4. With the generic name Uca and the specific name major both on the Official Lists, and with the unanimous interpretation of the name major, there seemed to be no nomenclatural problems with Uca. However, recently Bott (1973, Senckenbergiana Biol, vol. 54(4/6): 311-314) showed very convincingly that the identity of the specimen figured by Seba has always been incorrectly interpreted, and that most authors had been led astray by Seba’s indication that the specimen came from Brazil. Actually, a close study of Seba’s figure clearly shows that it is based on a specimen of an East Atlantic species, which is best known at present under the name Uca tangeri (Eydoux, 1835), and which occurs from southern Portugal to Angola, being the only species of Uca known from the Atlantic coast of Europe and Africa. Under a strict application of the Code, the consequences of Bott’s discovery are that the species from South America and the West Indies, which in recent handbooks is indicated with the name Uca major, should correctly be known as Uca platydactylus (H. Milne Edwards, 1837). Further, the species known as Uca tangeri should be given the name Uca major (Herbst, 1782) 5. Uca Dlatydactylus is not a very common species, so that a change of name here, though unpleasant, would not cause great disturbance, the more so as the name used at present has been in general use only since 1962. On the other hand, the name major has been adopted by Chace & Hobbs, 1969, and Crane, 1975 in two fundamental handbooks that will be the basis for work on these animals (taxonomic as well as ecological and behavioural) for the present and future generations of biologists. 6. If the change of the name Uca major sensu Crane to Uca platydactylus (H. Milne Edwards) would be only slightly disturbing, this is very much more so for the other nomenclatural change that results from Bott’s discovery. The East Atlantic Uca tangeri is a well known species and between 1835 and 1900 the specific name fangeri has been widely used for it; after 1900 this usage became unanimous. Being the only species of Uca occurring in Europe, its ecology and behaviour have been intensively studied by European 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature zoologists and the literature, especially the non-taxonomic, concerning it is quite extensive (see Crane, 1975: 124, for a listing of this literature). The change of the specific name tangeri to major would be most undesirable, and would cause great confusion. This is the more true, since the name major has been in use for more than 15 years for a quite different species, and since in Crane’s fundamental monograph the name fangeri is adopted. 7. It goes without saying that it would be most undesirable for the specific name major to be switched from one species to another, and as far as I can see there are two ways, both requiring the help of the plenary powers of the Commission, to avoid this: (a). Dr. Bott (1973: 313, 314) was of the opinion that the names Cancer vocans major Herbst, Ocypoda heterochelos Lamarck and Uca una Leach could be considered ‘“‘nomina oblita’’, since during the last 50 years they had not been used for the correct species. Even under the pre-1972 Code this interpretation of “nomen oblitum’’ was erroneous. Article 23b dealt with usage, not with correct identifications. Bott (1973) therefore ignored these names (he did not mention Cancer uka Shaw & Nodder at all) and used for the two species discussed here the names Uca platydactylus (H. Milne Edwards) and U. tangeri (Eydoux). The nomenclature adopted by Bott can only be legalized if the Commission suppresses, under its plenary powers, the specific names major Herbst, 1782, heterochelos Lamarck, 1801, uka Shaw & Nodder, 1803 and una Leach, 1814, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. The disadvantages of this solution are (1) that the name of the type-species of the genus Uca is suppressed, so that the Commission has to decide whether to recognize Gelasimus tangeri Eydoux as the type of