aes Rice i Fel elee tt Nie uMe ‘ Cree eeeet i) aah ye ———— At" nf} aie } i) ; ain if # ! ii ev pote A 4 mi ‘) ie f Relient ( y i. ( { » Sey AeereMc yO f YER? Ly yh! Aah KRAUL Ma itetst lee Stith A Wain hit Had \ ty 4) Ry " ‘ ' ’ ‘i i ret rT \ 7 “4 aA AR 7 = r sy : 7 eee ‘Th a } a 2 ; = 4 pers: : ae’ w= = at: * = © r + : ’ ’ = — : Prue ¥ ” } = ; Be el ie Ais ; y 0 8 abo 7 ts r i il tae i. ~~ 7 7 a mys vee ; ae : i 2 i 7 7 j | 4 L : ay ‘ “en ra al of ay? » te it 7) = " / uJ : a is ‘coe ‘ - i pus whe, + ry v Oy / rir } Y a pleats: “hae At) JADNOOIOOS Pea . fi ; . ; ' fa. prema | (RS 2NOrT ARE ee iG Seis C NP . " a i ¢\ yo! astninte We oo ts Ty j as . a} i FA ; THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 38 LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD (All rights reserved) oy teh oh rilgat tigt yh Fer aT ie Uren Perel LeGe he tad | nd be 4 » ; ont Stycide tt chant rae nap nn Weinatagt torts ey aii). SaaRE TOR ede atte. + wan Site Fae? Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. . . (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain os a pall cialaals a Ee ert Ti areata ines 7S eae > Joes mown ae (c) ,Receipt of new applications .........--.2+e2-e ees Special announcements \/.. srs os ens, 0 eae elenenm nye wt leans ie coleiee Financial Report 1979, and Accounts of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature =... 3s. Feel 6 tere ieee oon lant pi no On the proposed neotype designation for Calymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita)(G. Hahn) ................ On the proposed designations of type species of Anaspis Miller, 1764, etc. (ILM. Kerzhner, F.C. Thompson & The Secretary) On the proposed rejection of Lacepéde’s Histoire Naturelle des Bienen Wat MAUMEE te se in > oo oa se oupeurgtae On the proposed conservation of Nettastomella 1865 (Bivalvia) The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on proposals for substantive amendments (third instalment) (EP Sp Nealon al elie aera Aiaramr ins ey peewee The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on proposals for substantive amendments (fourth instalment) PR CINE fe ay a sare ake. 9 69 suc aes ome The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on proposals for substantive amendments (fifth instalment) (GRRE SCCTCLATV etre ete Ge cee he iertone tee Maas nel oes) se ge er ee ar vos Opinion 1162. Schizoneura meunieri Heie, 1969 (Insecta, Hemiptera): conserved under the plenary powers ...............---- Opinion 1163. Conus molluccensis (Mollusca, Gastropoda) is available as from the work of Kiister, 1838 .................--- Opinion 1164. Refusal of request to suppress Calomicrus taeniatus Wollaston, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ................ Opinion 1165. Scytale niger Daudin, 1803 (Reptilia, Serpentes): SUPDICSSEG ore etre eM tea. cs vaya ot ual cr prs) cams Spa gal ete Opinion 1166. Liparthrum Wollaston, 1854 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): COTS ERMTE NT. oe Sean nan See tmrrte eee eee ar ws hia ale err en terte Opinion 1167. Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): CONSCIVE RE See Me ee a ae eee ees we nse etn oes Opinion 1168. Cacatua ducorpsii Pucheran, 1853 (Aves): conserved Opinion 1169. Cataphractus punctatus Bloch, 1794 (Pisces): lectotype CEsionalion Approved ee ee we tee seeoe aye cut > b aes e Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea): proposed designation of a type species (The Secretary) ............ Request for a change in Article 40 of the Code (M.H. Pettibone) Ill Page IV Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature... . (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain CASES ie tn cmon gt Be Pea Biaribi aos, ¢ SAYERS POPS eee Opinion 1189. CIRCINAE in Aves and Mollusca: removal of the NOMOMYN Ye ee eee ee te Te NI OMe ee to eats Opinion 1190. Pterois zebra Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829 (Pisces, Scorpaenidae) placed on the official list .......... Opinion 1191. Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 (Hemiptera, Berytinidae); lectotype designation confirmed ........... Opinion 1192. Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873 (Insecta, Homoptera, Coccidae): neotype designated ............. Opinion 1193. Ceratophysella Bérner, 1932 (Insecta, Collembola) CONSERVE MU IS SI OE RL Lees Mn aN Opinion 1194. Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): neotype Gesignated rarer. RAIL) RS). 2.) ED SARS. 200 201 205 228 229 229 229 230 233 236 237 237 238 239 243 247 249 252 254 256 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 Opinion 1195. Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda): the type species is Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 . . . Opinion 1196. Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846 (Crustacea: Ostracoda): designation of type species and of neotype for that species . . . Opinion 1197. Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825, C. comptonii Gray, 1847, C. bicolor Gaskoin, 1849 and C. angustata Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda): placed on the Official List ............... Opinion 1198. Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) suppressed ................. Direction 109. Seven family-group names in Insecta, Heteroptera placedion(OfficialMbist ye Seas AEE OT, SI, Re wk Direction 110. Ixodes Latreille, 1795 (Arachnida, Acarina): entry in Official List of generic names confirmed ............... Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Lacertilia): proposed designation of a type species by use of the plenary powers (The Secretary) Comment on the proposal that Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 and generic names ending in -chromis be ruled to be masculine (W.I. Pollet? Soe SDEMpSter) tet eee fs se aegs omen as = Typus_ Sellards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata): proposed conservation under plenary powers (F.M. Carpenter & BowWihialley Sayre at ee eee ete Sates og gs eee Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic name Typus Sellards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata) (D.L.F. Sealy) ....... Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Heteroptera): proposed nomenclatural waniation (LMe Merzhinen\ aes cs ie fs. os cas eee eee Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Byrrhidae): proposed conservation (M. Mroczkowski) .............. Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia): proposals to clarify the type species of the genus (G.H. Brown) ....... Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation (A.R. Banner & D.M. Banner) ............ Comment on the proposed conservation of Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L.B. Holthuis) ............ Vil 259 266 270 274 276 280 283 284 285 286 288 292 294 297 303 Vil Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Trust (Registered Charity No. 211944) will shortly be launching a world-wide appeal for more funds for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. _ The Commission has to plan for expansion to meet the growing demand for its work and for the needs of zoologists in the developing countries. It must be able to maintain its reliable service to all zoologists and paleontologists. Readers are invited to help make this forthcoming appeal a success by agreeing to assist in one or more of the following ways: — to give a donation 2 — to subscribe to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature 3 — _ tosupply the name and address of anyone they know who may be willing to give financial assistance or to whom an approach may be made. The address to send help in the way suggested, or for any further information, is: Dr F.G.W. Jones, Managing Director and Secretary, The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom Volume 38, Part 1 ISSN 0007 - 5167 pp. i-iv, 1 — 76 26th February 1981 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 Price £10.00 (All rights reserved) THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE \S A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o 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. I.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) Prof. T. HABE (National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido Shimuzu City 424 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 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, 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) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. 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, ul. Wilcza 64, 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 ii Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, 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 Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromséd, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Department of Zoology, University of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 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) Dr. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. 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. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. G.F. deWitte Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: (a) Date of commencement of voting by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ... (b) Possible use of the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in certain cases . . (c)" Receiptof new applicationseyee <2 -)-\2 ere eae Berane nrigunicements. 3:2 1s)2305, © ford) holela ois! sere GR ale ee Ate Financial Report 1979, and Accounts of the International Trust fomAcological Nomenclatiite.9-yr)- ciao 2s eveieacdee -eeene Comments On the proposed neotype designation for Calymene_ variolaris Broneniart.)1 822) (inlobita) (Gs Hahn). <5 1 s9e. 5% Be eis es. On the proposed designations of type species of Anaspis Muller, 1764, etc. (I.M. Kerzhner, F.C. Thompson & The Secretary) On the proposed rejection of Lacepede’s Histoire Naturelle des ENDENS CHEM: SAVALO) otadarc ro ossiepamel cite euctehs ano cre eee geass oc On the proposed conservation of Nettastomella .............. Commission Reports The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on proposals for substantive amendments (third instalment) Giie SECICLALy)) (2) Reply by Douglass R. Miller The comment by Danzig & Kerzhner significantly improves my applic- ation on Dactylopius and Pseudococcus. In particular, their proposal to des- ignate a neotype of Dactylopius longispinus, the type species of Pseudococcus, would stabilise the identity of that species. (2) Iam not certain of the identities of Coccus adonidum Linnaeus and Pediculus coffeae Linnaeus. Danzig & Kerzhner give good circumstantial evidence supporting their belief that these are respectively senior synonyms of Pseudococcus calceolariae (Mask.) (= P. fragilis Brian) and Planococcus citri (Risso), but some of the discrepancies pointed out by De Lotto, 1965, cause concern. Furthermore, because P. calceolariae is apparently of Australian origin, it is doubtful if Linnaeus could have seen it. However, the suppression of C. adonidum and P. coffeae as suggested by Danzig & Kerzhner will solve the problem whether they or De Lotto are right. (3) I am, however, concerned about the specimen that they propose for designation as neotype of D. longispinus. According to Article 75c(5), a Moscow specimen could indeed only be designated as neotype by the use of the plenary powers, because the type locality must almost certainly have been in Italy. At the U.S. National Museum there are 28 slides of P. longispinus from Italy, so clearly the species is not uncommon in that country. It seems clear to Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 83 me that, since Targioni-Tozzetti’s original material is lost, an Italian specimen could be designated as neotype without recourse to the Commission. (4) Thanks to Dr. E. Tremblay of the Istituto di Entomologia Agraria, Portici, Naples, Italy, I have received 10 slides, each containing one specimen of Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti from Cycas revoluta growing in the Botanical Gardens in Florence 29 October, 1979. I here designate a specimen from this series as neotype and have marked the slide as such. It is very probable that Targioni-Tozzetti collected from this locality. The neotype is deposited at the Portici Institute. Other specimens from the material provided by Dr. Tremblay will be deposited in (1) Florence, (2) British Museum (Natural History) London, (3) United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. (4) Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (5) University of California, Davis, (6) Pretoria, South Africa, (7) Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, (8) Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg and (9) Mexico City. (S) In their paragraph 12, Danzig & Kerzhner state that Dactylopius longispinus was proposed as a replacement name for Coccus adonidum Linn- aeus. Actually Targioni-Tozzetti realised that C. adonidum was mis-identi- fied by most authors, who were dealing with a species different from the one described by Linnaeus. D. longispinus is therefore a name for a previously undescribed species, not a replacement name, and Article 72d is inappropriate. I accordingly propose to amend Danzig & Kerzhner’s proposals as follows: (1)(£) delete. (7) read ‘place the specific name longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti as published in the binomen Dactylopius longispinus and as interpreted by reference to the neotype designated in paragraph 4 of this note (specific name of type species of Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(d) above) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology’. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR GNATHODUS PANDER, 1856 (CONODONTA). Z.N.(S.)2279 (see vol. 36, pp. 57—62, 201-202; vol. 37, p. 67) (1) by H. Kozur (Staatliche Museen Meiningens, Schloss Elizabethenburg, Meiningen, DDR). See also comment (3) In recent years Alekseev (lecture to the 1975 Congress on Carbonifer- ous Stratigraphy in Moscow), Kozur & Mostler, 1976, Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, and Lane & Ziegler, 1979, have discussed the taxonomic status of Gnathodus Pander, 1856. The conclusions of Alekseev, 1975, Kozur & Mostler, 1976, and Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, are nearly identical. They proposed to use Dryphenotus Cooper, 1939, for the Lower Carboniferous GNATHODIDAE of the ‘Gnathodus’ semiglaber — ‘G.’ bilineatus and ‘G.’ girtyi groups because the Upper Carboniferous type species of Gnathodus, G. mosquensis Pander, 1856, is certainly not congeneric with those Lower Carboniferous forms. Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, proposed to restrict Gnathodus to G. mosquensis and regarded that name as a nomen dubium. They suggested that future studies might demonstrate the identity of Gnathodus with Streptognathodus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932 or Idiognathodus 84 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 Gunnell, 1931. Kozur & Mostler, 1976, regarded Streptognathodus as a junior synonym of Gnathodus and suggested that S. cancellosus (Gunnell, 1931) might be a junior synonym of G. mosquensis (they did not, as Barskov, Alek- seev & Goreva, 1977, and Lane & Ziegler, 1979, wrongly state, positively affirm that synonymy), because the only platform conodonts in the Dorog- omilov horizon (from which the type material of G. mosquensis came) are S. cancellosus and S. oppletus Ellison, 1941, and the latter cannot be compared with G. mosquensis. Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, did not include S. cancellosus in Streptognathodus, but this view is not accepted by any other conodont workers. Lane & Ziegler, 1979, expressed quite different conclusions on the taxonomic status of Gnathodus. They proposed that G. texanus Roundy be designated as a new type species of Gnathodus and that the genus be restricted to Lower Carboniferous species. This is quite unwarranted and its acceptance would set up a precedent against the Code for the following reasons: (1) as clearly shown by Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, the type material of G. mosquensis came from the Dorogomilov Horizon of Upper Carboniferous (Kasimovian) age. A Lower Carboniferous age is quite imposs- ible in the context of the geology of this region; (2) the opinion of Lane & Ziegler, 1979, that Gnathodus ‘has always been thought to be dominantly Lower Carboniferous in age’ is not correct. Until recently Gnathodus was used for a wide range of Lower, Middle and Upper Carboniferous, and even for Permian Gnathodidae. Because conondont- bearing beds are much more widely distributed in the Lower Carboniferous than in the Middle Carboniferous-to-Permian, there are many more papers on Lower Carboniferous conodonts (including ‘Gnathodus’) than on Middle Carboniferous-to-Permian ones. But the percentage of papers on Middle Carb- niferous-to-Permian conodonts in which Gnathodus is mentioned is very high. In recent years, many Lower Carboniferous species of Gnathodus have been transferred to Protognathodus Ziegler, 1969, and Paragnathodus Higgins, 1975, and many new genera have also been introduced for the Middle Carboniferous- to-Permian forms. Even so, Gnathodus has been used frequently in the last 10 years for Middle Carboniferous-to-Permian GNATHODIDAE, e.g.: Lane, Merrill, et al., 1971 (Middle and Upper Carboniferous): G. basslieri (Harris & Hollingsworth, 1933), G. bassleri symmetricus Lane, 1967, G. roundyi Gunnell, 1931, G. noduliferus (Ellison & Graves, 1941), G. dilatus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932, and a ‘Pennsylvanian Gnathodus lineage’ (p. 376); Rabe, 1977 (Middle Carboniferous to Permian): G. bassleri, G. bassleri symmetricus, G. bucaramangus Rabe, 1977, G. lateralis (Higgins & Bouckaert, 1968, G. noduliferus, G. roundyi, G. whitei (Rhodes, 1963); Requadt, Becker et al., 1977 (Middle Carboniferous): G. bassleri sym- metricus; Wang, 1978 (Permian): G. hanzhongensis Wang, 1978. (3) Lane & Ziegler’s argument that the future application of Gnathodus to Lower Carboniferous GNATHODIDAE would preserve nomenclatural stability in both palaeontological and stratigraphical literature is wrong. Collin- Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 85 son, Rexroad & Thompson, 1971 (table 1) used Gnathodus in only seven, not eight, of the major stratigraphic subdivisions. Moreover, two of those species (G. kuehni and G. kockeli) belong to Protognathodus Ziegler, 1969 and the others must be placed in Dryphenotus Cooper, 1939. Lane, Merrill, et al., 1971, used Gnathodus seven times for major subdivision of the Pennsylvanian (Middle and Upper Carboniferous). Most of these species can now be placed in Neognathodus Dunn, 1970. (4) In both the Lower and the Middle-Upper Carboniferous most GNATHODIDAE have until recently been placed in Gnathodus and in both cases they were used to name stratigraphical subdivisions. We cannot therefore choose as the new type species a Lower Carboniferous species that certainly does not belong in the same genus as the original type species, the Upper Carboniferous G. mosquensis. We therefore ask the Commission to reject Lane & Ziegler’s proposals. In the present state of knowledge, Gnathodus must be tejected as a nomen dubium unless a new type species is designated from the type horizon in the type area (Dorogomilov Horizon, Kasimovian). In the latter case Streptogna- thodus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932, which contains the only platform species of that horizon, would fall as a junior synonym of Gnathodus. REFERENCES BARSKOV, LS., ALEKSEEV, A:S. & GOREVA, N.V. 1977. Taksonomicheskii i nomenklaturnyi status konodontov rodov Gnathodus Pander, 1856. Paleont. Zhurn., 1977, pp. 131—134 COLLISON, C., REXROAD CB. & THOMPSON, T.L., 1971. Conodont ; zonation of the North American Mississipian, in Sweet, W.C. & Berg- strom, S.M. (eds.), Mem. geol. Soc. America No. 127, pp. 353—394. COOPER, C.L. 1939. Conodonts from a Bushberg-Hannibal horizon in Okla- homa. J. Paleont. vol. 13, pp. 329—422 DUNN, D.L. 1970. Middle Carboniferous conodonts from the western United rosa gad phylogeny of the platform group. J. Paleont., vol. 44, pp. —342 ELLISON, S. 1941. Revision of the Pennsylvanian conodonts. J. Paleont. vol. 15, pp. 107-143 GUNNELL, F.H. 1931. Conodonts from the Fort Scott Limestone of Missouri. J. Paleont. vol. 5, pp. 244—252 HARRIS, R.W. & HOLLINGSWORTH, R.V., 1933. New Pennsylvanian cono- donts from Oklahoma. Amer. J. Sci. vol. 25, pp. 193—204 HIGGINS, A.C. 1975. Conodont zonation of the Late Viséan-Early Westphal- ian strata of the south and central Pennines of northern England. Bull. geol. Surv. Great Britain, No. 53, pp. 1—90 KOZUR, H. & MOSTLER, H. 1976. Neue Conodonten aus dem Jungpalaoz- oikum und der Trias. Geol. palaont. Mitt. Innsbruck vol. 6, pp. 1—33 LANE, R.H., MERRILL, G.K. et al. 1971. North American Pennsylvanian conodont stratigraphy, in Sweet, W.C. & Bergstrém, S.M. (eds), Mem. geol. Soc. America No. 127, pp. 395-414 86 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 & ZIEGLER, W. 1979. Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): pro- posed designation of a type species under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 57—62 PANDER, C.H. 1856. Monographie der fossilen Fische des silurischen Systems der russischen-baltischen Gouvernements. Kaiserl.Akad. Wiss., pp. 1—94 RABE, E.H. 1977. Zur Stratigraphie des ostandinen Raumes von Kolumbien. _II. Conodonten des jiingeren Palaozoikum der Ostkordillere, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta und der Serrania de Perija. Giessen. geol. Schrift. vol. 11, pp. 101—223 REQUADT, H., BECKER, G. et al. 1977. Mikrofaunen aus dem Westfal der spanischen Westpyrenaen (Ostracoda, Conodonta, Foraminifera). N.J. Geol. Palént., Abh. vol. 155, pp. 65—107 WANG, Z. 1978. Permian-Lower Triassic conodonts of the Liangshan area, southern Shaanxi. Acta Palaeont. Sinica, vol. 17, pp. 213—229 ZIEGLER, W. 1969. Eine neue Conodontenfauna aus dem héchsten Ober- devon. Fortschr. Geol. Rheinland und Westfalen, vol. 17, pp. 343—360 (2) By H.R. Lane and W. Ziegler Dr. Kozur stated that he does not agree with our request to the Comm- ission concerning Gnathodus mosquensis, type species of the conodont genus Gnathodus, for the following reasons: 1. The type material of Gnathodus mosquensis Pander, 1856 is from the Dorogomilov Horizon of Upper Carboniferous (Kasimovian Stage) and thus cannot be Lower Carboniferous in age. 2. Streptognathodus cancellosus (Gunnell) is the only species occurring in the Dorogomilov Horizon that is similar to Pander’s illustrations of Gnatho- dus mosquensis and therefore probably is conspecific with the latter taxon. We are asking the Commission to exercise its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Gnathodus Pander, 1856, and having done so, to designate Gnathodus texanus Roundy, to be the type species of that genus. We are proposing Gnathodus texanus Roundy (1926, p. 12, pl. II, figs. 7a—8b), not its junior secondary homonym Polygnathus texanus Roundy (1926, p. 14, pl. III, figs. 13a—13b) to be the new type species. (The valid name for this latter species is Gnathodus bilineatus (Roundy, 1926) by the action of Hass, 1953, p. 79.) Our request is made in the interest of nomenclatural stability. The massive nomenclatural changes that will be necessary if a neotype is selected from the Kasimovian Stage will create much confusion in conodont paleonto- logy and stratigraphy. We asked the Commission to approve our request for the following reasons: 1. The morphologic details necessary for establishing the affinities of Gnathodus mosquensis Pander, 1856, type species by monotypy of the cono- dont genus Gnathodus, are unavailable. Attempts to establish these morpholo- gic details have been frustrated because: a. The primary types of the species are lost (Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977; 1978) and to our knowledge no specialist, other than the original author, has ever studied them. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 87 b. The primary types were probably embedded in rock in such a manner that the views available allowed, at best, a family level identi- fication. We suggest this based on Pander’s original illustrations. 2. The locus typicus and stratum typicum are unknown and will never confidently be determined. Thus, selection of a neotype from topotypic collections is impossible. Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977, p. 132; 1978, p. 518) suggested that the type horizon of Gnathodus mosquensis was the Dorogomilov Horizon of the Kasimovian Stage (upper Upper Carboniferous in western European liter- ature and Upper Carboniferous in the Russian literature). This suggestion was based on their belief that the type collection derived from strata exposed at the Dorogomilovskaya Gate at the time of Pander’s study. These beds are no longer exposed, being buried beneath the city of Moscow. However, geologic maps referred to by Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977; 1978) show the gate to be located within the belt of land corresponding to the subcrop of the Dorogomilov Horizon. However, Pander (1856, p. 34, p. 83) clearly stated that the primary types came from behind the Dorogomilovskaya Gate. One may wonder how far past the gate Pander’s stratum typicum was. This, of course, will never be known, but, certainly Pander’s statement does not restrict the stratum typicum to within the Dorogomilov Horizon. For this reason, we question that the Dorogomilov Horizon contains the type horizon of Gnathodus mosquensis. Dr. Kozur misleads the reader when he states that Streptognathodus cancellosus is the only species occurring in the Dorogomilov Horizon that could be conspecific with Gnathodus mosquensis. Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977, p. 133; 1978, p. 520) note that Streptognathodus excelsus Stauffer & Plummer occurs both above and below, but to date is not known to occur within the Dorogomilov Horizon. There is no reason why S. excelsus could not occur at that stratigraphic level. Streptognathodus excelsus, as well as S. cancel- losus and many other Lower and Upper Carboniferous conodonts, cannot be distinguished from Gnathodus mosquensis based on Pander’s original descript- ion and illustrations. This problem is compounded by the uncertainty surrounding whether the Dorogomilov Horizon, in fact, contains the stratum ty picum. The term ‘horizon’ is used in the Russian geological literature in approximately the same manner as ‘formation’ is used in western European and North American geological literature. Thus, the Dorogomilov Horizon is a sequence of rocks of substantial thickness, not just a planar surface as suggested by the English word. Because of this, reference to the Dorogomilov Horizon as being the ‘stratum typicum’ may be misleading to the reader. It should also be noted here that the Upper Carboniferous of western Europe is divided into Middle and Upper Carboniferous in Russian literature. Kozur follows Russian practice, whereas we follow western European convent- ion. The Kasimovian Stage, for example, is Upper Carboniferous of Russian literature but would be upper Upper Carboniferous in western Europe. Dr. Kozur correctly points out that he had only provisionally treated Streptognathodus cancellosus as a junior synonym of Gnathodus mosquensis. His provisional synonymy did not prevent him from treating all forms formerly assigned to Streptognathodus as belonging in Gnathodus (see Kozur & Mostler, 1976), nor did it keep him from assigning all forms in the Lower Carbonifer- 88 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 ous previously treated as Gnathodus to Dryphenotus Cooper (see Kozur & Mock, 1977). In addition, he has named at least two new species of Gnathodus that in the currently accepted taxonomy belong in Streptognathodus (see Kozur & Mostler, 1976). Thus, it seems to us that Dr. Kozur indeed has made up his mind, albeit on circumstantial evidence. It was also stated that the Lane & Ziegler (1979) proposal would produce a precedence against the rules of the ICZN. Provisions for our proposal are clearly included in Article 79 of the Code. The second sentence (p. 87, 1964 edition) of that article states: ‘For the purpose of preventing such disturbance and of promoting a stable and universally accepted nomenclature, it (the Commission) may, under these plenary powers, annul or validate any name, type designation, or other pub- lished nomenclatural act, or any publication, and validate or establish replace- ments.’ The following are our comments on Dr. Kozur’s numbered points: 1. We agree with Dr. Kozur that a Lower Carboniferous age for the type collection of Gnathodus mosquensis is unlikely. This historical misin- terpretation of the stratum typicum of Gnathodus mosquensis stems from Pander’s original statement that the primary types came from the lowest part of the Bergkalk (= Mountain Limestone of Lower Carboniferous age in England). We now know this to be almost certainly wrong. However, we do not agree with Dr. Kozur’s unqualified acceptance of the Dorogomilov Horizon as the stratigraphic level of derivation of the primary types of Gnathodus. We believe that the correct horizon will never be known with certainty because Pander’s original statement — behind the ‘Dragomilowschen Sastawa’ — is not sufficiently precise (see above discussion). This uncertainty casts much doubt that Streptognathodus cancellosus is in fact conspecific with Gnathodus mosquensis. 2. Kozur takes exception to our statement that Gnathodus has always been considered dominantly Lower Carboniferous in age. By this we meant that the main evolutionary ‘flowering’ of Gnathodus took place in the Lower Carboniferous. The final members of the gnathodid lineage as interpreted in its broadest sense (= Gnathodus roundyi and Gnathodus dilatus — both assigned to Neognathodus in modern nomenclature) became extinct near the top of the Moscovian (Middle Carboniferous) (Kozitskaya, Kossenko, Lipniagov & Nem- irovskaya, 1978). Stratigraphically, this is a half a stage below the Dorogomilov Horizon. We do not believe that Dr. Kozur can demonstrate the great [‘very high’] percentage of Upper Carboniferous (post-Moscovian) and Permian liter- ature giving occurrences of Gnathodus in its traditional sense. The Permian forms referred to by Dr. Kozur have never seriously been considered members of the genus Gnathodus by most conodont specialists. All of the species of Middle Carboniferous into Permian Gnathodus listed by Kozur, except for Gnathodus whitei (Rhodes) and Gnathodus hanzhongensis Wang, are Middle Carboniferous in age and predate the Kasimovian. To our knowledge, Rabe (1977) is the only author to have placed the early Permian species Spathogna- thodus whitei Rhodes, 1963 in the genus Gnathodus. Kozur (1978, p. 104 pl. 3, figs. 8, 9), himself, assigns it to Sweetognathus in conformity with the view of most modern conodont specialists. Gnathodus hanzhongensis Wang is clearly a representative of Sweetognathus and probably is the junior Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 89 synonym of Sweetognathus merrilli Kozur. All of the other Middle Carbonif- erous species of Gnathodus listed by Dr. Kozur, although regarded as belong- ing under the umbrella of the gnathodid lineage, can be assigned to either Neognathodus Dunn or Declinognathodus Dunn. 3. In Dr. Kozur’s point about Gnathodus being used seven times for major subdivisions of the Pennsylvanian, the species utilized are the same as the ones mentioned in paragraph number 2 of his reply and all of them, except for those we noted, are Middle, not Upper Carboniferous in age and thus predate by at least one-half of a stage the Dorogomilov Horizon of the Kasimovian Stage. 4. Again we agree with Dr. Kozur that Gnathodus has been used in both the Lower and Upper Carboniferous for stratigraphical subdivisions, but those used in the Upper Carboniferous have been reassigned to Neognathodus and Declinognathodus by most modern specialists. These Upper Carboniferous occurrences of the genus significantly predate the Kasimovian Stage, the stage from which the types of Gnathodus mosquensis are reported to have derived. In summary, we do not agree with Dr. Kozur because: 1. The primary types of Gnathodus mosquensis are irretrievably lost. 2. The morphologic details necessary for its unequivocal identification are not, and never will be, available. 3. Pander’s original description of the locus typicus and stratum typicum are not precise enough for their confident determination. 4. Traditional taxonomy of the gnathodids has centred around Lower, rather than Upper, Carboniferous forms. Therefore, in the interests of nomenclatural stability, we once again request that the Commission exercise its plenary powers provided for in Article 79 of the Code in order to void Gnathodus mosquensis Pander 1856 as the type species of the conodont genus Gnathodus and to designate the next younger species of the genus, Gnathodus texanus Roundy, 1926, as the new type species. REFERENCES BARSKOV, I.S., ALEKSEEV, A. & GOREVA, N.V. 1977. Taxonomic and nomenclatural status of the conodont genus Gnathodus Pander, 1856. Paleont. Zhurn., 1977, pp. 131-134. [In Russian] ' BARSKOV, I.S., ALEKSEEV, A. & GOREVA, N.V. 1978. The taxonomic and nomenclatural status of conodonts of the genus Gnathodus Pander, 1856. A translation of Paleontological Journal. American Geol. Inst., Scripta Publishing Co., vol. 11, pp. 518-521 HASS, W.H. 1953. Conodonts of the Barnett Formation of Texas. Prof. Papers U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 243-F, pp. 69-94 KOZITSKAYA, R.I., KOSSENKO, Z.A., LIPNIAGOV, O.H. & NEMIROVSKAYA, T. I. 1978. Conodonts of the Carboniferous of the Donets basin. Naukova Dumka. Acad. Nauk. Ukr. pp. 1-120 KOZUR, H. 1978. Beitraege zur Stratigraphie des Perms Teil II: Die Conodon- tenchronologie des Perms. Freiberger Forschungsheft C. 334, pp. 85-161 90 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 KOZUR, H. & MOCK, R. 1977. On the age of the Paleozoic of the Uppony Mountains (North Hungary). Acta. Miner.-Petrog. Szeged, vol. 23, pp. 91-107 KOZUR, H. & MOSTLER, H. 1976. Neue Conodonten aus dem Jungpalaeo- zoikum und der Trias. Geol. Palaeont. Mitt. Innsbruck. Bd. 5, pp. 1-33 LANE, H.R. & ZIEGLER, W. 1979. Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta: Proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers. Z.N. (S) 2279. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 57-62 PANDER, C.H., 1856. Monographie der fossilen Fische des Silurischen Systems der Russisch-Baltischen Gouvernements. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss. pp. 1-91 RABE, E.H. 1977. Zur stratigraphie des ostandien Raumes von Kolumbien. II, Conodonten des juengeren Palaeozoikum der Ostkordillere, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta und der Serrania de Perij4. Giessen. Geol. Schrift., vol. 11, pp. 101-223 RHODES, F.H.T. 1963. Conodonts from the topmost Tensleep Sandstone of the eastern Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. J. Paleont. vol. 37, pp. 401- 408 ROUNDY, P.V. 1926. Part II. The Micro-fauna in Roundy, P.V., Girty, G.H. & Goldman, N.I. Mississippian formations of San Saba County, Texas: Prof. Paper U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 146, pp. 5-23 (3) By H. Kozur Lane & Ziegler now agree that the type species of Gnathodus, G. mosquensis Pander, 1856, must have come from the Upper Carboniferous and that species of Gnathodus have been used to denote stratigraphic subdivisions in both the Lower and Upper (Middle-Upper in the threefold classification) Carboniferous. Taking these points of agreement into account, as well as the fact that at least as many post-Lower Carboniferous as Lower Carboniferous species have been originally described in Gnathodus, the choice of a Lower Carboni- ferous type species (as proposed by Lane & Ziegler) can never be in the interest of nomenclatural stability. This is the more true because all post-Lower Car- boniferous gnathodid genera are absent from the Lower Carboniferous, and all the Lower Carboniferous gnathodid genera are absent from later strata. If either a neotype were designated for G. mosquensis, or a new type species were fixed for Gnathodus, this taxon must occur in the Kasimovian (Upper Carboniferous) of the type area. The choice of a Lower Carboniferous type species would be contrary to the basic principles of the Code (Article 75). Lane & Ziegler have misinterpreted Pander’s statement on the type horizon. He wrote ‘... der untersten Schichten des Bergkalks im Tulaschen und der hoheren des Moskauischen Gouvernements...’. As the holotype came from Moscow, there is no possible doubt that it came from the upper ‘Bergkalk’, which is clearly younger than the Lower Carboniferous. Whether the holotype was collected at the Dorogomilskaja Zastawa or beyond it, the age would still be Kasimovian (Upper Carboniferous). Pander would not have written ‘beyond the Dragomilowschen Zastawa’ (today the Dorogomilskaja Zastawa) if the locality were some tens of kilometers beyond it, but even then the type horizon would undoubtedly be post-Lower Carboni- Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 9) ferous. Barskov et al., 1977, have more experience of the geology of this area than Lane & Ziegler can have. Some of the arguments put forward by Lane & Ziegler are incorrect: (1) I opposed their proposal because of four major mistakes in their argumentation. In fact, their second point, which was not included in those four, can also be used as an argument against their proposal. (2) Lane & Ziegler note that Streptognathodus excelsus is present both below and above the Dorogomilov Horizon, and could therefore be found by further studies also within that horizon. This is true; but it seems illogical to suppose that Pander, using the primitive methods of the mid-nineteenth century, could have found a species not detected until now by Soviet colleagues using modern methods of conodont extraction. On the other hand, the occur- rence of a different Streptognathodus species within the type formation of G. mosquensis would confirm my view that Streptognathodus is really a junior synonym of Gnathodus. (3) In my first comment on Lane & Ziegler’s proposal I said ‘... the percentage of papers on Middle Carboniferous-to-Permian conodonts in which Gnathodus is mentioned is very high’. By this I meant to show that Lane & Ziegler’s view that Gnathodus is used almost exclusively in the Lower Carboni- ferous literature is incorrect. Gnathodus is mentioned in many post-Lower Carboniferous (Middle Carboniferous to Permian) papers. I did not say only Upper Carboniferous (i.e. post-Moscovian) as incorrectly quoted by Lane & Ziegler. There is no reason to choose a Lower Carboniferous type species for Gnathodus, instead of the Upper Carboniferous original type species. (4) Lane & Ziegler said that the Middle Carboniferous gnathodids predate the Upper Carboniferous Kasimovian (generally they include the Middle Carboniferous of East European authors in the Upper Carboniferous, following the American twofold division of the Carboniferous into Mississippian and Pennsylvanian). They did not say not only that these gnathodid species also postdate the Lower Carboniferous, but also that the Middle Carboniferous (Bashkirian, Moscovian) gnathodid species belong to quite different genera from all Lower Carboniferous gnathodids. On the other hand, all Middle Carboniferous genera that can be compared with G. mosquensis occur also in the Upper Carboniferous, at least in the Kasimovian. Lane & Ziegler propose a type species from a different geological age and a different species-group within the GNATHODIDAE than that represented by G. mosquensis. This cannot be in the interests of nomenclatural stability and would create a precedent against the basic principles of the Code (Article 75). (5) According to Lane & Ziegler, all the Gnathodus species mentioned in my first comment except for G. whitei (Rhodes) and G. hanzhongensis Wang are of Middle Carboniferous age, but in fact G. sicilianus Bender & Steppel and G. bucaramangus Rabe are Permian species. On the other hand, all the Middle Carboniferous species listed belong to genera that are absent from the Lower Carboniferous. In summary, Lane & Ziegler’s proposal should be rejected for the following reasons: (a) It is clear that Pander’s type of G. mosquensis came from the Upper Bergkalk, which can never be of Lower Carboniferous age (including Serpukhovian = Lower Namurian). In the time interval of the Upper Bergkalk (maximum extent Moscovian to Sakmarian, but in the whole type area clearly 92 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 Upper Kasimovian) gnathodids are very frequent and many samples of that time interval from the type area yield only gnathodids and the component conodonts of the same apparatus. (b) The number of post-Lower Carboniferous species originally assigned to Gnathodus is at least as large as the number of Lower Carboniferous species. Both groups were used to denote stratigraphical subdivisions. (c) Both these groups of species originally placed in Gnathodus are now distributed among several genera. (d) All Lower Carboniferous (including Serpukhovian = Lower Namurian) gnathodid genera are absent in the post-Lower Carboniferous, and no post-Lower Carboniferous gnathodid genus is known in the Lower Carboni- ferous. Hence, if Gnathodus were defined by reference to a Lower Carbonifer- ous type species, as proposed by Lane & Ziegler, the genus would be quite different in age and taxonomic content from the original genus, and more than half the species originally proposed in Gnathodus (including the type species) would be excluded from the genus. (e) Nomenclatural stability would best be served by referring the Lower Carboniferous gnathodids to Dryphenotus Cooper, 1939, Paragnathodus Higgins, 1975, and Protognathodus Ziegler, 1969. None of these occurs in the Upper Bergkalk. (f) Whether a neotype is designated for G. mosquensis, or whether a new type species is designated for Gnathodus, that genus must be based on material of Kasimovian age. A new Lower Carboniferous type species would be contrary to the Code (see above). (4) By I.S. Barskov (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Maronovskii 26, 117049 Moscow V-49, USSR) Those participating in an All-Union meeting on Carboniferous cono- donts (Moscow, April 1980) discussed Lane & Ziegler’s proposal and new data provided by Alekseev on the type locality and horizon of Gnathodus mosquensis Pander, 1856. They examined new conodonts found at this locality and agreed that: (1) The problem of the present status of Gnathodus presents no threat to stability of conodont nomenclature. It can be solved by applying the Code without the use by the Commission of its plenary powers. (2) The basis of Lane & Ziegler’s proposal is unsatisfactory: (a) frequency of use of a name in stratigraphic contexts is no basis for the use of the plenary powers. Normal taxonomic practice leads to frequent changes of generic names. Some Lower Carboniferous species first described in Gnathodus are now placed in other genera (Paragnathodus, Protognathodus, etc.). At least two genera (Dryphenotus Cooper, 1939 and Harltonodus Elias, 1961) exist for the group of species from which Lane & Ziegler have chosen the one that they propose as type species. There are no taxonomic reasons not to apply those names, which will undoubtedly be used in further taxo- nomic studies of Lower Carboniferous conodonts; (b) Lane & Ziegler’s assertions of the uncertain type horizon of G. mosquensis are not quite correct. Further research will show Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 93 either that it is possible to identify that species or the necessity to designate a neotype for it. This is a matter of time. The participants in the All-Union meeting decided to submit their arguments against Lane & Ziegler’s proposal in the autumn of 1980. This paper is being prepared by Barskov and Alekseev and will be supported by all Soviet conodontologists. Meanwhile, Academician O.S. Vjalov and Drs Alekseev, Khalymbadzha, Kononova, Goreva and Starostina join me in asking the Commission to defer a decision on Lane & Ziegler’s proposal. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE REGARDING ICHNOTAXA. Z.N.