Uca, or use its plenary powers to designate as such Gelasimus platydactylus H. Milne Edwards, and (2) it is possible that before 1835 other names have been given to Seba’s fiddler crab, so that such names, when discovered, have also to be suppressed. (b). Dr. Crane in her 1975 monograph used the name Uca major (Herbst) for the American species dealt with here, and the name Uca tangeri (Eydoux) for the European-West African species. To legalize these names, the Commission has to make use of its plenary powers and designate for Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782, and all its junior objective synonyms a neotype specimen which belongs to the species that H. Milne Edwards described as Gelasimus platydactylus. The disadvantage of this solution is that the neotype belongs to a species different from the actual type. On the other hand, it legalizes the taxonomic interpretation of the type that has been accepted since 1837, and furthermore fixes the names Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 as these have been used during the last 15 years. Bott’s (1973) study was followed by a paper (Bott, 1973a, Senckenbergiana biol., vol. 54(4/6): 315-325) in which a preliminary classification of Uca s.l. was given, and in which the old genus Uca was split up into 10 genera (7 new), one of which consisted of two subgenera (both new). Dr. Bott died on 27th January 1974 and published no other papers on Uca. Crane’s (1975) exhaustive monograph of the genus Uca (more than 700 pages) deals very extensively with the taxonomy, biology, ecology and especially the behaviour of the various species and will be consulted by anyone dealing with the group. The nomenclature used by Crane will be far more readily accepted than that proposed by Bott, who did not have the chance to elaborate his views. 8. It is for the above reasons that I propose the solution mentioned in paragraph 7(b) above. As the neotype of Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782, I now designate the male from Cayenne, French Guiana in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France, which Crane (1975: 601) listed as ‘““Type of G. platydactylus (‘type non spécifié’’)”’. This specimen is either the holotype of Gelasimus platydactylus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, or, if H. Milne Edwards had more than one specimen before him when drawing up the description, it is now made the lectotype of that species. The neotype was well described by H. Milne Edwards (1837: 51) and an account of the species is given by Crane (1975: 136)-fhe original type material of Cancer vocans major Herbst, like most of Seba’s dry material, cannot be traced. The present neotype selection, however, does not fulfil the requirements of Article 75(c) (4) and (5) of the Code, as the neotype is not consistent with what is known of the original type material and does not originate from the same type locality. Moreover, it is certain that the neotype belongs to a species different from that to which the original type belongs. The type locality of Cancer vocans major was said to be Brazil, but this is clearly erroneous. The correct type locality, judging by the range of the species, is either the south-west coast of the Iberian Peninsula or the west coast of Africa. This neotype selection can only be legalized under the plenary powers of the Commission. At the same time the neotype specimen should be made the neotype of the species that are objective synonyms of Cancer vocans major, all of which then become senior objective synonyms of Gelasimus platydactylus H. Milne Edwards. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked to:- (1) use its plenary powers to validate the neotype selection for Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782, made in paragraph 8 above; and declare this neotype selection valid also for 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the junior objective synonyms of that species, viz. Ocypode heterochelos Lamarck, 1801, Cancer uka Shaw & Nodder, 1803, and Uca una Leach, 1814; (2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tangeri Eydoux (1835, Mag. Zool. Paris, vol. 5(7): unnumbered page), as published in the combination Gelasimus tangeri; (3) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) platydactylus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the combination Gelasimus platydactyius; an objective junior synonym of Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782, through the neotype selection validated under (1) above; (b) uka Shaw & Nodder (1803, The Naturalist’s Miscellany, vol. 14: pl. 588) as published in the combination Cancer uka; an objective junior synonym of Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782. No action is required for the generic name Uca Leach, 1814, or for any of the specific names major Herbst, 1782, heterochelos Lamarck, 1801, and una Leach, 1814, as these have already been placed on the appropriate Official Lists and Index in Opinion 712. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 CHROMODORIS CALIFORNIENSIS BERGH, 1879 (MAY): PROPOSED CONSERVATION OVER CHROMODORIS GLAUCA BERGH, 1879 (MARCH) (MOLLUSCA: GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 2253 By Hans Bertsch (Natural History Museum, Balboa Park, San Diego, California 92112, USA) and Robert Burn (National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) The CHROMODORIDINAE are a group of tropical and warm-temperate nudibranch mollusks. Species of the genera Chromodoris and Hypselodoris account for the majority of the named taxa in this subfamily. Both because of the size of the group and a plethora of synonyms, there is still a fair amount of taxonomic dispute over the identity of various species. 2. By contrast, the species occurring along the Pacific coast of America have been carefully studied, with only three species that have been doubtful. These three have been shown to be subjective synonyms of other, well-known species (Bertsch, 1977, .1978a and 1978b). Chromodoris aegialia Bergh, 1904, is a synonym of Hypselodoris agassizii (Bergh, 1894); the 1894 species has been in current usage. Chromodoris banksi Farmer, 1963, is a synonym of Chromolaichma dalli (Bergh, 1879 b). This synonymisation has a relatively minor effect on stability; although the name banksi has been used often in the modern literature (including the original description, it has appeared on 12 occasions, in works by 8 different authors), dalli has not been a forgotten name (between 1879 and 1926, the name occurred in 10 publications by 4 different authors; since 1960, 8 occasions by 8 different authors). Article 79 (b) of the 1972 Code borders on being applicable to this situation, but because the difference in usage of the names dalli and banksi is so marginal, we feel that the Law of Priority must be followed. The synonymization of Chromodoris glauca Bergh, 1879 a, with Hypselodoris californiensis (Bergh, 1879 b) presents a major upset of general usage if the Law of Priority were to be invoked. 3. The name californiensis has appeared in the literature numerous times in combination with the genera Hypselodoris, Chromodoris (original designation), and Glossodoris (the modern understanding of these genera is based on Odhner, 1957). Between 1879 and 1927, 8 authors used californiensis on 16 occasions (Bergh himself accounts for 9 uses). Since 1927, at least 29 authors have used the name californiensis in 36 different publications, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 35 part 4, May 1979 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature including major monographs, textbooks, and reference books. A selection of these works includes: i. Smith, A. G., and M. Gordon. 1948. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 26: 180. 2 Lance, J. R. 1961. Veliger, vol. 4: 66. a Paine, R. T. 1963. Veliger, vol. 6:4, 8. 4. MacFarland, F. M. 1966. Mem. Calif. Acad. Sci. vol. 6: 157—162; pls. 24 and 34. 2 Sphon, G. G., and J. R. Lance. 1968. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 36: 79. 6. Ricketts, E. F., J. Calvin, and J. Hedgpeth. 1968. Between Pacific Tides: 119, 514. yz Ele A. M. 1971. Sea Shells of Tropical West America: 823; pl. XX. 8. McBeth, J. W. 1971. Veliger, vol. 14: 158. 2. Bertsch, H., A. J. Ferreira, W. M. Farmer, and T. L. Hayes. 1973. Veliger, vol. 15: 287. 10. McDonald, G. R., in: R. 1. Smith and J. T. Carlton. 1975. Light’s Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates of the Central California Coast: 528, 540. 4. Since its establishment, glauca has appeared rarely in the literature. Bergh based the original description on two undissected, preserved specimens then, but now no longer, present in the Zoologisches Museum, Berlin (Dr. R. Kilias, in litt., 11 May 1971). Between 1879 and 1905, Bergh included the name in various lists, but without reference to any additional specimens. There have been only 4 other uses of glauca since 1905. One reference does not occur in the primary literature sensu stricto, and the others are simply listings as a synonym or a possible synonym. 4 a. Pruvot-Fol (1951: 106) included the taxon in her list, with a synopsis of Bergh’s description, stating that ‘cette espéce devra probablement étre assimilée 4 l’une des Glossodoris bleues de Californie.” 4 b. Russell (1971: 76, 131) listed the name glauca in his bibliography of nudibranch literature. 4 c. Bertsch (1976: 158) simply listed Chromodoris glauca as a junior synonym of Hypselodoris californiensis. Burn (1978) demonstrated that the publication of glauca actually occurred one and a half months prior to californiensis. The name glauca, therefore, has priority. 5. To replace californiensis with the forgotten name glauca would seriously affect a well-established general usage. Because of the disuse of the senior synonym, Bertsch (1977: 114) suggested that Chromodoris glauca be relegated to the synonymy of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 Hypselodoris californiensis as a nomen oblitum. We have considered two alternative requests to the Commission: one for the suppression of Chromodoris glauca under the provisions of Articles 23a—b and 79b; the other for the grant of nomenclatural precedence over C. glauca to Hypselodoris californiensis. Having regard to the fact that the syntypes of C. glauca were never dissected and have anyway disappeared, we see no useful purpose in artifically maintaining that name for possible use as a valid name and accordingly ask for its suppression. 6. We therefore request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name glauca Bergh, 1879, as published in the binomen Chromodoris glauca, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name californiensis Bergh,1879, as published in the binomen Chromodoris californiensis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name glauca Bergh, 1879, as published in the binomen Chromodoris glauca, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED BERGH, L.S.R. 1879 a. Neue Chromodoriden. Malakozool. Blatt., N.F., vol. 1: 87-116. (31 March 1879) 1879 b. On the nudibranchiate gasteropod Mollusca of the North Pacific Ocean, with special reference to those of Alaska. Part I. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 31:71—132. (10 May 1879) 1894. Reports on the dredging operations off the west coast of Central America to the Galapagos, to the west coast of Mexico, and in the Gulf of California. XIII. Die Opisthobranchien. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard Univ., vol. 25 (10) : 125-233. 1904. Malacologische Untersuchungen: Nudibranchiata. In: C. Semper, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen, Wissenschaftliche Resultate, vol. 9 (6): (1): 1-55. 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BERTSCH, H. 1976. A new species of Chromodoris (Opisthobranchia: Nudibranchia) from tropical west America. Veliger, vol. 19 (2): 156-158. 