(S.)1973 (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 11-14; vol. 37, pp. 6-10) By G. Hahn (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet Lahnberge, Marburg/Lahn, BRD) In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 6-10 Drs Bromley and Firsich commented on the proposals to introduce rules governing names of ichnotaxa into the Code. They discuss all the aspects that are favourable to this proposal. Let me now make one or two adverse remarks. The first comment concerns the uniformity of zoological taxonomy. Up till now we have had only one taxonomy, applicable to all groups of animals, recent as well as fossil. Now we are discussing the introduction of ichnotaxa, and also of parataxa for special groups of fossils. If this tendency continues we shall perhaps end up with a special taxonomy for domestic animals, another for protozoa, others for ichnotaxa and parataxa, and so on. The Animal Kingdom will then be split into several taxonomically independent units and its homogeneity will be endangered. This is a very real apprehension: Bromley & Fiirsich at the end of their comment unequivocally demand the independence of ichnotaxonomy from ‘orthotaxonomy’, the two not competing in priority. Secondly, we do not have exact definitions for either ichnotaxa or parataxa. What will be the status of the impression of a fossil medusa in future? Is it an impression of a normal fossil (thus entering into ‘orthotaxonomy’) or is it a resting trace (thus entering into ichnotaxonomy)? Some specialists will prefer the first interpretation, others perhaps the second one. The introduction of ichnotaxa and parataxa will thus not help to stabilise nomenclature but the reverse. Uncertainty as to which taxonomy to use will endanger the uniformity of our taxonomic base. I should therefore prefer to renounce the attempt to regulate ichnotaxonomy and parataxonomy by the Code. If this cannot be achieved, we should at least try to preserve the priority of ‘orthotaxonomy’ over ichnotaxonomy and parataxonomy. Reply by the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Professor Hahn’s disquiet at the proposals concerning ichnonomen- clature and paranomenclature is understandable. The Commission must, how- ever, face the fact that parallel taxonomies, reflected in parallel nomenclatures, 94 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 exist in a number of groups where particular parts or organs can be classified and named, but where there is a mismatch between their taxonomy and nomenclature on the one hand, and the ‘orthotaxonomy’ and ‘orthonomen- clature’ of the animals themselves. The Code at present provides for these cases, not on a general basis or group by group, but name by name: the Law of Priority applies where a part of an animal, or (before 1931) the work of an animal is named before the animal itself. But if a given part or a given work relates indiscriminately to several ‘orthotaxa’, then, even though that part or work can be classified only in its own taxonomy, its name must either be forced into the nomenclature of the animals themselves (even though it cannot be known to which of several species or genera it corresponds), or it must take the name of some species or genus of animals given an equal state of ignorance. This is insupportable on both logical and pragmatic grounds. The Commission’s proposals therefore seek to deal with a situation that already exists (and, in the case of paranomenclature, since long before the 1905 Régies were written); they seek to remove the anomaly whereby names proposed in ichnonomenclature before 1931 are available, but not those pro- posed after 1930; and they seek to provide orderly channels of communication between specialists using these nomenclatures and those using ‘orthonomen- clature’. They should also help the scientist who has to use all three (or any two of them) in particular areas of his work. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 23 OPINION 1170 SATURNIIDAE BOISDUVAL, 1837 (LEPIDOPTERA) PLACED ON OFFICIAL LIST RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name pyri [Denis & Schiffermuller] , 1775, as pub- lished in the binomen Bombyx pyri, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name major Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major whenever the two names are considered as synonyms. (2) The generic name Saturnia Schrank, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Grote, 1895, Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2111. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) pyri [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, as published in the binomen Bombyx pyri, ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to have nomenclatural precedence over the specific name major Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2727). (b) major Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combin- ation Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major, ruled by the decision taken under the plenary powers in (1) above as not to be used in place of the specific name pyri [Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775, as published in the binomen Bombyx pyri, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2728). (4) The family name SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1837 (type genus, Saturnia Schrank, 1802) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 507. (5) The entry for Name Number 142 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (ATTACIDAE) is to be amended as follows: for ‘Burmeister, 1878’ read ‘Duponchel, 1844’. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1997 An application for the reinstatement of SATURNIIDAE as the name for the family containing the two subfamilies SATURNIINAE and ATTACINAE was first received from Dr. C.W. Sabrosky and Dr. D.C. Ferguson (Systematic Entomology 96 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 Laboratory USDA, Washington D.C. 20560) on 28 February 1972. After some correspondence, it was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 149-152. No use of the plenary powers was involved. The proposed type-species designation for Saturnia was criticised by Nye, Fletcher & Watson, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 137-139, and the whole application was opposed by Lemaire (ibid, pp. 139-142). A further comment by Dr R:S. Peigler (Texas A & M University) on the type-species designation (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 7) was supported by Monsieur Lemaire (ibid. pp. 7-8) and answered by Nye, Fletcher & Watson (ibid., pp. 8-9). No other comments were received, but Dr Sabrosky exercised his right of reply to Monsieur Lemaire in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 199. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule for Voting Paper (1980)4 either (A) for the original proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 32, p. 152, or (B) for the revised proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol 35, pp. 8-9. At the close of the voting period on 9 july 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: For Alternative A — five (5) votes: Starobogatov, Alvarado, Tortonese, Welch, Dupuis For Alternative B — eighteen (18) votes received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Kraus, Hahn, Sabrosky, Habe, Halvorsen, Nye, Binder, Cogger, Bernardi No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Bayer: ‘Although it clearly is not called for in this case, no provision is made for a “nay” vote on this voting paper. It seems to me that such provision should be made as a matter of course.’ Dupuis: ‘Il est inexact de dire qu'il faille choisir entre les propositions originales et celles de Nye et al. Il y a aussi une troisiéme possibilité: laisser les choses en |’état. En fait je considére que l’on doit revoir l’Opinion 450 au méme titre que toutes les autres Opinions qui apparaissent 4 un moment ou a un autre mal fondées. Je vote pour la proposition Sabrosky et Ferguson.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and for a name whose entry on the Official List is Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 97 corrected by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ATTACIDAE Duponchel, 1844, Catalogue méthodique_ des Lépidoptéres d’Europe (Paris, C. Renard), p. 78 major, Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 497 pyri, Bombyx, [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, Ankundung [sic] eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlinge der Wiener Gegend, p. 49 Saturnia Schrank, 1802, Fauna Boica (Ingolstadt, Kriill), p. 149 SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 183 7, Icones historiques des Lépidoptéres nouveaux ou peu connus Paris, Roret), p. 170. The following is the reference to a type-species designation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Bombyx puri [Denis & Schiffermiiller] , 1775 as type species of Saturnia Schrank, 1802, by Grote, 1895, Canadian Entomol, vol. 27, p. 267. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on voting paper (80)4 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in Alternative B of that voting paper have 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. 1170. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London & September 1980 98 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 OPINION 1171 THE STEM OF THE GENERIC NAME PETROM YZON LINNAEUS, 1758 (PISCES) IS PETROMYZONT- RULING.— (1) It is hereby ruled that the stem of the generic name Petromyzon: Linnaeus, 1758, for the purposes of Article 29 is PETROMYZONT-. (2) The generic name Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Jordan & Copeland, 1877, Petromyzon marinus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2112. (3) The specific name marinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Petromyzon marinus (specific name of type species of Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2729. (4) The family name PETROMYZONTIDAE Bonaparte, 1832 (type genus, Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 508. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2045 An application for the determination of the correct spelling _of the family name for the Holarctic lampreys — whether PETROMYZONIDAE or PETROMYZONTIDAE — was first received from Professor V.D. Vladykov (University of Ottawa) on 21 February 1973. After some correspondence, it was sent to the printer on 24 October 1973 and published on 28 June 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 198-199. No use of the plenary powers was requested. The late Dr Carl Hubbs (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 18-19) and Dr C.G. Gruchy (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa) supported PETROMYZON- (ibid. pp. 19-20). Vladykov & Gruchy (ibid. pp. 154-155) asked for a ruling in that sense. Steyskal, however (ibid. p. 21) supported PETROMYZONT-, and Morrow (ibid. p. 200) showed that this is the correct form under the Code. Follett & Dempster (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 142) and Robins (ibid. pp. 142-143) showed that usage strongly favours PETROMYZONT-. In addition, Follett & Dempster provided correct references for the subsequent designation of a types species for Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 and for the family name itself. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 99 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)5 either for PETROMYZON- or for PETROMYZONT- as the stem of the family-group name based on Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758. It was pointed out that the adoption of the former would require a two-thirds majority vote, whereas the adoption of the latter required only a simple majority. At the close of the voting pariod on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: For PETROMYZON- four (4): Brinck, Trjapitzin, Habe, Nye For PETROMYZONT- eighteen (18) received in the follow- ing order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Willink, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Kraus, Hahn, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, Tortonese, Welch No voting papers were returned by Heppel and Ride. Professor Hahn pointed out that PETROMYZONT- is clearly supported by F.C. Werner in ‘Wortelemente lateinisch-griechischer Fachausdriicke in den biologischen Wissenschaften’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: marinus, Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 230 Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 230 PETROMYZONTIDAE Bonaparte, 1832, Saggio d’una distribuzione metodica degli animali vertebrati a sangue freddo. Giorn. Arcadica, vol. 52, pp. 165, 189 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)5 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in Alternative B on 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. 1171. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 September 1980 100 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 OPINION 1172 ASCIDIA INTESTINALIS LINNAEUS, 1767 (TUNICATA) CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name sociabile Gunnerus, 1765, as published in the binomen Tethyum sociabile, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Ciona Fleming, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Ascidia intestinalis Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2113. (3) The specific name intestinalis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Ascidia intestinalis (specific name of type species of Ciona Fleming, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2730. (4) The specific name sociabile Gunnerus, 1765, as published in the binomen Tethyum sociabile, 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 1074. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2087 An application for the conservation of Ascidia intestinalis Linnaeus, 1767 (the type species of the well-known ascidian genus Ciona Fleming, 1822) was first received from Dr Jon-Arne Sneling and Dr Bjorn Gulliksen (Biologisk Stasjon, Trondheim, N-7001, Norway) on 1 August 1974. After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 27 June 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 127-128. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and six general serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 1980(6) for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 127. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the follow- ing order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Bayer, Kraus, Hahn, Starobogatov, Habe, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 101 Tortonese, Welch Negative Vote — Sabrosky No voting papers were returned by Bernadi and Ride. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ciona Fleming, 1822, The philosophy of zoology (Edinburgh), p. 512 intestinalis, Ascidia, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae ed. 12, vol. 1 (2), p. 1087 sociabile, Tethyum, Gunnerus, 1765, K. norske Vidensk, Selsk. Skr., vol. 3, pp. 81-102 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1172. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 September 1980 102 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 OPINION 1173 THE TYPE SPECIES OF HILTERMANNICYTHERE BASSIOUNI, 1970 (CRUSTACEA, OSTRACODA) IS CYTHEREIS TURBIDA MULLER, 1894 RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Hiltermannicy there Bassiouni, 1970, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cythereis turbida G.W. Miller, 1894, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Hiltermannicythere Bassiouni, 1970 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cythereis turbida G.W. Miiller, 1894 (Name Number 2114); (b) Celtia Neale, 1973 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Cythere quadridentata Baird, 1850 (Name Number 2115). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) turbida G.F. Miiller, 1894, as published in the binomen Cythereis turbida (specific name of type species of Hiltermannicythere Bassiouni, 1970) (Name Number 2731); (b) quadridentata Baird, 1850, as published in the binomen Cythere quadridentata (specific name of type species of Celtia Neale, 1973 (Name Number DIZ): HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2089 An application for a ruling on the type species of the nominal genus Hiltermannicythere Bassiouni, 1970 was first received from the late Professor P.C. Sylvester-Bradley (in his own name together with those of Dr M.A. Bassiouni and Dr J.W. Neale) on 25 September 1974. It was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol 32, pp. 161-162. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to five general serials and one specialised Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 103 serial. The application was supported by Dr R.H. Bate (British Museum, Natural History, London). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)7 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 161. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Bayer, Kraus, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, Nye, Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, Tortonese, Welch, Bernardi Negative Vote — Hahn No voting paper was returned by Ride. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Hahn; ‘I cannot see a serious reason to change the type species of Hiltermannicythere. In 1973 H. quadridentata was unequivocally the type species of that genus. To propose a new genus on the same species, knowing this fact, as apparently done by Neale, is unjustifiable nomenclaturally. Such an act should not be legalised afterwards by the Commission. I therefore vote against this application.’ Dupuis: ‘J'ai Vhabitude de voter “pour” dans tous les cas d’espéce-type mal identifiée. Dans le cas particulier, je vote de la méme maniére, tout en deplorant la longueur de nom Hiltermannicythere que \’on aurait pu proposer de faire disparaitre.’ Bernardi: ‘ “For”, puisque les quadridentata qui étaient sous les yeux de Bassiouni en 1970 étaient en réalité des turbida. Pour cette fois, excellente intervention de la Commission pour rétablir la réalité.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Celtia Neale, 1973, Rev. espanola Micropaleontol. vol. 5, p. 436 Hiltermannicythere Bassiouni, 1970, Rev. espanola Micropaleontol. vol. 3, p. 121 quadridentata, Cythere, Baird, 1850, The natural history of British Entomostraca London, Ray Society), p. 173 turbida, Cythereis, G.F. Miiller, 1894, Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, Monogr. 21, pp. 371, 372. 104 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)7 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. 1173. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 September 1980 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 105 OPINION 1174 THE TYPE SPECIES OF ATRACTOCERA MEIGEN, 1803 (DIPTERA) IS TIPULA REGELATIONIS LINAEUS, 1758 RULING. — (1) The type species of the nominal genus Atractocera Meigen, 1803 (gender: feminine) is Tipula regelationis Linnaeus, 1758. (2) Since, as a result of the ruling given in (1) above, the generic name Atractocera becomes, in the current state of taxonomic knowledge, invalid as a junior synonym of Trichocera Meigen, 1803, it is not placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The specific name regelationis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Tipula regelationis (specific name of type species of Atractocera Meigen, 1803), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2733. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2092 An application for the determination of the type species of Atractocera Meigen, 1803, formed part of an application first received from Professor Brinck on behalf of Dr Christine Dahl on 20 October 1960 and published in 1961 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18, pp. 203-205, Z.N.(S.)1407). It was extracted from that file and treated separately because it became clear that Atractocera is a genus based on a misidentified type species, and that the name could be dealt with independently of the more complex issues in the original application affecting the generic name Trichocera Meigen, 1803. The separate application concerning Atractocera was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 27 March 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 43-44. No use of the plenary powers was involved. Dr Dahl, acting as first reviser in her application, stated that Trichocera and Atractocera are currently treated as synonyms, and selected Trichocera as the valid name. She also asked that the provisions of Article 7Oa(iii) be applied; these do not require the use of the plenary powers. DECISION OF THE COMMISION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)8 for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p.44. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting 106 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Hahn, Kraus, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, Nye, Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder, Dupuis, Tortonese Negative Vote — Welch Abstention.— Cogger No votes were returned by Bernardi, Heppell and Ride. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Hahn: ‘This proposal will not only avoid confusion with Odagmia, but also with Atractocerus (Coleoptera, LYMEXYLONIDAB).’ Cogger: ‘In my view the submission is inadequate. The vital question of what decision would “...best serve stability and uni- formity of nomenclature”’, Art. 70a, is addressed only superficially and without substantive supporting evidence from the literature. Consequently I abstain from voting.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference for a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: regelationis, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, Vol. 1, D..I0 4 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)8 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 Nomen- clature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1174. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 September 1980 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 107 OPINION 1175 MONSTRILLA INTERMEDIA KRICZAGIN, 1877 (COPEPODA) SUPPRESSED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name intermedia Kriczagin, 1877, as published in the binomen Monstrilla intermedia is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci- fied: (a) grandis Giesbrecht, 1891, as published in the bino- men Monstrilla grandis (Name Number 2734): (b) Jongicornis Thompson, 1890, as published in the binomen Monstrilla longicornis (Name Number 27S5)S (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) intermedia Kriczagin, 1877, as published in the binomen Monstrilla intermedia, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 1075); (b) intermedia Aurivillius, 1898, as published in the binomen Monstrilla intermedia, a junior primary homonym of Monstrilla intermedia Kriczagin, 1877 (Name Number 1076). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2098 An application for the conservation of Monstrilla grandis Giesbrecht, 1891 was first received from Dr M.J. Isaac ( University College of Swansea, U.K.) on 19 November 1974. After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 171-172. 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 five general and one specialised serial. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)9 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. 108 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 vol. 32, p. 171. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Hahn, Starobogatov, Habe, Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Tortonese, Welch Negative Votes — six (6): Willink, Kraus, Sabrosky, Nye, Dupuis, Bernardi No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Willink: ‘In this special case I don’t think it will cause too many problems to start to use again the first name given to the species.’ Kraus: ‘There is no statement by the applicant indicating that the species in question has a more general importance.’ Nye: ‘Although I would agree to granting M. grandis nomen- clatural precedence over M. intermedia if the two names are applied to the same taxon, I am not convinced that the senior name should be unconditionally suppressed.’ ; Bernardi: ‘Ces Copépodes n’ont, je suppose, aucun intérét économique. II est donc bien inutile d’officialiser l’erreur nomen- clatorique de Dolpogolskaya, 1948, puisque, par ailleurs, elle a montré que M. grandis est un synonyme plus recent de M. inter- media Kriczagin. D’autre part, l’existence de deux homonymes (intermedia Kriczagin et intermedia Aurivillius) ne constitue aucunement une source de confusion, puisque intermedia Aurivillius n’est pas employé, étant un synonyme plus récent de longicornis. L’intervention de la Commission est ici bien inutile.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: grandis, Monstrilla, Giesbrecht, 1891, Atti Accad.naz. Linceéi, Rendiconti, vol. 7, Sem. 1, p. 476 intermedia, Monstrilla, Aurivillius, 1898, K. svenska Vetensk. Akad. Hand. vol. 30, pp. 39-40 intermedia, Monstrilla, Kriczagin, 1877, Zap. kiev. Obshsch. Estest., vol. 5, pp. 17-21 longicornis, Monstrilla, J.C. Thompson, 1890, Proc. Trans. Liverpool biol. Soc. vol. 4, p. 119. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 109 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)9 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. 1175. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 September 1980 110 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 OPINION 1176 ECHIS COLORATA [SIC] GUENTHER, 1878 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES) GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER ECHIS FROENATA [SIC] DUMERIL, BIBRON & DUMERIL, 1854 RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name colorata Guenther, 1878, as published in the binomen Echis colorata [sic], is to be given nomenclatural preced- ence over the specific name froenata Duméril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854, as published in the binomen Echis froenata [sic] whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) colorata Guenther, 1878, as published in the bino- men Echis colorata [sic], with the endorsement given under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 2736); (b) froenata Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, as pub- lished in the binomen Echis froenata [sic] with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Echis colorata Guenther, 1878, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 21ST: HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2064 An application for the conservation of Echis coloratus Guenther, 1878 (first published as E. colorata) was first received from Mr A. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 28 February 1974. It was sent to the printer on 5 April 1974 and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 223-224. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statu- tory serials and to two herpetological serials. The application was supported by Professor Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado) and criticised by Professor Ernst Mayr (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 199): Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 111 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)10 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 223-224. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Hahn, Starobogatov, Habe, Halvorsen, Nye, Binder, Cogger, Tortonese, Welch Negative Votes — five (5): Holthuis, Kraus, Sabrosky, Alvardo, Dupuis No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Heppell and Ride. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: colorata, Echis, Guenther, 1878, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1878, p.977 froenata, Echis, Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeéril, 1854, Erpétologie générale, ou histoire naturelle compléte des reptiles, vol. 7, p. 1449. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on voting paper (80)10 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. 1176. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 September 1980 [tz Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 OPINION 1177 COSSMANNELLA MAYER-EYMAR, 1896 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species for the nominal genus Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 hitherto made are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cardita fajumensis Oppenheim, 1903 is designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cardita fajumensis Oppenheim, 1903 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2116. (3) The specific name fajumensis Oppenheim, 1903, as published in the binomen Cardita fajumensis (specific name of type species of Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2738. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2106 An application for the use of plenary powers to designate a type species for the genus Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 was first received from Dr Amin Strougo (Université de Paris-Orsay) on 16 December 1974. After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 173-174. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to five general and three specialised serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)11 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 173-174. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Kraus, Hahn, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, Tortonese, Welch, Bernardi Negative Votes — none (0) No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 113 Bernardi commented ‘Méme remarque que pour l’espéce- type de Hiltermannicythere (Opinion 1173).’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896, J. Conchyliol. vol. 44, p. 366 fajumensis, Cardita, Oppenheim, 1903, Palaeontographica vol. 30, Abt. 3, Heft 1-2, p. 105. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)11 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. 1177. R. MELVILLE Secretary International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature 16 September 1980 114 Bull. zool. Nom.., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 OPINION 1178 MEGASTERNUM MULSANT, 1844, AND CRYPTOPLEURUM MULSANT, 1844 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): TYPE SPECIES DETERMINED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genera Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 and Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 are set aside, and (a) Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802 is hereby designated as type species of Megasternum Mulsant, 1844; (b) Sphaeridium minutum Fabricius, 1775 is hereby designated as type species of Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 (gender, neuter), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802 (Name Number 2117); (b) Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (gender, neuter), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Sphaeridium minutum Fabricius, 1775 (Name Number 2118). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) obscurus Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Dermestes obscurus (specific name of type species of Megasternum Mulsant, 1844) (Name Number 2739); (b) minutum Fabricius, 1775, ‘as published in the binomen Sphaeridium minutum (specific name of type species of Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (Name Number 2740). : HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2075 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate type species for the genera Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 and Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 was first received from Dr A. Smetana (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) on 20 June 1974. It was sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 115 pp. 244-246. 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 seven entomological serials. Apart from a request by the late Dr. H. Lemche that a separate vote be called for on each nominal genus, no comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979)27 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 245, (a) concerning Megasternum Mulsant, 1844, and (b) concerning Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844. At the close of the voting period on 14 March 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes (for both (a) and (b)) — twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Bayer, Mroczkowski, Willink, Vokes, Corliss, Tortonese, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Brinck, Hahn, Habe, Heppell, Welch, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Ride, Kraus, Dupuis, Nye, Halvorsen, Binder Negative Votes — none (0) Abstention — Cogger No voting paper was returned by Bernardi. Dr Cogger observed: ‘I abstain from voting on both proposals. The questions of stability and usage are addressed superficially, without any supporting evidence beyond broad, unsubstantiated statements.” Professor Brinck suggested that the type of Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802 should be checked. Mr M.E. Bacchus (British Museum, Natural History) kindly did so and found two Marsham specimens. One, labelled ‘“‘holotype” by Balfour-Browne (see Entomol. mon. Mag., vol. 75, 1939, p. 5) should presumably be regarded as the lectotype. Both specimens belong to the species currently known as Megasternum obscurum (Marsham, 1802). ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844, Hist. nat. coléoptéres de France, Palpicornes, p. 188 Megasternum Mulsant, 1844, Hist. nat. coléoptéres de France, Palpicornes, p. 187 minutum, Sphaeridium, Fabricius, Syst. Entomol. p. 68 obscurus, Dermestes, Marsham, 1802, Entomol. Britannica, 1. Coleoptera, p. 72. 116 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)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 Commiss- ion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1178. - R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 September 1980 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 117 OPINION 1179 POLYDRUSUS GERMAR, 1817 AND PHYLLOBIUS GERMAR, 1824 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT USAGE RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species made for the nominal genus Polydrusus Germar, 1817, prior to the designation of Curculio undatus Fabricius, 1781, by Schonherr, 1826, are hereby set aside and that designation is accepted. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Polydrusus Germar, 1817 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Schoénherr, 1826 as accepted under the plenary powers in (1) above, Curculio undatus Fabricius, 1781 (Name Number 2119); (b) Phyllobius Germar, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Schoénherr, 1826, Curculio pyri Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2120). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) undatus Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Curculio undatus (specific name of type species of Polydrusus Germar, 1817) (Name Number 2741); (b) pyri Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen * Curculio pyri (specific name of type species of Phyllobius Germar, 1824 (Name Number 2742). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) POLYDROSINI (correction of ‘“Polydrosides”’) Schonherr, 1823 (type genus Polydrosus Schonherr, 1826, an unjustified emendation of Polydrusus Germar, 1817) (Name Number 509); (b) PHYLLOBIINI (correction of ‘‘Phyllobides’’) Schonherr, 1826 (type genus, Phyllobius Germar, 1824) (Name Number 510). 118 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2107 An application for the use of the plenary powers to maintain current usage of the generic names Polydrusus Germar, 1817 and Phyllobius Germar, 1824 was first received from Dr R.T. Thompson (British Museum, Natural History) on 19 December 1974. It was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool: Nom. vol. 32, pp. 175-176. 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 eight entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr Elwood C. Zimmerman (CSIRO Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia), Dr M.G. Morris (Monks Wood Experimental Station, Huntingdon, U.K.) and Dr M. Ter-Minassian (Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR). No adverse comment was received. Dr Zimmerman thought it would be better if the family- group name _ based on _ Polydrusus should be = spelled ‘POLYDRUSINI’. I verified that ‘Polydrosus’ is an available name, being an unjustified emendation by Schonherr, 1826, of Polydrusus; and Dr Thompson showed me that POLYDROSINI is indeed the name that is in general use, so that stability would not be served by altering it. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1980) 12 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 176. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Kraus, Hahn, Bayer, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Tortonese, Welch, Bernardi Negative Votes — none (0) Abstentions — Holthuis, Dupuis Dr Holthuis and Dr Nye pointed out that the type genus of POLYDROSINI must be cited as Polydrosus, not Polydrusus; Professor Dupuis would have preferred to alter Polydrusus to Polydrosus; Professor Tortonese would have preferred to alter POLYDROSINI to POLYDRUSINI. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: PHYLLOBIINI Schoénherr, 1826, Curculionidum dispositio Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 Hd methodica (Leipzig), p. 15 Phyllobius Germar, 1824, Insectorum species ....vol. 1, Coleoptera, p. 447 POLYDROSINI Schoénherr, 1823, /sis von Oken (Jena), vol. 7, part 10, column 1144 Polydrusus Germar, 1817, Mag. entomol. (Germar), vol. 2, p. 341 pyri, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 384 undatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum ....vol. 1, p. 189. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)12 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. 1179. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 September 1980 120 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 OPINION 1180 THAMNOPHILUS AMAZONICUS SCLATER, 1858 (AVES) CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name ruficollis Spix, 1825, as published in the binomen Thamnophilus ruficollis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) amazonicus Sclater, 1858, as published in the binomen Thamnophilus amazonicus, and _ as interpreted by the neotype designated by Parkes, 1975 (Name Number 2743); (b) cinereiceps Pelzeln, 1868, as published in the binomen Thamnophilus cinereiceps (Name Number 2744). (3) The specific name ruficollis Spix, 1825, as published in the binomen Thamnophilus ruficollis, 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 1077. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2108 An application for the conservation of Thamnophilus amazonicus Sclater, 1858 (with a collateral proposal affecting T. cinereiceps Pelzeln, 1868) was first received from Dr K.C. Parkes (Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.) on 9 January 1975. After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 25 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 177-180. 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 five general and eleven specialised serials. The application was supported by Dr G.F Mees and Dr Eugene Eisenmann, who helped in its preparation; no comment was received after it had been published. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 LA DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)13 for or against the proposal set out in Bull, zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 179. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Kraus, Hahn, Bayer, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, Tortonese, Welch, Bernardi Negative Votes — none (0) No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: amazonicus, Thamnophilus, Sclater, 1858, Proc. zool. Soc. London vol. 27, p. 214 cinereiceps, Thamnophilus, Pelzeln, 1868, Zur Ornithologie Brasiliens, part 2, p. 145 ruficollis, Thamnophilus, Spix, 1825, Avium species novae ...vol. 2, p. 27. The following is the original reference to a neotype designation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of British Museum (Natural History) No. 1889. 9. 20. 89 as neotype of Thamnophilus amazonicus Sclater, 1858 by Parkes, K.C., 1975, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 178. CERTIFICATE [ hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)13 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. 1180. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 September 1980 122 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 OPINION 1181 MICRODRYAS LASERON, 1950 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Microdryas Laseron, 1950, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Epigrus iravadioides Gatliff & Gabriel, 1913, is designated as type species of that genus. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci- fied: (a) Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Epigrus iravadioides Gatliff & Gabriel, 1913 (Name Number 2121); (b) Subestea Cotton, 1944 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Alvania seminodosa May, 1916 (Name Number 2122). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci- fied: (a) iravadioides Gatliff & Gabriel, 1913, as published in the binomen Epigrus iravadioides (specific name of type species of Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (Name Number 2745); (b) australiae Frauenfeld, 1867, as published in the binomen Cingula australiae (the valid name, at the date of this ruling, for the type species of Subestea Cotton, 1944) (Name Number 2746). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2121 Correspondence on several subjects with Dr W.F. Ponder (Australian Museum, Sydney) during 1975 led to the receipt of an application for the determination of the type species of Microdryas Laseron, 1950 on 21 April 1975. The genus is one based on a mis- identified type species. The application was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 192. 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, to five general serials and to four malacological serials. No comment was received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 123 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)14 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 192. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two, received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Bayer, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, Tortonese, Welch, Bernardi Negative Vote — Kraus No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Kraus: ‘There is no statement by the applicant indicating that the genus in question, described not earlier than 1950, has a more general importance. To a considerable extent the problem seems to trouble specialists on RISSOIDAE of the Australian region.’ Sabrosky: ‘A case of misidentified type species for treatment under Article 70, although this is not mentioned in the application.’ Cogger: ‘Although in agreement with the solution proposed by the applicant to overcome the problem created by a misidenti- fied type species, he appears to be in error in his contention that in upholding the original type-species designation the genus Microdryas “would be reduced to a synonym of Subestea”. On the contrary, Microdryas would become the senior synonym and so not only leave the iravadioides group without an available generic name, but in addition bring about a presumably unwanted replacement of Subestea by Microdryas.’ Bernardi: ‘Oui, parce que les ‘australiae’’ qui étaient sous les yeux de Laseron, 1950 étaient des iravadioides.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: australiae, Cingula, Frauenfeld, 1867, Reise der Fregatte Novara um die Erde, 1857-59, Zool. Theil, vol. 2 (3), Mollusca, p. 14 iravadioides, Epigrus, Gatliff & Gabriel, 1913, Proc. roy. Soc. Victoria N.S. vol. 26 (1), p. 67 Microdryas Laseron, 1950, Rec. Australian Mus. vol. 22 (3), p. 277 Subestea Cotton, 1944, Trans. roy. Soc. S. Australia, vol. 69, p. 292 124 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)14 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. 1181. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 September 1980 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 125 TYROPHAGUS OUDEMANS, 1924 (ACARINA): PROPOSALS TO CLARIFY THE NAME OF THE TYPE SPECIES AND TO CONSERVE THE NAME OF AN IMPORTANT PEST SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)1450 By Phyllis L. Robertson (School of Chemistry, University of New South Wales, P.O. Box 1, Kensington, N.S.W. 2033, Australia) The present application concerns names which may properly be applied to species of Acarina of the genus Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924. Its first object is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, on the grounds that it is a nomen dubium, thereby rendering /Jongior Gervais, 1844, the oldest available name for the species called Tyrophagus dimidiatus by Oudemans (Tijdschr. Ent. vol. 67, p. xxv, 1924). The Commission is also requested to place on the Official List the nominal species Jongior Gervais, 1844, and also the nominal species putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, type of the genus Tyrophagus, for which species the writer has designated neotypes on pages 165 and 157 respectively of Aust. J. Zool. vol. 7(2), 1959. Details of the case are as follows:— 2. In 1924 when Oudemans (Ent. Ber. Amst. vol. 6, p. 250), erected the genus Tyrophagus, he placed in it Acarus dimidiatus Hermann, 1804 (Mém. Apter. p. 85, pl. 6, fig. 4), among other species, and great confusion has continued to centre around this name. Having decided earlier that Hermann’s dimidiatus belonged to the generic complex within which he distinguished Tyrophagus in 1924, Oudemans must have remained doubtful about the species to which it should be applied. He appears to have used it first in 1906 for a form which is now known by his later name 7yrophagus australasiae, but in 1924 he transferred it to a species of Tyrophagus which had been called longior Gervais for the preceding eighty years, and which was sufficiently clearly described and illustrated during that time as still to be recognizable in the light of current knowledge. 3. Despite the final stand taken by Oudemans, more recent authorities have been unable to agree on the identity of Hermann’s dimidiatus. Some, for example Zakhvatkin, 1941, consider it to be unrecognizable, while others have applied the name to one or other of at least four different species. 4. In addition to the doubt which exists on the correctness of Oudemans’ initial action in introducing Acarus dimidiatus into the group of which Tyrophagus is a part, and the threat to stability represented by the failure of present-day authorities to agree on the 126 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 identity of the species to which the name should be applied, still further doubt on the nomenclatural status of dimidiatus is cast by close examination of Hermann’s original description and illustrations. EXTRACT FROM: A REVISION OF THE GENUS TYROPHAGUS, WITH A DISCUSSION ON ITS TAXONOMIC POSITION IN THE ACARINA, Aust. J. Zool. vol. 7(2), pp. 146-181, 1959, by Phyllis L. Robertson ‘Hermann’s (1804) description of dimidiatus, in French, states: ‘““Abdomen spherical, of a yellowish green in front, white behind and underneath, with radiating hairs, longer than the body [this description is repeated in Latin], pl. VI, fig. 4. It is found among mosses. I have not observed any palp, but intermediary chelicerae (pl. IX, fig. b) which, however, were not articulated at all as in other mites”. ‘There are a number of points in this description which, taken in conjunction with Hermann’s drawings, suggest that it should not be accepted for any species of Tyrophagus at present known: (1) Form of the “abdomen” [i.e. the hysterosoma] . — Characteristically the hysterosoma of Tyrophagus is far from spherical as in Hermann’s species, being longer than it is wide, with obvious “‘shoulders” anteriorly and flattened dorsoventrally (see Fig. 35, p. 166) [i-e. in Robertson, 1959].In Hermann’s illustration (pl. VI, fig. 4) of dimidiatus, too, there is a carefully drawn curving line across the hysterosoma which seems likely to repre- sent either a colour boundary or an additional suture. Neither of these interpretations would be applicable to a species of Tyrophagus. (2) Colour. — In all known species of Tyrophagus the body cuticle is colourless, with the legs and apodemes only slightly darkened. None of them has a characteristic distribution of yellowish-green and white. Indeed, any trace of colour in the hysterosoma could only be due to body contents showing through the cuticle, and would appear towards the posterior end, not anteriorly as Hermann described. (3) Habitat. — Oudemans (1924b) does not appear to have been successful in finding his species in moss, the habitat recorded by Hermann, nor have species of Tyrophagus been found there by other authors. [Note: This position with regard to habitat cannot in Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 127 itself be taken as rendering the name dimidiatus inappli- cable to species of the genus Tyrophagus. Since the latter are polyphagous, it may possibly be demonstrated that they occur in moss, as well as in other habitats as yet unrecognized. The present position, nevertheless, fails to offer any positive support for the view that the dimidiatus of Hermann is a species of Tyrophagus.] (4) Mouthparts. — Hermann’s description of the chelicerae appears to be the most significant statement of all. In the original French he referred to “des pinces inter- médiaires, qui n’étoient cependant point articulées comme dans d’autres mites’. But there is some doubt as to whether or not Hermann’s illustration (pl. IX, fig. b) of the chelicerae is in agreement with his emphatic state- ment. If the written statement is accepted, then it must be assumed that Hermann’s specimen was indeed one which lacked the articulation usual in other mites, and that the distally-placed lines in his illustration were con- tour lines and not joints. If this view is taken, then dimidiatus must be excluded from the genus Tyrophagus on the basis of the structure of its chelicerae. Alternatively it may be accepted that Hermann’s illustration represents a chelicera with normal articulation of the type found in 7yrophagus. But this interpretation does not agree with the written description, and non-agreement between the two would make the identification of dimidiatus impossible, and so would also constitute grounds for rejecting it as the name of a species of Tyrophagus.’ 5. There are thus at least three counts on which it appears that the interests of nomenclatural stability would best be served by using the plenary powers of the International Commission to suppress dimidiatus as a nomen dubium. These are, first, that present-day authorities either do not agree on the species of Tyrophagus to which the name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, should be applied, or do not recognize it at all; secondly, that the characteristics of dimidiatus described by Hermann, in particular the shape of the abdomen, the colour, and the structure of the chelicerae, point to some form other than Tyrophagus; and, thirdly, that Hermann’s description and illustration of the chelicerae, taken together, must be interpreted either as direct evidence that the species is not a Tyrophagus or that it is a species which is beyond recognition. 128 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 6. In the event of the International Commission taking the action suggested to suppress the name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, then consideration must also be given to naming the species of Tyrophagus to which dimidiatus was applied by Oudemans in 1924. It was pointed out by the writer (Aust. J. Zool. vol. 7(2), pp. 153-4, 1959) that if dimidiatus is suppressed then Tyroglyphus longior Gervais, 1844 (Hist. nat. Inst. (Aptéres) vol. 3, p. 262, pl. 35, fig. 5) becomes the first available name for that species. It is suggested that this name is acceptable both nomenclaturally and on zoological grounds, although no type is known to exist. To stabilize the position, the writer has taken the further step of designating a neotype for longior, and recognition of this action is now sought from the Commission. 7: The status of Acarus putrescentiae Schrank, 1781 (Enum. Ins. Austr. ind. p. 521) which Oudemans designated as the type of his genus Tyrophagus, also requires clarification, since no type specimen of putrescentiae is preserved and since some modern authorities consider the species to be unrecognizable. The writer (Aust. J. Zool. vol. 7(2), p. 151, 1959) has affirmed, from an examination of the Oudemans Collection held by the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands, that Oudemans had a reasonably clear conception of the form he identified as the putrescentiae of Schrank, a species which is acceptable for inclusion in Tyrophagus on zoological grounds and whose name is an avail- able one in the group. In the publication cited above, one of Oudemans’ specimens is therefore designated the neotype of putrescentiae, a step which is now brought to the notice of the Commission as stabilizing both the species itself and also the genus Tyrophagus of which it is the type. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore asked:— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Acarus dimidiatus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (gender: masculine) type-species, by original designation, Acarus putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, as published in the binomen Acarus putrescentiae (type-species of Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1824) (as interpreted by the neotype designated by Robertson, 1959); Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 129 (b) Jlongior Gervais, 1844, as published in the binomen Tyroglyphus longior (as interpreted by the neotype designated by Robertson, 1959; (4) to place the specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Acarus dimidiatus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (5S) to place the family name TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924 (type-genus Tyrophagus Oudemans 1924) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 130 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 MANATI STELLER, 1774 AND TRICHECHUS EXUNGUIS (NATTERER IN DIESING, 1839) (MAMMALIA, SIRENIA): PROPOSAL TO PLACE THESE NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL iNDEXES OF REJECTED AND INVALID NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.)2338 By Daryl P. Domning (Department of Anatomy, Howard University, Washington, D.C. 20059) Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794: p. 292 (type, by monotypy, H. stelleri Retzius, 1794, ibid.) was upheld over Rhytina (emended form of Rytina Illiger, 1811) as the generic name of Steller’s sea cow by ICZN Opinion 90 (1925), though not placed on the Official List. The oldest available name for the type species, as noted by Palmer (1895), is Manati gigas Zimmermann, 1780. The spelling ‘“‘manati’’ was commonly used in the 18th Century as a vernacular name for the manatee (Jrichechus Linnaeus, 1758), and Steller (1751), believing the tropical manatee to be identical with the animal he discovered at Bering Island, applied the term “‘manati”’ to both. Allen (1902) stated that “the generic name Manati [Zimmerman, 1780] is of even date with Manatus Storr |=Trichechus L.]”, implying that he considered the two as homonyms. (Manatus Storr, 1780 is in fact a junior homonym of Manatus Brinnich, 1771, which was rejected in favor of Trichechus by ICZN Opinion 112, 1929. Direction 13 placed both of the former names on the Official Index.) However, according to Article 56a of the Code, they must be regarded as distinct names, and the original applications of the name Manati were to Steller’s sea cow. In addition to the combinations Manati gigas Zimmermann, 1780 and Manati balaenurus Boddaert, 1785, both senior objective synonyms of Hydrodamalis stelleri Retzius, 1794, there is a passage describing the Bering Island sea cows in a posthumous publication by Steller (1774, p. 97) which bears the heading “Die Seekuh Manati, auf russisch Morskaia Korowa’’ (italics in original). Though this usage was probably intended as vernacular, it could be inter- preted as a valid uninominal publication of a new generic name, and I have treated it as such and as a nomen oblitum (Domning, 1978a, p.74). As Manati has not been regarded as the valid name of any form for well over a century and a half, although an available senior objective synonym of MHydrodamalis, it should be formally suppressed. 2. The valid name of the Amazonian manatee is now universally considered to be Trichechus inunguis (Natterer in Peizeln, 1883, pp. 89-94), and this name has becn consistently used by mammalogists during the last 50 years (e.g., Hatt, 1934; Coates, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 131 1939, 1940; Vieira, 1949; Frye & Herald, 1969; Robineau, 1969; Evans & Herald, 1970; Loughman ef al., 1970; Bertram & Ricardo Bertram, 1973; Sonoda and Takemura, 1973; Domning, 1978b; Bullock et al., 1980). However, in 1839 the parasitologist Diesing described two new species of worms (Heterocheilus tunicatus and Amphistoma fabaceum) from Natterer’s type series of this manatee. As the host species had been recognized by Natterer as new but had not yet been described in print, Diesing (1839, p. 230n) appended to his description of the parasites a lengthy quotation from Natterer’s manuscript describing and naming the manatee. However, whereas the name appears in Pelzeln, 1883, as Manatus inunguis, Diesing (perhaps quoting from a different draft of the manuscript) has Manatus exunguis. This, the senior name, while unknown to mammalogists, has had a persistent life of its own in the parasito- logical literature, although I am aware of only three instances of its use in the 20th Century (Stunkard, 1929; Price, 1932; Baylis, 1936). In all three instances the name was merely cited as having been used by earlier writers for a host species, the host itself not being further discussed nor any new parasitological information relating to it being reported. Price, 1932, pp. 43, 58, even indi- cated uncertainty as to whether inunguis was not really the proper name. Though its use now appears to have died out even among parasitologists (cf. Boever et al., 1977), the name Trichechus exunguis (Naterer in Diesing, 1839) should be suppressed to avoid any danger to the present universal acceptance of its junior objec- tive synonym T. inunguis. 3. 1 therefore ask the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the generic name Manati Steller, 1774 (first published uninominally and later in the binomina Manati gigas Zimmermann, 1780 and Manati balaenurus Boddaert, 1785) as an unused senior synonym of Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the specific name exunguis Natterer in Diesing, 1839, as published in the binomen Manatus exunguis (a senior objective synonym of Manatus inunguis Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Hydrodamalis Stelleri Retzius, 1794, on the Official List of Generic Names in 132 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 Zoology; (3) to place the specific name gigas Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the binomen Manati gigas (the valid specific name of the type species of Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Manati Steller, 1774, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (S) to place the specific name exunguis Natterer in Diesing, 1839, as published in the binomen Manatus exunguis, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ALLEN, J.A., 1902. Zimmermann’s ‘Zoologiae Geographicae’ and ‘Geographische Geschichte’ considered in their relation to mammalian nomenclature. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 16, pp. 13-22 BAYLIS, H.A., 1936. Some parasitic worms from the British Cameroons. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) vol. 17, pp. 257-272 BERTRAM, G.C.L., & RICARDO BERTRAM, C.K., 1973. The modern Sirenia: their distribution and status. Biol. J. linn. Soc. London, vol. 5 (4), pp. 297-338 BODDAERT, P., 1785. Elenchus Animalium, vol. I. Rotterdam: xxxviii + 174 pp BOEVER, W.J., SHILLER, J. & KANE, K.K., 1977. Chiorchis spp. tremato- diasis in a Natterer’s manatee Trichechus inunguis. J. Zoo anim. Med. .. Vol. 8(1), pp. 5-6 BRUNNICH, M., 1771. Zoologiae Fundamenta. Hafniae & Lipsiae: iv + 253 pp. BULLOCK, T.H., DOMNING, D.P. & BEST, R.C., 1980. Evoked brain poten- tials demonstrate hearing in a manatee (Trichechus inunguis). J. Mamm. vol. 61(1), pp. 130-133 COATES, C.W., 1939. Baby mermaid — a manatee at the Aquarium. Bull. New York zool. Soc. vol. 42(5), pp. 140-148 1940. Manatees at the Aquarium. Bull. New York zool. Soc. vol. 43(3), pp. 99-100 DIESING, C.M., 1839. Neue Gattungen von Binnenwurmern nebst einem Nachtrage zur Monographie der Amphistomen. Ann. wiener Mus. Naturg. vol. 2(2), pp. 219-242 DOMNING, D.P., 1978a. Sirenian evolution in the North Pacific Ocean. Univ. Calif. Publ. geol. Sci. vol. 118, xi+ 176 pp 1978b. The myology of the Amazonian manatee, Trichechus inunguis (Natterer) (Mammalia: Sirenia). Acta Amazonica vol. 8(2), Suppl. 1, pp. 1-81 EVANS, W.E. & HERALD, E.S., 1970. Underwater calls of a captive Amazon manatee, Trichechus inunguis. J. Mamm. vol. 51, pp. 820-823 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 133 FRYE, F.L., & HERALD, E.S., 1969. Osteomyelitis in a manatee. J. Amer. vet. Med. Assoc. vol. 155(7), pp. 1073-1076 HATT, R.T., 1934. A manatee collected by the American Museum Congo Expedition, with observations on the Recent manatees. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 66(4), pp. 533-56€ INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 1925. Opinion 90: Report on sixteen generic names of mammals for which suspension of rules was requested. Smithson. misc. Coll. vol. °73(3), pp. 34-40 1929. Opinion 112: Suspension declined for Manatus 1772 vs. Trichechus 1758. Smithson. misc. Coll. vol. 73(6), p. 19 LOUGHMAN, W.D., FRYE, F.L. & HERALD, E.S., 1970. The chromosomes of a male manatee Trichechus inunguis. Internat. Zoo Yearbk. vol. 10, pp. 151-152 PALMER, T.S., 1895. The earliest name for Steller’s sea cow and dugong. Science (2) vol. 2(40), pp. 449-450 PELZELN, A. von, 1883. Brasilische Saugethiere. Resultate von Johann Natterers Reisen in den Jahren 1817 bis 1835. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 33, Beiheft pp. 1-140 PRICE, E.W., 1932. The trematode parasites of marine mammals. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. vol. 81(13), pp. 1-68. RETZIUS, A.J., 1794. Anmiarkningar vid genus Trichechi. K. Svensk. Vetenskapsacad. Handl. (2) vol. 15, pp. 286-300 ROBINEAU, D., 1969. Morphologie externe du complexe osseux temporal chez les Siréniens. Mém. Mus. nat. Hist. nat., Sér. A (Zool.) (2) vol. 60 (1), pp. 1-32 SONODA, S., & TAKEMURA, A., 1973. Underwater sounds of the manatees, Trichechus manatus manatus and T. inunguis (Trichechidae). Rept. Inst. Breeding Res., Tokyo Univ. Agric. vol. 4, pp. 19-24 STELLER, G.W., 1751. De bestiis marinis. Nov. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petropoli- tanae vol. 2, pp. 289-398 1774. Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka ...... Frankfurt & Leipzig: viii + 28 +384 +72 pp STORR, G.C.C., 1780. Prodromus methodi Mammalium ...... Ttibingen, pp. 1-43 STUNKARD, H.W., 1929. The parasitic worms collected by the American Museum of Natural History Expedition to the Belgian Congo, 1909- 1914. I. Trematoda. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 58(6), pp. 233- 289 VIEIRA, C.O. da C., 1949. Novo contribuig3o ao conhecimento dos mamiferos do Rio Juru4. Bol. Mus. Paraense Emilio Goeldi vol. 10, pp. 239-274 ZIMMERMANN, E.A.W., 1780. Geographische Geschichte des Menschen und der vierfiissigen Thiere, vol. Il. Leipzig, pp. 1-432 134 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 LEDELLA VERRILL & BUSH, 1897 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES Z.N(S.)2238 By Anders Warén (Department of Zoology, University of Goteborg, Box 250 59, S-400 31 Géteborg, Sweden) The purpose of the present application is to preserve the generic name Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897, in its accustomed sense and to clear up some anomalies concerning its type species, alleged to be Leda messanensis Seguenza, 1877. 2. Jeffreys, 1870, p. 69, made a note under the description of a new species, Leda acuminata Jeffreys, saying: ‘Hitherto known only as a Sicilian fossil, Professor Seguenza having kindly sent me specimens from the neighbourhood of Messina as L.[eda] messanensis. As he has not described it I venture to prefer the characteristic name which I had given it when I dredged it off the west coast of Ireland to the local name proposed by him.’ This is cited to show that Jeffreys considered messanensis a synonym of his acuminata, and that he preferred the latter name as being more descriptive. There is no description or figure or anything else to define Leda messanensis Seguenza, and the name is therefore a nomen nudum, proposed and rejected in synonymy at one and the same time. 3. Seguenza, 1877, p. 1175, quoted the name ‘Junonia Seguenza, 1876 (M.3)’ as ‘Quarta sezione’ of Leda Schumacher, 1817. The first of several species included is ‘Leda acuminata Jeff., Tav. III, fig. 15, 15a, 1Sc, 15e — Sinonimi: Leda messanensis Seguenza (M.S.). . ... Apparently Junonia was proposed with a proper description and included several species, but no type species was designated. The specific name messanensis was published — again in synonymy — without proper description, but related to material which is still extant (supposedly those specimens sent to Jeffreys). 4. Jeffreys, 1879, p. 578, replaced Leda acuminata Jeffreys by Leda messanensis Seguenza because of secondary homonymy with Nucula acuminata von Buch, in Zieten, 1833, Petref. Wurtt. (10) p. 33, which had been transferred to Leda by d’Orbigny, 1850, Prodr. Paléont. vol. 1, p. 234. Nucula acuminata von Buch, 1833, was, however, a junior primary homonym of Nucula acuminata Eichwald, 1830, Naturhist. Skizzen von Lithauen, p. 211. This raises an interesting point that is apparently not covered by the Code. Jeffreys’ 1879 adoption of Leda messanensis Seguenza (a name first published in synonymy in 1870) as a valid name makes it an available name as from its first publication in synonymy, i.e. as Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 135 of Seguenza in Jeffreys, 1870. But its potential validity must depend upon whether Jeffreys was right to regard Nucula acuminata von Buch (whose status as a junior primary homonym was obviously unknown to him) as valid from the point of view of secondary homonymy when transferred to Leda. It seems to me that the simplest solution is to accept that Jeffreys acted in good faith in 1879 and to accept his action as a fait accompli. (Warén, 1978, considered the Sicilian fossil and the Recent form distin- guishable and used Seguenza’s name for the former and Jeffreys’s name for the latter. This, however, does not affect the proposals in paragraph 9.) 