1977. The Chromodoridinae nudibranchs from the Pacific coast of America. — Part I. Investigative Methods and Supra-specific Taxonomy. Veliger, vol. 20 (2): 107-118. ——_——._ 1978a. The Chromodoridinae nudibranchs from the Pacific coast of America. — Part III. The Genera Chromolaichma and Mexichromis, Veliger, vol. 21 (1): 70-86. 1978b. The Chromodoridinae nudibranchs from the Pacific coast of America. — Part IV. The Genus Hypselodoris. Veliger, vol. 21(2): 236-250. BURN, R. 1978. Publication dates of Bergh’s 1879 papers describing American chromodorids. Veliger, vol. 20 (3): 298—299. FARMER, W.M. 1963. Two new opisthobranch mollusks from Baja California. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 13 (6) : 81—84. ODHNER, N.H. 1957. Chromodoris contra Glossodoris, a systematic- nomenclatorial controversy. Proc. Malac. Soc. London, vol. 32 (6): 250-253. PRUVOT-FOL, A. 1951. Revision du genre Glossodoris Ehrenberg. Journ. Conchyl., vol. 91 (3): 76—132. RUSSELL, H.D. 1971. Index Nudibranchia. Delaware Mus. Nat. Hist., Greenville, Delaware. iv + 141 pp. 2ST Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Bain, O_ & Others... 2.5 5:.-5. 51 Benmtane Me). J): twececce nt 14 IBGrischy ETC yes 6s Bie duc 5 tens: « 253 Bolton, B.& Others .... 83,144 Bradley, J.D. & Sattler, K. ... 71 Brandon-Jones,D. ........ 69 BroakesRoie Schsiee, £89... 84 Bruces MD wom ntl... LS. 187 BUTTE, Rise cxcatis'« sappets: « saberers 253 Clark .RABs CTitst0 cE Tah ~ «ane 136 olless Do ctinertt foeets moicts 161 Gorbel GiB. .. ew ee 235025 ComanCeB iy 5:2) «sauiay stew oye ys 55 PHAKONOTE. A secs es apents Anskionsue 9 Fautin Dunn, D.& Hand,C... 74 Biptcher. DoS. ..,. «0.2 5 <). 8 POO Ge one wb ans oTeKeks fe + x0 Ls Gres, Co 5) tyeun' le ieregutins 76,197 Martogs3.Cxdens.!. if. 25... nS Helsdingen van,P.J. ....... 44 FICODOUL Ds, a. ierers, «,nikevep's yaya. 40 JF Ode i ae ee er ae 23 Rroltinis: £2 Biss (2... feo! aeaxe 18, 196 197, 248 ERMMEMM SEIS EE Sao ein 2 ate 187 Howells, Y. & Others....... 15 PR Te aie nayetmanpinne gages 239 Jairajpuri, M.Shamim ...... 121 Mel SIR ATs si 5i.)- Se ees 127 Kevan DRO McE....... sii. - 34 Bey RT Bees 6 goes 148, 158 Mirkegaard, J.B. 2... oo... 25 MaliCiSIg. OS one so ae, os ae 82 Page Bangeuth Acc steutcask® «8 115 Memawe Cu. tes Oe ok i Locket tal. < enantio. 44 Macan,T.T. & Leston,D..... 111 MadgesR-Bs. Cutretteckede ss : 9 Marshall Sin! adtcn SEES 58 Marshall, L.G. & Others ..... 12 Melville RiVx os. ates 15,24 77, 82, 165, 198, 200 Menke) Ate ovautvutativeusteasks cs 236 MillidgestA Po: - Gececeeee 2 oo 44 Morris,S.Conway ........ 49 Mroczkowski, M. & Others ... 147 NIG ISS TG Rg a ca Yon) 25 Nye We. -cr. 22 3.42 8,151,154 Peiler Ria. cots uss, ofa) ae 7 Pettibone. Mob... « cste nom = 24 RAC, SEDI as, pan auanae.e: os 156 RUSHTON: Ac Wes fg = orcs 16 Sabrosky,C.W..... 156, 199, 243 Siliverberg, Hc oc. cos ss 146 Smith, H.M. & Smith, R.B.... 184 Spilmaw Gls i eee och «= Se 150 SteyskalGe:€. ...5.0.jeccte 138, 168 COLOR O Re. eu sie ctd «3 2 58 Thibault. 2:-C.. . sgssha es < 187 Theker3 Keo a actenacescia.« jee 189 Watson Asin s oes. ciara, 8 Webbe RiGst Serica sos 47 Williams? RB. eich es 5 17 WIE, olWns 5 oe sisis bb’ $" bet 164 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Opinion 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 rb? 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, 1908 (Acarina, IXODIDAE) conserved ............+--+-ee-eee: 1890 (Mollusca, GASTROPODA) conserved ....... Cerithium Bruguiére [1789] (GASTROPODA): designation of type species under plenary powers ... Microterys Thomson, 1875 (Hymenoptera, CHALCIDOIDEA): conserved under the plenary PUEES tis pre Oe res oc ne ata %e late ts titers ete oe Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera, LEUCOSPIDAE) conserved under the plenary RES See er eens a net ie nr -acrtige® a eee eee Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Diptera, MILICHIIDAE): designation of a type species under the plenary ES OR ily. pesca Re kb Ee eects Alpheus neptunus Dana, 1852 (Crustacea, ALPHE- IDAE): status of a neotype confirmed ............ Cornuspira Schultze, 1854 (Foraminifera): conserved Under the plonaty POWems. ....- 2...» deer gee ease Nysson Latreille (Hymenoptera, SPHECIDAE) yalidated as fran€1 796 | ..<. .nhis lied ites Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia) validated under the plenary powers .............. Sphaerodactylus (Reptilia, Lacertilia): refusal of request for two rulings concerning the names of SPCR osc etd ta vow pds One Dy ot yneeteene Tribolbina carnegiei Latham, 1932 (Arachnida): COGEIOD ne Stee pa ot pet ek ese enee eeeee Amaurobius C.L. Koch, 1837 and Coelotes Blackwell, 1841 (Araneae): conserved under the plenary powers. Noctua armigera Hiibner [1808] (Lepidoptera): Poe Ty es eT igen Rampage LS GOR nd see tit $n A6-BeAPAY Aeheetp-- ~ Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822: designation under the plenary powers as type species of Chanda Hamilton-Hychanan, 1822 (Pisces) «. . 4... 6 gi, . os Loligo opalescens Berry, 1911: nomenclatural precedence given over Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (Colinas oo acg 5 < x can < .'.'. 3. a sie ec ce wt ties eee ee ose 115 Se PE EEN LOTS cole als sm an cae sia = ts « ee as os suneEe 69 SS STERIC eie es 'n's o's ees ¢ S's 2 6 nes 6 ale een ee 69 columbia, Selkirkia, Conway Morris, 1977 ............-2002 00s 50 Deumingtie, Dergsis. Ameguino 1891... oes oo as we as we ae oe 59 Canna rapiio, Einngeus, 1758 ..5.5 0 2 eo sees aude so os age mae 6 55 cordofanus, Lethocerus, Mayr, 1853 ..........00e eee eeeeees 237 BOrondin: Aciaaspis. Salter, 1859. dis oe ce te es oe eeee a ae ae 16 crissalis, Toxostoma, “Henry” [= Baird ],1858...............-. 239 cylindraria belgica, Nereis, Pallas, 1766 .............ee ee eeees 20 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 262 Page dauuricus, Erinaceus, Sundevall, 1842 .............---...22- 123 Se ASO LEIS onc a Se spare es See ee hers ee 58 Decastis Ameghino 189)... - 1. 3.2 sa see

wm wien id oe fo EOS 74 TRCTUNOMONIG WOOUS” FOO ik wana <5 ooo erie eo 6 ape ee S oleate creel Lae donningtonensis, Cucullaea, Keeping, 1883 ............2-.2208- 127 GOKSGuS ‘COrtxd PEACH. VOLT 2 6% oss sso 2s /= oes one en ian ra ee eh 2. dormanr loxostoma: Band, 1550... =~ = +5 aidock Ble sgclekelsd~ ganas 239 dzinezumi, Sorex, Temmitick, [1844]... 2. oc.5 2 0. ere cyineei seayersys 125 ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 ...............-. 37 eRIRRISGPGURORS EEA). ad. 2 ws «= o-< 5s < wEepere « attalel’ museleenl 35 BNE Sted, PIGITESNG. LIS? occ ak ee ek ee so wren 70 EPANORTHIDAE Amegnino, 1889 2... wc se ie. be sp ere is 58 Epanorthus Aqueghino, 1389 .*. . . . . cee Sas alo apeee wi cetaaeela = 59 Endanipra Burmeister, VE36 2. . cea & ttn a: neerGae see pens 35 EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 ...............- 37 eapinase, Ratton, Brants, VA2Z7 ~ .. wc sw os ee ess Biot Hates ie 115 fergusoni, Conus, G.B. Sowerby III, 1873 2 2... oc os one oho one pene 189 fuliginosus, Hyracodon, Tomes, 1863 . . .. . 1. 2 22 ne ee cee sete imeis 59 fulvocineius Commis, Crosse, 1872 . 2 = aie meer n> ance sneere 189 Garzonia Ameghino, 1891 . 2... 222. eee ce Sales Hee eee 58 GARZONIDAE Ameghino, 1891 . . 2 - ~ em enya mnels Se GSR HS 58 germanica, Blatta, Linnaeus, 1767 .... 2.2.22 eee eee eee eens 34 gibbon, Simia, C. Miller, 1779 . . . ~ wp. 4 + aun aye poyn ayant 75 glauca, Chromodoris, Bergh, 1879 ...... 2... 2 ee ee eee eee ee ees 253 GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Rosenstock, 1885 ...........-..--4-. er a’ GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Inoue. 1954... ss acs ms GRP ectepchs ante te 9,71 GLYPHIPTERYGIDAE Stainton, 1854 9,72 Giyphipteriz Hubner, [1825] ... ~~. . - - + 40a» -deaeeniets pete 9,71 Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827 ..... 2... cece eee eee eee ee nenee | grandis, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758. .......-.--02 es ee cece rece ees 236 granulata, Stromatopora, Nicholson, 1873 .........--++++++++: 14 gymnolaimus, Mononchus, Cobb, 1893........---+++e++e2e%: 122 Haliplanella Treadwell, 1943... 2.2... eee eee eee eee ee ees 73 Haliplanella Hand, 1956... . . . 2 1. - 288 8 we ee i eresiete's os 17,73 HALIPLANELLIDAE Hand, 1956... . . ..« na - wefan! Seombiok «is 17 Hesperia Fabricius, 1793 . . . a2 4 jad od Pees es ocean? te 56 HESPERIDES Latreflle, 1809 . x... caadd cto Seas aula dee 55 HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 .~ 2 ccs oe cee ew es we ee 55 heterochelos, Ocypode, Lamarck, 1801 ........-2-e ee eeeeees 248 263 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 Page meee Gistel,, (1947), ..... PERS. noanidael whither woaaroswem 236 uniperjecius, Tylenchus, Biitschli, 1876... 52.2. ek ec ee eee 122 BeGOONGHID AB Jatrajpuri; 1969 ai.icis caysdtiswcactia.... SSL awash s 121 CA CIM LEIS og sc eka bile we cea eaees 121 eeetemiiit CODD, 1920 e iivc sesso ce wise xe ce yo.e se etek eee BAL ee 121 mmancius Cosul9lG.. bes: AO VOM AS. Accent 11st ae 121 Be ONCHUSIDAE Jairajpuri 9G A iscetin td Soe eews. FACET 121 Rorent; Lagis. Malmgren; | S66)))23 -.~.-.-.-< 3.0) ORT ARP, IR 20 earn Gerrca. ‘Macan~ Sia) see ee S eS ear) 113 le Homo: ‘Linnaeus. 1771.97 oe ees Oe eee eee 197 Besperia Robineau-Desvoidy, ['3G3".*./ sc ore. oe ee ee ee 243 EEOPCTUS MAVTol OSS ee ace 5 oe ee eet tis eee ES ona one 236 paaia. Sucarcia:’ Versi; 1869 2 Fy SOP Pema? ot 7 mrncena Pnalgena, Cleve V1S9 a oe eso Se ee Sea ee te eee Tr PEC RIE SLOT II VECTIIN TOSS no ost oh) OS Depts were oe ets ti 73 poneunuim. Letiya, Tamatck, TOQUE. . ! soe. «oth. ce 2 02 «, due sates 196 manor Gancer vocans, Herbst, 1782. . « . < vaya se sncpcitesunntAs cSunisetetees 248 major, Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia, Linnaeus, 1758 ............. 8 margaritiferus, Herpetodryas, Schlegel, 1837 .................. 184 mengei, Lephthyphantes, Kulczynski, 1887 ................-.- ad meridionalis, Abderites, Ameghino, 1887 ..............-..+6-- 59 puloncata, Blatia, Linnaeus, 1758) }. asclede 15 vite, Litosoma, Skriabin & Shikhobalova, 1945 ...............4. 51 viteae, Litosoma: Krepkogorskaya, 1933 .....-.. - 6-05.00 02 eye oe 51 vitei, Litosoma, Sassuchin, Tiflow & Schulz,1935 .............. 51 wocans. major, Cancer Herbst, 1782 . . 22°. diane. i. kt Ese 248 wite, Litosoma,. Krepkogorskaya,'1933.. . 2002000. ec 5 ees 51 witei, Litosoma, McIntosh & McIntosh, 1935...............--- 5 265 Vol. 34: page 106. Vol. 35: page 13. page 37. page 53: Vol. 35: Page 71. page 94. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 Line 39: Line 2: Line 20: Line 30: Line 31: Line 17: Line 5: Line 12: CORRIGENDA for Chloreutis read Choreutis for ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1891 read ACYON- IDAE Ameghino, 1889 for BLATELLIDAE (1908) read BLATTELLIDAE (1908) for 2. BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 read ECTOBI- IDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 for 3. ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 read BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 for vite Skrjabin & Shikhobalova, 1945 read vite Skriabin & Shikhobalova, 1945 for :00 read :9 for feminine read masculine PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Part No. 1 +2 3 Contents of Part Date of Publication (pages) 1-64 31st July 1978 65-128 31st October 1978 129-192 19th February 1979 (Not Ist February 1979 as stated on cover.) 193-266 31st May 1979 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 266 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: T.P.1- VIII, 1 - 266 Note: The wr tea (covers) of the parts should be bound in at the end of the volume. Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the only regular source of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of donations and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. © 1979 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Norman Carter at 11 Broad Street, Teddington, Middlesex. a ie SE Co a ~ I 4; it A ¢ ty tila *, Yi + 4 ie a ae ee hi i yer ne rae | me i = aan lor Ae. } ‘ 5» PE ee ke ete Pe ie, ia 9 ; ‘e) 5 J ee ta ie roger) Wey . or Pe 7 : wy » piste hae a et eerie yy i Tefen ht ue hatA