5. Verrill & Bush, 1897, p. 54, established ‘Ledella gen. nov. Figures 13, 18. Type L. messanensis (Seg.)’ and gave as a synonym ‘Junonia Seguenza, Nuculidi .. . p. 1175, 1877 (not of Hubner)’ [1818, Verz. bekannt. Schmett., p. 34]. Examination by the present author of the material on which Verrill & Bush based their description and figures of Ledella messanensis and of syntypes of L. messanensis Seguenza in the Jeffreys collection in the U.S. National Museum of Natural History showed that two different species are involved (Warén, 1978). Ledella Verrill & Bush was thus based on a misidentification and the case is to be referred to the Commission. The manner in which Ledella is introduced leaves no doubt that it is meant as a distinct name with Junonia Seguenza (non Hiibner) as a synonym, and not as a new replacement name in the proper sense. Thus, Ledella does not automatically take the same type species as Junonia. 6. Verrill & Bush, 1897, p. 55, also described Yoldiella gen. nov., with type species ‘Yoldiella lucida Lovén’ which means Yoldia lucida Lovén, 1846, p. 34. 7. Since 1897, Ledella has been used mainly in the sense of Verrill & Bush, i.e. with the species that they believed to be Leda messanensis and that was redescribed as L. bushae Warén, 1978, as type species. This interpretation has been used for the description of about 25 new species (papers marked (i) in the references) and for inclusion of about 20 species originally described in other genera (marked * in the references). Only very few authors, all working exclusively on Mediterranean species, have used Ledella with the true L. messanensis Seguenza as type species (marked (iii) in the references). No new species have been described, nor have any species been transferred to Ledella interpreted in this way. 8. Warén, 1978, has shown that Yoldiella Verrill & Bush would probably be the appropriate genus for the true L. messanensis Seguenza. The species that Verrill & Bush named messanensis was not actually described by them. Their only figure shows a variety and is not eligible for defining that species, which therefore needs a 136 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 new name (Warén, 1978). 9. . Of the three alternatives open to the Commission under Article 70a, alternative (ii) is not relevant because the identity of the species in question is not in doubt. The choice of alternative (iii) would lead to confusion between the generic names Ledella and Yoldiella. The Commission is therefore urged to adopt alternative (i), as follows: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897, and, having done so, to designate Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 as type species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Ledella bushae Warén, 1978; (b) Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Yoldia lucida Lovén, 1846; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoo- logy: (a) bushae Warén, 1978, as published in the binomen Ledella bushae (specific name of type species of Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897); (b) lucida Lovén, 1846, as published in the binomen Yoldia lucida (specific name of type species of Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897). REFERENCES Papers marked (i) contain descriptions of new species described in Ledella as though L. bushae were its type species; those marked * contain transferences to Ledella in that sense; that marked (iii) refers to Ledella used as wort y the true L. messanensis Seguenza were its type species. (i) ABBOTT, R.T. 1975. American seashells, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 663 pp. (i) BEETS, C. 1943. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der angeblich oberoligo- canen Mollusken-Fauna der Insel Buton, Niederlandisch-Ostindiens. Leid. geol. Meded., vol. 13, pp. 256-367 = COTTON, B.C. 1961. South Australian Mollusca. Pelecypoda. Hand- book Flora Fauna S. Australia. 363 pp. (i) DALL, W.H. 1927. Small shells from dredgings off the south east coast of the United States by the U.S. fisheries steamer ‘Albatross’ in 1885 and 1886. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. 70 (18), 134 pp. (i) DELL, R.K. 1952. A deep water molluscan fauna from the Tasman Sea. Rec. Dom. Mus. Wellington, vol. 1, pp. 99-107 (i) (i) (i)* (i) (i) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 137 DELL, R.K. 1953. A molluscan fauna from the Chatham rise. Rec. Dom. Mus. Wellington, vol. 2, pp. 37-53 1955. A synopsis of the Nuculanidae with checklists of the Australian Tertiary and Recent species. Rec. Dom. Mus. Wellington, vol. 2, pp. 123-134 FILATOVA, Z.A. Quantitative distribution of bivalves in the far eastern seas of the USSR and in the western Pacific. Trudy Inst. Okeanol., vol. 41, pp. 132-145 FOKINA, N.S. 1968. On families Nuculanidae and Malletiidae in upper Palaeogene deposits (south of USSR). Bull. Moscow Soc. Nat., Ser. Geol., vol. 63, pp. 73-88 GORBUNOW, G. 1946. Bottomlife of the Novosiberian shoal-waters and the central part of the Arctic Ocean. Dreif. Eksp. Glavs. Parok. G. Sedov, 1937-40, vol. 3, pp. 30-138 JEFFREYS, J.G. 1870. Mediterranean Mollusca. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. 6, pp. 65-86 —--. 1879. On the Mollusca procured during the ‘Lightning’ and ‘Porcupine’ expeditions, 1868-1870 (Part 2). Proc zool. Soc. London for 1879, pp. 553-588 KNUDSEN, J. 1970. The systematics and biology of abyssal and hadal Bivalvia. Galathea Rep. vol. 11, 241 pp. LAWS, C.R. 1941. The molluscan fenule at Pakaurangi Point, Kaipara, 2. Trans. Proc. r. Soc. New Zealand, vol. 71, pp. 134-151 LUDBROOK, N.H. 1961. Revision of the Tate molluscan types: Pelecypoda — Nuculidae and Nuculanidae. Trans. r. Soc. S. Australia, vol. 85, pp. 55-65 MAXWELL, P.A. 1969. Middle Tertiary Mollusca from North Otago and South Canterbury, New Zealand. Trans. r. Soc. New Zealand, vol. 6, pp. 155-185 NORDSIECK, F. Die europaischen Meeresmuscheln. G. Fischer, Stuttgart. 256 pp. POWELL, A.W.B. 1935. New Recent and Tertiary Nuculanidae from New Zealand. Proc. malac. Soc. London, vol. 21, pp. 252-255 PRASHAD, B. 1932. The Lamellibranchia of the Siboga Expedition. Siboga-Expeditie vol. 58c, 353 pp. SEGUENZA, G. 1877. Nuculidi terziarie rinivenute nelle provincie meridionale d’Italia. Atti Accad. naz. Lincei, Mem. (3) vol. 1, pp. 1163- 1190 THIELE, J. & JAECKEL, S. 1931. Muscheln der deutschen Tiefsee- Expedition. Wiss. Ergebn, deutsch. Tiefsee-Exped. Valdivia, vol. 21, pp. 161-268 VERRILL, A.E. & BUSH, K.J. 1897. Revision of the genera of Nucu- lidae and Ledidae of the Atlantic coast of the U.S. Amer. J. Sci. vol. 3, pp. 51-63 1898. Revision of the deep-water Mollusca of the Atlantic coast of North America, with descriptions of new genera and species. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. vol. 20, pp. 775-901 WAREN, A. 1978. On the taxonomy of some north Atlantic species teferred to Ledella and Yoldiella (Bivalvia). Sarsia, vol. 63, pp. 213- 219 138 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 NEPA CINEREA LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA, NEPIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2144 By Izyaslav M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) Linnaeus, 1758, p. 440, described under the name Nepa cinerea the well known water-scorpion. The description was accom- panied by many references to the older literature. Nepa rubra was described by Linnaeus, 1758, on the same page as N. cinerea but several lines above. A more detailed description was published subsequently (Linnaeus, 1764). 2. Fabricius, 1794, p. 62, has used the name Nepa rubra Linnaeus for a nepid from the Oriental region, which is known now as Laccotrephes kohlii Ferrari, 1888. The name Laccotrephes ruber (Linnaeus, 1758) was used for this or related species by many authors (the last use to my knowledge by Hafiz and Pradhan, 1949). 3. Esaki, 1926, discovered that: a) the descriptions of Nepa rubra by Linnaeus, 1758, 1764, cannot be applied to any species of Laccotrephes and certainly apply to Nepa cinerea; b) the type specimen of Nepa rubra in the Linnean collection in the Zoological Museum of the University in Uppsala is a specimen of Nepa cinerea with expanded elytra and wings. 4. Tamanini, 1973, believed that the synonymy of N. rubra and N. cinerea established by Esaki, 1926, is wrong and the name rubra should be resurrected for the species of the genus Laccotrephes. His arguments against the synonymy with N. cinerea are: (i) the remark in Linnaeus, 1758: “‘habitat in calidis regionibus”’ shows that N. rubra is an extrapalaearctic species, while N. cinerea is unknown outside Palaearctica; (ii) the label under the supposed type specimen of N. rubra, according to a letter of Dr. Gustavson (Uppsala) to Esaki, was not written by Linnaeus himself, hence this specimen is possibly not the type. I think the objections of Tamanini cannot be taken into consideration. 5. Concerning the type locality of N. rubra, it is stated in Linnaeus, 1764: ‘Habitat ——’; it is evident from this remark that the origin of the type specimen was unknown to Linnaeus and his previous statement (“habitat in calidis regionibus’’) was only a supposition. 6. Concerning the label of N. rubra, the following explana- tion can be given. As can be seen from the photograph in Esaki, 1926, the label is not pinned under the specimen but is written on the bottom of the box. The inscription is ‘rubra. Mus. Gust. Adolph? and is made in two different handwritings. The inscription Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 139 ‘Mus. Gust. Adolphi’ is certainly post-linnean, because Linnaeus died in 1778, whereas the Swedish King Gustav IV Adolph was born in 1778. It is known (Horn & Kahle, 1936, p. 285) that the collection of Queen Ludovica Ulrica, from which N. rubra was described, was bequeathed to Gustav IV Adolph and in 1803 was received by the University of Uppsala. The inscription ‘Mus. Gust. Adolphi’ is well explained by the history of this collection. It is not clear who made the inscription ‘rubra’. Even if it was made not by Linnaeus himself but by somebody who rearranged the collection, it does not give any evidence, that the type specimen of N. rubra was confused, because this specimen is in full accordance with the original descriptions. Hence the synonymy of N. rubra with N. cinerea is supported not only by the type specimen but by the descriptions of Linnaeus, 1758, 1764, too, so I think this synonymy cannot be doubted. 7. Acting as first reviser, Esaki has employed the ‘rule of page- and line-priority’ which had been accepted by several zoolo- gists and which Esaki took to be an officially accepted rule of nomenclature but which was never officially acknowledged except for a short period between 1948 and 1953 (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 4 pp. 328-330; Copenhagen Decisions, pp. 66-67). As a result of this oversight Esaki, 1926, changed the universally used name of a well- known insect Nepa cinerea to N. rubra. However, Esaki, 1928, himself and nearly all his contemporaries subsequently used the name N. cinerea. Stichel, 1934, 1955; Jordan, 1950 and Poisson, 1957 accepted Esaki’s 1926 renaming and are followed in the last 20 years by many other hemipterologists (M. Josifov, I. Lansbury, R. Linnavuori, N. Nieser, G. Seidenstiicker, E. Wagner and others), although many authors used N. cinerea as the valid name (Macan, 1956; Hoberlandt, 1959; Southwood and -Leston, 1959; Sods, 1963; Kerzhner and Jaczewski, 1964; Putshkova, 1969; Kanyukova, 1973 and others) or returned to such use after the publication of Tamanini’s paper (Ribes, 1974). 8. I think it would be desirable to suppress under the plenary powers the unfortunate first reviser action of Esaki, 1926, so as to validate the name Nepa cinerea and thus stabilize the nomenclature. The following information shows that N. cinerea is preferable to N. rubra:— (i) Nepa cinerea was the binomen definitely proposed by Linnaeus for this well-known insect, while Nepa rubra was described as a distinct species owing to a mistake (see Esaki 1926). (ii) The identity of Nepa cinerea was correctly determined by all zoologists while Nepa rubra was misidentified during more than 100 years. 140 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 (iii) Nepa cinerea was used as the valid name of the species by all authors from 1758 up to 1926, by the absolute majority of authors from 1926 up to 1955 and by many authors from 1955 up to now, e.g. more than 200 years, while Nepa rubra was used by authors only in the last 20 years. (iv) Nepa cinerea was described from ‘Europa’ and since the 2. species was known to Linnaeus from Sweden, Tamanini, 1973, restricted the type locality to Sweden. Nepa rubra is described from a specimen of unknown origin. Recently several subspecies of N. cinerea have been described from Western Mediterranean and from Siberia. In most cases the association of a given specimen to any subspecies cannot be established. If the name Nepa rubra were to be validated this would lead to uncertainty in the nomenclature of subspecies. In accordance with the above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) (2) (3) ESAKI, T., to use its plenary powers to set aside the first reviser action of Esaki (1926); to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: cinerea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa cinerea; to place the following specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoo- logy: rubra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa rubra (ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be a junior synonym of Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758). REFERENCES 1926. Remarks on the Linnean species of Nepa and Laccotrephes (Hemiptera: Nepidae). Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. vol. 21(5), pp. 177-181 1928. Contribution to the knowledge of the genus Nepa (Hemiptera: Nepidae). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (10) vol. 1(4), pp. 434-441 FABRICIUS, J. Ch., 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta IV. Hafniae: 472pp. HAFIZ, H.A. & PRADHAN, K.S., 1949. Notes on a collection of aquatic Rhynchota from the Patna State, Orissa, with descriptions of two new species. Rec. Indian Mus., Delhi vol. 45 (1947), 1949, pp. 347-376 HOBERLANDT, L., 1959. Rid Plo8tice — Heteroptera. In: Klié zvireny CSR, vol. 3, Praha, pp. 277-381 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 141 HORN, W. und KAHLE, I., 1936. Uber entomologische Sammlungen, Teil II. Entomol. Beihefte, Berlin-Dahlem vol. 3: pp. 1-12, 161-296, Taf. XVII-XXVI JORDAN, K.H.C., 1950. Wasserwanzen. Die Neue Brehm-Bicherei, vol. 23. Leipzig and Wittenberg/Lutherstadt: 39pp. KANYUKOVA, E.V., 1973. On the fauna and biology of water bugs (Heterop- tera) of Western Siberia. Entomol. obozr., Leningrad vol. 52(4), pp. 814-820 (In Russian with Engl. summary) KERZHNER, I.M. and JACZEWSKI, T.L., 1964. Heteroptera. In: Keys to insects of the European part of the USSR, vol. 1, Leningrad, pp. 655- 845 (in Russian) LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema Naturae, edit. 10, vol. 1. Holmiae: 823pp. 1764. Museum S.R.M. Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae. Holmiae: 720pp. MACAN, T.T., 1956. A revised Key to the British Water Bugs (Hemiptera Heteroptera). Freshw. Biol. Assoc., Sci. Publ. No. 16, pp. 1-74. POISSON, R., 1957. Hétéroptéres aquatiques. Faune de France vol. 61. Paris, 263pp. PUTSHKOVA, L.V., 1969. The periphyton of the water-scorpion (Nepa cinerea L.). Gidrobiol. zhurn., Kiev vol. 5, No. 6: 95-96 (in Russian) RIBES, J., 1974. Hemipteros de la zone de Algeciras (CAdiz). III. Misc. Zool. Barcelona vol. 3, fasc. 4: 1-9 (sep.) soos, A., 1963. Heteroptera VIII. Fauna Hungarica vol. 68. Budapest, 5Opp. SOUTHWOOD, T.R.E. & LESTON, D., 1959. Land and Water Bugs of the British Isles. London & New York: 436pp. STICHEL, W., 1934. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Deutschen Wanzen, Lief. 10, Berlin-Fronhau und Leipzig, pp. 275-306 STICHEL, W., 1955. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen. I. Europa. Vol. I, Heft 3, Berlin-Hermsdorf, pp. 65-96 TAMANINI, L., 1973. Priorita e sinonimia di Nepa cinerea Linneo e Nepa rubra Linneo. Regione tipica e valore della razze europee di Nepa cinerea Linneo, 1758. Studi Trentini Sci. Nat., Trento, Sez. B, vol. 50(2), pp. 222-259 142 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 EUTERMES EXITIOSUS HILL, 1925 (INSECTA, ISOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2290 By J.A.L. Watson & F.J. Gay (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) The purpose of this proposal is to ask the International Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress a specific name because of the confusion that the adoption of the name would cause, and because it has not been used as a valid name for more than SO years. 2. Walker, 1853, p. 525, described Termes australis from two alates in the British Museum (Natural History), the first men- tioned from ‘Adelaide’ and the other from ‘New Holland’. The Adelaide specimen was collected by A.H. Davis some time prior to 1844, when it was accessed from the Entomological Club into the collections of the Museum. The second specimen is apparently lost (W.A. Sands, personal communication). 3. Hagen, 1858, p. 173, identified as Termes australis alate material of unknown provenance in the Vienna Museum, and alates in his own collection from the East Indies, and described and figured them. The description does not agree closely with Walker’s, and the figure (pl. 3, fig. 22) appears to be one of a kalotermitid, rather than a termitid. 4. Froggatt, 1898, p. 738, redescribed alates of Termes australis from dried material collected at light in Adelaide, and figured a wing (pl. 35, fig. 1). We have not been able to trace Froggatt’s material, and its identity is uncertain. The description is generally compatible with Walker’s, but differs in details of antennal segmentation, shape of pronotum, and wing venation, which are more closely comparable with those of species of Copto- termes Wasmann (Watson & Gay, 1980). Froggatt’s illustration is not very informative; dimensions and venation do not agree with the description. 5S. Desneux, 1904, p. 34, placed australis in Coptotermes, then regarded as a subgenus of Termes Linnaeus. He did not give reasons for this placement. 6. Bugnion & Popoff, 1910, p. 121, Holmgren, 1911, p. 73, and Mjéberg, 1920, p. 124, placed australis in the genus Copto- termes, also without comment. 7. Hill, 1926, p. 203, tentatively regarded australis as a Coptotermes, and discussed the problems associated with that placement. Unable to examine the types, he relied on notes made by Sir Guy Marshall. In a letter dated 3rd December, 1925, now Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 143 preserved in records associated with the Australian National Insect Collection, Canberra, Marshall compared ‘the unique type’ (presum- ably the second specimen, from New Holland, was already missing) with alates of Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt) and Copto- termes frenchi Hill (then known as Coptotermes flavus Hill), the only species of Coptotermes known from Adelaide (Hill, 1942; Calaby & Gay, 1956). Marshall also sketched the surviving syntype. Hill concluded that if australis was indeed a Coptotermes, it was ‘clearly distinct from any member of the genus as yet recorded from this Region’; and that the pronotum was ‘distinctly Eutermes-like in outline’. The sketch, preserved with Marshall’s letter, is a reasonable likeness of the Adelaide syntype, and confirms Hill’s opinion (Watson & Gay, 1980). 8. Hill, 1942, p. 10, did not include australis in his account of the Australian Isoptera, on the grounds that it could not ‘be identified with any more recently described species’, and referred to Hill, 1926, p. 203. Snyder, 1949, p. 348, also regarded australis as a species that could not be classified, and provided a bibliography of it. 9. Watson & Gay, 1980, pp. 19-22, figs. 1-2, re-examined the Adelaide syntype of Termes australis, designated it the lecto- type of the species, and showed that Termes australis is a senior subjective synonym of Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925. 10. Hill, 1925, p. 222, figs. 30-35, described Eutermes exitiosus from complete nest series from Ludlow, Western Australia, and other localities in the south-west of that State, and from South Australia and Victoria. In 1942, p. 214, figs. 111-113, he redescribed the species, including material from New South Wales and Queensland, and commented on its biology and economic importance. 11. Snyder, 1949, p. 276, transferred exitiosus to the genus Nasutitermes Dudley. 12. This species is one of the most extensively studied of the Australian termites, and causes substantial damage to timber in service. More than SO papers, involving more than 20 authors, have been published from our laboratory alone, dealing with its taxo- nomy, general biology, development, behaviour, economic impor- tance, and the resistance of materials. Other papers have been pub- lished from other laboratories, some directed specifically to non- entomologists involved in termite control. All these publications have referred to the species as exitiosus. The following fifteen references serve as examples, and satisfy the requirements of Article 79b: Holdaway, Gay & Greaves, 1935 (population of colonies); Fyfe & Gay, 1938 (relative humidity in mounds); Hill, 1942 (taxo- nomy, general biology); Holdaway & Gay, 1948 (temperatures in 144 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 mounds); Gay, Greaves, Holdaway & Wetherly, 1955 (standard techniques for laboratory testing of materials); Gay, Greaves, Holdaway & Wetherly, 1957 (standard techniques for field testing of materials); Moore, 1964 (pheromones); Rudman, 1965 (effects of extractives from resistant timber); Gay & Wetherly, 1969 (resis- tance of plastics); Gibbs, Gay & Wetherly,.1970 (termite virus); Lee & Wood, 1971 (termites and soils); McMahan and Watson, 1975 (development of castes); Kriston, Watson & Eisner, 1977 (behaviour of soldiers); McMahan, 1977 (polyethism); and Watson, Ruyooka & Howick, 1978 (caste composition and feeding activity). Because of the synonymy (paragraph 9 above) and the extent and diversity of non-taxonomic usage of the name exitiosus, we would prefer that the name australis be suppressed outright, rather than that its junior subjective synonym exitiosus be given nomenclatural precedence. 13. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name australis Walker, 1853, as published in the binomen Termes australis, 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 exitiosus Hill, 1925, as published in the binomen Eutermes exitiosus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name australis Walker, 1853, as published in the binomen Termes australis, and as suppressed by use of the plenary powers in (1) above. REFERENCES BUGNION, E. & POPOFF, N., 1910. Le termite 4 latex de Ceylan Coptotermes travians. Mém. Soc. zool. Fr. vol. 23, pp. 107-123 CALABY, J. & GAY, F.J., 1956. The distribution and biology of the genus Coptotermes (Isoptera) in Western Australia. Aust. J. Zool. vol. 4, pp. 19-39 DESNEUX, J., 1904. Isoptera, Fam. Termitidae. Genera Insectorum vol. 25, pp. 1-52 FROGGATT, W.W., 1898. Australian Termitidae. Part III. Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. vol. 22, pp. 721-758 FYFE, R.V. & GAY, F.J., 1938. The humidity of the atmosphere and the moisture conditions within mounds of Eutermes exitiosus Hill. Coun. sci. ind. Res. Aust. Pamphlet No. 82, 22 pp. GAY, F.J., GREAVES, T., HOLDAWAY, F.G. & WETHERLY, A.H., 1955. Standard laboratory colonies of termites for evaluating the resistance of timber, timber preservatives, and other materials to termite attack. Bull. Commonw. scient. ind. Res. Org. No. 277, 60 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 145 1957. The development and use of field testing techniques with termites in Australia. Bull. Commonw. scient. ind. Res. Org. No. 280, 31 pp. & WETHERLY, A.H., 1969. Laboratory studies of termite resistance V. The termite resistance of plastics. CSIRO Aust. Div. Ent. tech. Pap. No. 10,49 pp. GIBBS, A.J., GAY, F.J. & WETHERLY, A.H., 1970. A possible paralysis virus of termites. Virology vol. 4, pp. 1063-1065 HAGEN, H., 1858. Monographie der Termiten. Linn. Ent. vol. 12, pp. 1-342 HILL, G.F., 1925. Termites from the Australian region: descriptions of new species and hitherto undescribed castes. Proc. roy. Soc. Victoria (N.S.) vol. 37, pp. 206-229 ~1926. Australian termites (Isoptera). Notes on Stolotermes, Calotermes and Coptotermes, with descriptions of new species. Proc. roy. soc. Victoria (N.S.) vol. 38, pp. 192-214 —_—___1942. Termites (Isoptera) from the Australian region. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Melbourne, 479 pp. HOLDAWAY, F.G. & GAY, F.J., 1948. Temperature studies of the habitat of Eutermes exitiosus with special reference to the temperatures within the mound. Aust. J. sci. Res. (B) vol. 1, pp. 464-493 HOLDAWAY, F.G., GAY, F.J. & GREAVES, T. 1935. The termite population of a mound colony of Eutermes exitiosus Hill. J. Coun. sci. ind. Res. Aust. vol. 8, pp. 42-46 HOLMGREN, N., 1911. Termitenstudien 2. Systematik der Termiten. Die Familien Mastotermitidae, Protermitidae und Mesotermitidae. K. Svenska Vet.-Akad. Handl. vol. 46(6), pp. 1-86 KRISTON, I., WATSON, J.A.L. & EISNER, T., 1977. Non-combative behaviour of large soldiers of Nasutitermes exitiosus (Hill): an analytical study. Insectes sociaux vol. 24, pp. 103-111 LEE, K.E. & WOOD, T.G., 1971. Termites and soils. Academic Press, London and New York, x + 251pp. McMAHAN, E.A., 1977. Mound repair and foraging polyethism in workers of Nasutitermes exitiosus (Hill): (Isoptera: Termitidae). Insectes sociaux vol. 24, pp. 225-232 = ——& WATSON, J.A.L., 1975. Non-reproductive castes and their develop- ment in Nasutitermes exitiosus (Hill) (Isoptera). Insectes sociaux vol. . 22, pp. 183-198 MJOBERG, E., 1920. Results of Dr. E. Mjoberg’s Swedish scientific expedi- tions to Australia 1910-1913. 19. Isoptera. Ark. Zool. vol. 12(15), pp. 1-128 MOORE, B.P., 1964. Volatile terpenes from Nasutitermes soldiers (Isoptera, Termitidae). J. Insect Physiol. vol. 10, pp. 371-375 RUDMAN, P., 1965. The causes of natural durability in timber Pt. XVII. The causes of decay and termite resistance in Callitris columellaris F. Muell. Holzforschung vol. 19, pp. 52-57 SNYDER, T.E., 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithson, misc. Collns vol. 112, pp. 1-490 WALKER, F., 1853. List of the specimens of neuropterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part 3 (Termitides). British Museum, London, pp. 501-529 146 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 WATSON, J.A.L. & GAY, F.J., 1980. The identities of Termes australis Walker and Termes fumipennis Walker (Isoptera). J. Australian entomol. Soc., vol. 19, pp. 19-25 RUYOOKA, D.B.A. & HOWICK, C.D., 1978. The effect of caste com- position on wood consumption in cultures of Nasutitermes exitiosus (Hill) (Isoptera: Termitidae). Bull. ent. Res. vol. 68, pp. 687-694 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 147 COCCUS LINNAEUS, 1758 AND PARTHENOLECANIUM SULC, 1908 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA, COCCIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2125 By Evelyna M. Danzig & Izyaslav M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, USSR) A preliminary discussion of the problems discussed in this application has been given by Morrison & Morrison, 1966, and Danzig, 1967. These problems should be solved so as to stabilize the nomenclature of scale insects of great economic importance. 2. The genus Coccus was described by Linnaeus, 1758, p. 455, with 17 originally included species. The genus is the type of the family COCCIDAE Fallen, 1814, which was the first family of scale insects to be named. Three separate originally included species were designated as type species in the 19th century (for several invalid type designations, see Morrison & Morrison, 1966). 3. Curtis, 1838, p. 717, designated Coccus cacti Linnaeus, 1758, p. 457, as type species. Linnaeus’s species is now placed in the genus Protortonia (Family MONOPHLEBIDAE Signoret, 1875). It is clear, however, that Curtis misidentified that species and that his figures and descriptive remarks refer to Dactylopius coccus O. Costa, 1835 (Family DACTYLOPIIDAE Signoret, 1875). 4. Westwood, 1840, p. 447, designated Coccus ilicis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 455 as type species. This species is currently referred to the genus Kermes (Family KERMESIDAE Signoret, 1875). 5. Cockerell, 1899, p. 260, designated Coccus phalaridis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 456, as type species. The name of this species is regarded as a nomen dubium by modern coccidologists. 6. None of these three type-species designations was accepted by contemporaries, and none is accepted today. Accep- tance of any of them would bring about very undesirable changes in the names of genera, tribes, subfamilies and families of scale insects. 7. Fernald, 1902, p. 232; 1903, p. 167, designated Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758, p. 455, as type species of Coccus, wrongly believing that this designation had been made by Sulzer, 1761. Sulzer, however, had only cited the species as an example of Coccus. Although some aberrant points of view on the type species of Coccus appeared in the literature approximately up to 1930, Fernald’s type designation has received general recognition and is followed by all modern coccidologists without exception. We think that it would be the general wish of coccidologists that Fernald’s designation be validated under the plenary powers. 148 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 8. The genus Lecanium was described by Burmeister, 1835, p. 69. Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758 was designated as type species by Cockerell, 1893, p. 49. The implication that Lecanium is a junior objective synonym of Coccus is accepted by many modern authors, either directly (Borchsenius, 1957; de Lotto, 1965; Danzig, 1967; Williams, 1969), or indirectly (Schmutterer, 1952; Rehatek, 1960; Boratynsky, 1970; Koteja, 1974, etc.). 9. Another tendency is to retain the name Lecanium, following wide use in previous literature, for a broad generic concept mostly uniting the genera Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893 and Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 (Sanders, 1909; Sulc, 1932; Takahashi, 1955; Richards, 1958; Phillips, 1965; Kawecki, 1967; Williams & Kosztarab, 1972, etc.). The supporters of this view do not indicate a type species for Lecanium as understood in this sense. It is not fully clear what they prefer: validation of Lecanium instead of the large and economically important Eulecanium, or in place of the smaller Parthenolecanium. The only exception is the paper by Sanders, 1909, in which Chermes persicae Fabricius, 1776, now referred to Parthenolecanium, was designated as type species. This was one of the species originally included in Lecanium by Burmeister, but the designation is more recent than that made by Cockerell. 10. In order to ascertain which course of action is preferred by specialists, we wrote to eight coccidologists. Professor Z. Kawecki (Warsaw) took the view that Lecanium should be retained because, as Sanders stated in 1909, ‘it is impossible to eliminate Lecanium from our Coccid nomenclature’, but he did not say what species should be designated as type. Professor A. Balachowsky (Paris), Dr. K. Boratynski (London), Professor M. Kosztarab (Blacksburg), Dr. J. Koteja (Cracow), Mr. G. de Lotto (Pretoria), Dr. D. Miller (Beltsville) and Dr D. Williams (London) all held that Lecanium should be treated as a junior synonym of Coccus. Our own view is that to retain Lecanium now would introduce more confusion than stability in the nomenclature of scale insects, and we recommend its rejection. 11. The genus Eulecanium was described by Cockerell, 1893, p. 54, originally as a subgenus of Lecanium. The type species, by original designation, is Coccus tiliae Linnaeus, 1758, p. 456. The name is used in a broad sense to include Parthenolecanium as a synonym of Lecanium by those workers who prefer to retain this last name. 3 12. The genus Pathenolecanium was described by Sulc, 1908, p. 36. The type species, by original designation, is Coccus coryli Linnaeus, 1758, p. 456. The genus is differentiated from Eulecanium by a large number of significant characters Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 (Borchsenius, 1957; Danzig, 149 1967, and others). However, the identity of C coryli is treated differently by different authors. Marchal, 1908, treated it as a senior synonym of C. filiae Linnaeus, 1758, while Sulc, 1908, 1932, treated it as a senior synonym of Lecanium corni Bouché, 1844. The resulting instability of nomen- clature can be seen from the following comparison (other examples are discussed by Kawecki, 1958a, 1958b): Parthenolecanium Eulecanium Marchal, 1908 corni coryli (= tiliae)! Sulc, 1908 coryli capreae (= tiliae)? Sulc, 1932 coryli (= corni) tiliae Borchsenius, 1957 corni tiliae* Richards, 1958 coryli (= corni) tiliae Kawecki, 1958a, 1958b corni coryli (= tiliae) Rehagek, 1960 corni coryli Phillips, 1965 coryli (= corni) not mentioned Williams & Kosztarab, 1972 corni not mentioned Danzig, 1972 corni tiliae (= coryli) NOTES i In this paper Marchal as first reviser gave priority to C. coryli over tiliae. 23 - Capreae Linnaeus, 1767 is a junior synonym of C. filiae Linnaeus, 1758. By C. coryli is regarded in this work as a ‘nomen nudum’ (in the sense of ‘nomen dubium’). 13. Coccus coryli and C tiliae were established by Linnaeus in 1758 without descriptions, but with references to descriptions and figures given by Réaumur, 1738. It is well known that Réaumur’s and Linnaeus’s collections of scale insects cannot be found and may never have existed, because descriptions were pre- pared from living material. Réaumur’s description and Sulc, 1932, concluded from a study of figures that C. coryli was certainly identical with Parthenolecanium corni but not with Eulecanium tiliae. Sulc’s view was criticised by Kawecki, 1958a, 1958b. We agree with Kawecki that Réaumur’s description and figures are not enough for an exact identification. Marchal and Kawecki’s view on the identity of C. coryli with C tiliae is accepted the other hand, P. corni is Corylus, while E. tiliae is rare. This argues in sup coccidologists. On and for restoring the nomenclature used by h C. coryli, the application of the names C. Lecanium corni Bouché has been the same in all by the majority of very common on port of Sulc’s view im. In contrast with tiliae Linnaeus and works. 14. As the name Coccus coryli has been a source of con- fusion for so long, and as the doubtful identity of the species is a 150 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 possible cause of endless discussion and instability of nomen- clature, we ask for the suppression of that name under the plenary powers and for the designation of Lecanium corni Bouché as type species of Parthenolecanium. 15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers (2) (3) (a) (b) (c) to suppress the specific name coryli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus coryli, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; to set aside all designations of type species for the genus Coccus Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the ruling here requested and having done so to desig- nate Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of that genus; to set aside all designations of type species for the genus Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908, made prior to the ruling here requested and having done so to designate Lecanium corni Bouché to be the type species of that genus; to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) (b) (c) Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758; Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893 (gender: neuter), type species, by original designation, Coccus filiae Linnaeus, 1758; Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 (gender: neuter), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above, Lecanium corni Bouché, 1844; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus hesperidum (specific name of type species of Coccus Linnaeus, 1758); (b) ftiliae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus tiliae (specific name of type species of Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893); (c) corni Bouché, 1844, as published in the binomen Lecanium corni (specific name of type species of Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908); (4) to place the generic name Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 (a Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 151] junior objective synonym of Coccus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the specific name coryli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus coryli, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BORATYNSKI, K. 1970. On some species of “Lecanium’” (Homoptera, Coccidae) in the collection of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna; with description and illustration of the immature stages of Parthenole- canium persicae. Ann. naturhistor. Mus. Wien vol. 74, pp. 63-76 BORCHSENIUS, N.S. 1957. Coccoidea. Coccidae. Fauna of the USSR vol. 9, n.s. 66, 494 pp. BURMEISTER, H. 1835. Handbuch der Entomologie vol. 2, Berlin, 400 pp. COCKERELL, T.D.A. 1893. Notes on Lecanium, with a list of the West Indian species. Trans. Amer. entomol. Soc. vol. 20, pp. 49-56 1899. Some notes on Coccidae. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, pp. 259-275 CURTIS, J. 1838. British Entomology, vol. 15. London, pp. 674-721 DANZIG. E.M. 1967. Contributions to the knowledge of the Coccidae (Homoptera) of the Primorye Territory. Trudy zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR vol. 41, pp. 139-172 1972. Suborder Coccoidea. In: Insects and mites pests of agricultural crops vol. 1, Leningrad, pp. 189-221 DE LOTTO, G. 1965. On some Coccidae (Homoptera) chiefly from Africa. Bull. br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Entomol. vol. 16(4), pp. 177-239 FERNALD, M.E. 1902. On the genus Coccus L. Canad. Entomol. vol. 34, pp. 232-233 1903. A catalogue of the Coccidae of the world. Spec. Bull. Mass. agr. Sta. No. 88, 360 pp. GILIOMEE, J.H. 1967. Morphology and taxonomy of adult males of the family Coccidae (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Bull. br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Entomol., Suppl. vol. 7, pp. 1-168 KAWECKI, L. 1958a. Studies on the genus Lecanium Burm. IV. Materials to a monograph of the brown scale, Lecanium corni Bouché, Marchal (female nec male) (Homoptera, Coccoidea, Lecaniidae). Ann. Zool. Warszawa, vol. 17(9), pp. 135-245 KAWECKI, L. 1958b. Studies on the genus Lecanium Burm. Part V. The nut or thorn scale — Lecanium coryli (L.) sensu Marchal nec Sulc (Homop- tera, Coccoidea, Lecaniidae). Polskie Pismo Entomol. vol. 27(4), pp. 40-69 1967. Studies on the genus Lecanium Burm. VI. Lecanium smreczynskii. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci., Cl. V, vol. 15, Ser. Biol., pp. 687-689 152 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 KOTEJA, J. 1974. On the phylogeny and classification of the scale insects (Homoptera, Coccinea) (discussion based on the morphology of the mouthparts). Acta Zool. Cracov. vol. 19(14), pp. 267-325 LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema naturae, Edition 10, 823 pp. MARCHAL, P. 1908. Notes sur les Cochenilles de l?Europe et du Nord de V Afrique. Ann. Soc. entomol. France vol. 77, pp. 223-309 MORRISON, H. and MORRISON, E.R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of the scale insects. U.S. Dep. Agric. misc. Publ. No. 1015, 206 pp. PHILLIPS, J.H.H. 1965. Notes on species of Lecanium Burmeister (Homop- tera: Coccoidea) in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, with a description of a new species. Canad. Entomol. vol. 97(3), Pp. 231-238 REAUMUR, R.A.F. de 1738. Mémoires pour servir 4 l’histoire des insectes, yol. 4. Imprim. Royale, 36 et 636 pp., 44 tab. REHACEK, J. 1960. Fauna puclic (Coccidae) Slovenska. Biol. Prace, Bratislava, vol. 6(12), 89 pp. RICHARDS, W.R. 1958. Identities of species of Lecanium Burmeister in Canada (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Canad. Entomol. vol. 90(5), pp. 305- 313 SANDERS, J.G. 1909. The identity and synonymy of some of our soft scale insects. Journ. econ. Entomol. vol. 2, pp. 428-448 SCHMUTTERER, H. 1952. Die Okologie der Cocciden (Homoptera, Coccoidea) Frankens. Z. angew. Entomol. vol. 33(4), pp. 544-584 SULC, K. 1908. Towards the better knowledge of the genus Lecanium. Entomol. monthly Mag., vol. 44, p. 36 1932. Ceskoslovenské druhy rodu puklice (gn. Lecanium, Coccidae, Homoptera). Acta Soc. Sci. nat. Morav. vol. 7(5), pp. 1-134 SULZER, J.H. 1761. Die Kennzeichen der Insecten. Ziirich, 203 pp. TAKAHASHI, R. 1955. Lecanium in Japan (Homoptera, Coccidae). Trans. Shikoku entomol. Soc. vol. 4, pp. 69-78 WESTWOOD, J.O. 1839-1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families, vol. 2. A. Spottiswoode, London, 587 pp. Also 1838-1840, Synopsis of the genera of British insects, 158 pp. WILLIAMS, D.J. 1969. The family-group names of the scale insects. Bull. br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Entomol. vol. 23(38), 315-341 WILLIAMS, M.L. and KOSZTARAB, M. 1972. Morphology and systematics of the Coccidae of Virginia with notes on their biology (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Bull. Res. Div. Virginia polytechn. Inst. St. Univ. No. 74, pp. 1-215 ee Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main 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 dona- tions 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. © 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. Volume 38, Part 3 x MUS». ISSN 0007 - 5167 PP. i-iv, 153 — 228 fs <1. 30th July 1981 " OL ogy Py 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 Price £10.00 (All rights reserved) @ NAT. Hist. % THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSI ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ~™ © AUG {98} Vs Chee ey L¢y Lett 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. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). A. The Officers of the Commissio B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Prof. T. HABE (Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido, Shimizu City 414 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 Tucumdan, 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, 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) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 43 rue Cuvier, 75231, Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, 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 ii Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, 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 Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 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) Dr. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. D. Curry, F.G:S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Prof. 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. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer} B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Metville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ........._ (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain OES Sith rie Meleyetea We eee OCT co ABR) Pal) (c) Receipt of new applications ................./ 07” pero mmounceients ose vette. aa vine oe, Liens Comments On the authorship of the family name METRIDIIDAE (Coelenterata: Anthozoa)(R.B. Wilhiannty) ©" 2 See BPOUT Tl | one T Sasha On SPHAERIIDAE in Mollusca and Insecta: proposals to remove the homonymy (P.J. Spangler, Y.I. Starobogatov & J.G.J. Kuiper) On the concepts of paranomenclature: further comments (R.W. PAPITATA : foray: : WEEE Penile Sina Lponils Commission Reports Constitution, Article 3: proposed new method for determining the term of service of members of the Commission. Report of Subcommittee appointed at Helsinki (The Secretary) ...... The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: deferment of Proposal to introduce provisions to regulate paranomenclature (the Svectary). capuiformey...tiermar,.. [1Sisl The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: result of vote on Proposals for substantive amendments (fifth instalment) (The ceo a-b avaroux, 1822. daiveaden Lamaeen Opinions Opinion 1182. TETHYIDAE in Mollusca, Porifera and Tunicata: nr IESE Te SIN Opinion 1183. Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828, and Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852 (Brachiopoda): designation of NTS noi eta Opinion 1184. Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, given nomenclatural precedence over Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 (Nematoda) Opinion 1185. Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): designation of a Pie GU. ied ris. cette, ecm, Opinion 1186. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) oavpee oa SEE ask tli aes MEE ili Page 153 153 153 154 156 157 161 163 166 168 174 178 182 185 188 191 iv New and revived cases TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation (W. Preseh)ygs vin? Pies 2 ibaa =. Seas Screemall * als <> RE ee ree Generic name Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Corixidae): proposed suppression (A. Jansson) .......... Proposed use of the plenary powers to grant precedence to the family- group name EPHYDRIDAE over HYDRELLIIDAE (Insecta, Diptera) (W.Ny Mathis), ¢hagss) ieeng Speen, 4m Crean Nabis capsiformis Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nabidae): proposed conservation under the plenary powers (I.M. Kerzimes) SY 24m. {fjnolvaiead Juxtinute -.4 sacle neta Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): proposed designations of type species by use of the plenary powers, and comments on related genera (P.F.S. Cornelius) Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Insecta, Plecoptera): additional steps needed to conserve this name (The Secretary) ........... Nomioides Schenck, 1866: proposed designation of type species Insecta, Hymenoptera, Halictidae). (Y.A. Pesenko & I.M. Kermhnené. J93 264, 2055.28.73. [25 Aveast. 127 9t ee Corrections to data of three family-group names of butterflies on the official list (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (C.F. Cowan) ......... 194 197 201 205 208 221 225 228 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 38, part 3 (pp. 153-228), 30 July, 1981 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) TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 1920. W. Presch. (2) Ahautlea de la Llave, 1832 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Corixidae): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2299. A. Jansson. (3) To grant precedence to the family-group name EPHYDRIDAE over HYDRELLIIDAE (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 2334. W.N. Mathis. *(4) Nabis capsiformis Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nabidae): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2147. I.M. Kerzhner. (5) Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): proposed designations of type species and comments on related genera. Z.N.(S.) 2326. P.F.S. Cornelius. (6) Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Insecta, Plecoptera): additional steps needed to conserve this name. Z.N.(S.) 1799. The Secretary. (7) Nomioides Schenck, 1866: proposed designation of type species (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Halictidae). Z.N.(S.)2178. Y.A. Pesenko & I.M. Kerzhner. (8) Corrections to data of three family-group names of butterflies on the official list (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2187. C.F. Cowan. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 38(2) 154 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 on 30 April, 1981. Those marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b. (1) UROPLATINI in Amphibia & Coleoptera: proposals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2373. H.M. Smith. (2) Humerobates Sellnick, 1929 (Acari, Oribatei, . HUMEROBATIDAE): proposal to designate type species. Z.N.(S.) 2374. R.A. Norton. *(3) Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Reptilia: Serpentes): proposed validation. Z.N.(S.) 2375. D.G. Broadley. (4) Paracanthonchus Micoletzky, 1924 (Nematoda): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2376. N. Smol, M. Vincx & J. Sharma. *(5) Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia: Sauria): proposed validation. Z.N.(S.) 2377. W.R. Branch & D.G. Broadley. *(6) Scarabaeus Linnaeus, 1758 and Dynastes MacLeay, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera); proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2378. J. Baraud & F. Chalumeau. *(7) Syphonosoma cumanense Keferstein, 1867 (Sipuncula): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2379. E.B. Cutler. 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 1982) of the Division of Zoology of the International Union of Biological Sciences. HABE, Prof. T., Japan. Marine Biology HEPPELL, Mr D., United Kingdom. Mollusca NYE, DrI.W.B., United Kingdom. Lepidoptera WILLINK, Prof. A., Argentina. Neotropical Hymenoptera TORTONESE, Prof. E., Italy. Pisces; Echinodermata. Article 2b of the Constitution states: ‘The members of the Commission shall 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 Dr Nye and Professor Tortonese have intimated Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 155 that they do not wish their names to be put forward. The Council, acting under Article 3b, has decided that Professor Habe, Mr Heppell and Professor Willink are eligible to be nominated. 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. THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE It is with regret that we announce a delay in the printing of the 3rd edition of the Code. It is still hoped that this will appear before August 1982. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature June 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Trust (Registered Charity No. 211944) will shortly be launching a world-wide appeal for more funds for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The Commission has to plan for expansion to meet the growing demand for its work and for the needs of zoologists in the developing countries. It must be able to maintain its reliable service to all zoologists and paleontologists. Readers are invited to help make this forthcoming appeal a success by agreeing to assist in one or more of the following ways: 1 — to give a donation 2 — to subscribe to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature 3 — _ tosupply the name and address of anyone they know who may be willing to give financial assistance or to whom an approach may be made. The address to send help in the way suggested, or for any further information, is: Dr F.G.W. Jones, Managing Director and Secretary, The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom 156 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FAMILY NAME METRIDIIDAE (COELENTERATA: ANTHOZOA) Z.N(S.)2263 (see vol. 36, part 1, pp. 53-56) By R.B. Williams (2, Carrington Place, Tring, Herts., HP23 5LA) The family name METRIDIIDAE has been applied both to anthozoans (Coelenterata) and to copepods (Arthropoda). Dunn and Hulsemann (1979) have suggested a satisfactory solution to this problem of homonymy but the name METRIDIIDAE applied to anthozoans and recommended for inclusion in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology should be attributed not to Carlgren (1893) as stated, but to Gosse (1858). DA Dunn and Hulsemann (1979) noted Gosse’s (1859a) use of the name METRIDIADAE but regarded it as unavailable since it is apparently a nomen nudum. However, Gosse’s book ‘Actinologia Britannica. A History of the British Sea-Anemones and Corals. With Coloured Figures of the Species and Principal Varieties’ which bears the date 1860 on its title page is a second issue of ‘Actinologia Britannica: A History of the British Sea-Anemones and Madrepores. With Coloured Figures of All the Species’ which was published in twelve parts during 1858 and 1859 (Williams, in preparation) and contains the first valid use of the name METRIDIADAE. Se The name METRIDIADAE, with no definition, appears on p.9 of the second (book) issue of Gosse’s (1859a) Actinologia Britannica’. The leaves comprising pp. 7-10 of this book were originally published as a cancellans in part 12 (Gosse, 1859b) of the first (parts) issue to replace the original pp. 7-10 in part 1 (Gosse, 1858): on p.8 of part 1 the name METRIDIADAE was validly published with a definition, including the four genera Metridium, Actinodendron, Thalassianthus and A ctineria. 4. Despite the fact that Gosse made this substitution of pp. 7-10 in the parts issue (probably belatedly considering the original detailed account of the family irrelevant, as he thought it had no European representatives), his first version makes the name METRIDIADAE available. This has previously been overlooked because when parts issues were bound, the binders usually discarded the cancellandum. In the book issue, which was sold already bound, there is no indication that pp. 7-10 comprise a cancellans. It is necessary to examine a set of the parts as issued in wrappers to establish this fact, but they are very rare. 4 On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the anthozoan family name METRIDIADAE Gosse is not a nomen nudum and should be listed as METRIDIIDAE Gosse, 1858 (p. 8), taking priority over METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893. REFERENCES CARLGREN, O., 1893. Studien uber nordische Actinien. K. svenska Vetenskapsakad. Handl., vol. 25(10), pp. 1-148. DUNN, D.F. & HULSEMANN, K. 1979. Metridiidae Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and Metridiidae Sars, 1902 (Copepoda): request for a ruling to Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 157 eliminate the homonymy. Z.N.(S.)2263. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 53-56. GOSSE, P.H. 1858. Actinologia Britannica: A History of the British Sea- Anemones and Madrepores. With Coloured Figures of All the Species. Part 1. Van Voorst, London. —— 1859a. Actinologia Britannica: A History of the British Sea-Anemones and Madrepores. With Coloured Figures of All the Species. Part 12. Van Voorst, London. —— 1859b. Actinologia Britannica. A History of the British Sea-Anemones and Corals. With Coloured Figures of the Species and Principal Varieties. Van Voorst, London. SPHAERIIDAE IN MOLLUSCA AND INSECTA: COMMENTS ON PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.) 1892 (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 60-62, 201-204) (1) By Paul J. Spangler (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) I am at present preparing an article on the ‘minute bog beetle’ family SPHAERIDAE, SPHAERIIDAE, MICROSPORIDAE, or whatever name is eventually applied to them. Also I will soon be describing one or more new species of ‘Sphaerius Walt!’ from South America. These studies have led me to the proposal on the homonymy in family-group names in the Bull. zool. Nom. and have prompted the following comments. ; Because it seems clear that SPHAERIIDAE for the Mollusca has priority over its use in Insecta, my comments are directed at a replacement name for the beetle family. I am opposed to using the family name SPHAERIDAE (Insecta) versus SPHAERIIDAE (Mollusca) for the following reasons: (1) The name SPHAERIDAE would be grammatically incorrect and thus a perpetual error; (2) both names will inevitably be mis-spelled in the literature from time to time in the future and will be a recurring nuisance from that standpoint; (3) both spellings are already very similar to others in general use, such as Sphaeridium, SPHAERIDIIDAE, Sphaerites, SPHAERITIDAE, etc. Emendations such as SPHAERIDAE, SPHAERIUSIDAE or SPHAERIURIDAE would not alleviate this excess of names based on similar stems. Therefore I believe that the suggestion that ‘it is better to rename the beetle family after a genus other than Sphaerius, if one exists’ as suggested by Professor Tortonese (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 60, 1975) and seconded by the late Dr Reichardt (vol. 32, p. 203, 1976) has considerable merit. In this case another name, Microsporus Kolenati, 1846, Meletemata entomol., fasc. 5, p. 64 (type species of nominal genus, M. obsidianus Kolenati ibid., by monotypy) exists as a synonym of Sphaerius Waltl. Although Microsporus was originally proposed for a subgenus of Georyssus Latreille, 1809, it was treated as a synonym of Sphaerius by Matthews, 1899, Monograph of the Coleopterous families Corylophidae and Sphaeriidae (London) and this synonymy has been accepted by subsequent coleopterists. I therefore support Reichardt’s suggestion that Microsporus be made _ the 158 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 nomenclaturally valid name of the genus and that the family name be changed to MICROSPORIDAE. This action would (1) solve the homonymy problem between the Mollusca and the Insecta and differentiate the beetle family name from the many names derived from similar stems, (2) eliminate the grammatically incorrect name SPHAERIDAE, (3) provide a highly descriptive generic and family name for the beetles involved, and (4) provide final stability for the beetle family name after many years of uncertainty. Furthermore,since Article 79c excludes the citing of precedents on the basis of earlier Opinions, analogous requests should be few and the final decision would still lie in each case with the consensus of the Commission and the zoologists concerned. Undue delay in stabilising this problem of homonymy will only increase the problem. For example, since the question was first laid before the Commission, Abdullah (Zool. Beitr. vol 19, pp. 24, 26, 1973) has established a ‘Series Sphaeriformia Abdullah, nov.’ based on Sphaerius Waltl in the coleopteran suborder Myxophaga. Abdullah further stated (p. 41) that the molluscan family name PISIDIIDAE had been approved by the Commission. Perhaps most of the damage has been done, but a prompt decision should stop the proliferation of incorrect citations. In addition, contributors to the new Catalog of Coleoptera of North America north of Mexico, which is well under way, would benefit from a prompt decision. [Note by the Secretary.- The family name PISIDIIDAE Gray, 1857, was added to the Official List in Direction 27 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nom. vol. 10, pp. 481-492) ‘for use by any worker who may consider that the genera Pisidium Pfeiffer and Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777, the type genus of the taxon SPHAERIIDAE, belong to different family-group taxa’. That ruling clearly does not preempt a ruling placing SPHAERIIDAE on the Official List. Dr Spangler’s comment involves the following proposals to the Commission: (a) use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Sphaerius Waltl,1838 and all subsequent uses for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) placing Microsporus Kolenati, 1846 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Microsporus obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (c) placing obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, as published in the binomen Microsporus obsidianus (specific name of type species of Microsporus Kolenati, 1846) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (d) placing the family name MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (type genus Microsporus Kolenati, 1846) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. R.V.M.] (2) By Dr Y.I. Starobogatov (Letter received 24 August 1979): In 1798 Bruguiére introduced Cyclas without description or species included by name, but accompanied by an illustration of Sphaerium rivicola of recent authors. In the following year Lamarck referred the sole species Tellina cornea Linnaeus, 1758 to the genus. But Lamarck’s species is a composite, including Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, Sphaerium scaldianum Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 159 Normand and (formally by name) Tellina cornea L. This allows me to treat Lamarck’s Tellina cornea as a misidentification (see also Children, 1823, O: J Sct. Lit., Arts, vol. 14, p. 310). Children designated ‘Cyclas rivicola Lamarck (Cyclas cornea Draparnaud)’ as type species of Cyclas. This was accepted by Keen, 1969, Treatise invert. Paleont. pt. N, vol. 2, p. 670. I ask the Commission to designate Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, 1818 as type species of Cyclas Bruguiére, 1798, regardless of any other designation. This would give the family name CYCLADIDAE Rafinesque, 1820, priority over PISIDIIDAE Gray, 1857 and SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (the last is a junior homonym of SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845, Coleoptera). It would also give the generic name Cyclas to the group generally known as Sphaeriastrum Bourguignat, 1854, Mém. Soc. Sci. phys. nat. Bordeaux, vol. 1, pp. 161-162, but that name was originally connected with Sphaerium corneum and is thus a junior objective synonym of Sphaerium. Authors who wish to use Sphaerium in the widest sense may include both Tellina cornea Linnaeus and Cyclas rivicola Lamarck in it, but this does not prevent the use of CYCLADIDAE for the family. [Note by the Secretary.- In reply to that letter I pointed out to Dr Starobogatov that the first author to misidentify Tellina cornea Linnaeus, 1758 was Draparnaud, and that it is clear from Lamarck’s 1799 and 1818 works that he distinguished between T. cornea L. (type species of both Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 and Cyclas Bruguiére, 1798) and T. cornea Draparnaud, non L. = Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, 1818. To adopt CYCLADIDAE (invalid because the name of its type genus is a junior objective synonym) would involve the use of the plenary powers to designate C. rivicola as the type species of Cyclas, and to suppress Sphaerium in such a way that it could never again be used as the basis of a family-group name. This would revive a generic name (Cyclas) that had not been used for many decades and suppress a generic name that had been in general use for a similar period — and all to replace a well-known family name by an unused one. ] (Letter received 26 November 1979): If the family name CYCLADIDAE is conserved, the generic names Sphaerium and Cyclas can still be used for different genera so long as C. rivicola is designated as type species of Cyclas as I request. It is highly unlikely that anybody would regard these genera as belonging to separate families, but there are three possible solutions to that problem: (1) to suppress Sphaerium (the least desirable, as the name is already on the Official List); (2) to emend the spelling of SPHAERIIDAE in one of the ways that has been proposed; (3) to defer consideration of the problem, until it arises in the future. I am against the first, but indifferent as between the second and third. This would provide a valid name for the Cyclas rivicola group, for which no generic name is available, conserve the oldest available name (Sphaerium) for the Tellina cornea group, and solve the problem of homonymy of SPHAERIIDAE in Bivalvia and Coleoptera. (3) By Mr J.G.J. Kuiper — (c/o 121 rue de Lille, 75007 Paris, France) After nearly a century of confusion in Sphaeriid taxonomy and nomenclature, mainly due to the 19th century species concept in this group, a measure of uniformity in both aspects has now been reached in all European countries outside the Soviet Union. Since Woodward, 1913, Catalogue of the 160 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 British Species of Pisidium, Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), three generations of workers have contributed to this precious result, which is summarised by Bowden & Heppell, 1968, J. Conchol., vol. 26(4), pp. 237-272. Thanks to this stability of taxonomy and nomenclature, a growing interest in this formerly neglected group of bivalves can be observed, not only among taxonomists, but also among ecologists, limnologists, physiologists, embryologists, geologists, parasitologists, etc. This would not have been possible under conditions of taxonomic and nomenclatural instability. If the present situation is to be changed, solid arguments must be produced. I find in Dr Starobogatov’s statements a strong personal conviction, and I respect his right to hold it, but I see no convincing arguments for changing the curre#t nomenclature, which is not only stable, but is in conformity with the Code. It is not strictly true, as Dr Starobogatov says, that there is no generic name available for the Cyclas rivicola group. Sphaeriastrum Bourguignat, 1854, Mém. Soc. Sci. phys. nat. Bordeaux, vol. 1, pp. 161-162 was established for C. rivicola and seven other species. Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, 1818, Hist. Anim. s. Vert. vol. 5, p. 558 was designated as type species by Westerlund, 1902, Rad. jugosl. Akad. Znan. Umjetn. vol. 151, p. 134. Most European authors outside the Soviet Union, including Bowden & Heppell, 1968, treat it as a subgenus of Sphaerium. Cyclas is, as the Secretary has shown, a junior objective synonym of Sphaerium. Dr Starobogatov says (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 201) ‘Analysis of all Lamarck’s descriptions of both Cyclas and Cyclas cornea proves that his and Linnaeus’s species are not conspecific’, but in fact there is much room for doubt on this point. The ‘ligament extérieur’ mentioned by Lamarck is common to all eleven species of Cyclas listed by Lamarck, and these include two species of Pisidium (obtusale and fontinale) and one of Kellia (australis; 1 have examined Lamarck’s types). It is not at all certain what Lamarck meant by this character. Dr Starobogatov also mentions a ‘protruded external ligament’ (not mentioned by Lamarck). But ‘ligament extérieur’ can also mean an externally visible but not protruding ligament, as is seen in immature S. rivicola and some forms of S. corneum. Dr Starobogatov also argues that ‘Sphaerium corneum never lives in small rivers and streams but only in ponds, ditches and lakes with muddy bottoms’. This is only acceptable if S. scaldianum and S. corneum are held to be specifically different. All modern malacologists outside the Soviet Union consider S. scaldianum an ecological infrasubspecific form of S. corneum. I have found S. corneum in the surroundings of Paris in waters of all kinds, including brooklets near their sources. European malacologists recognise three genera of SPHAERIIDAE: Pisidium with 20 species, Musculium with two and Sphaerium with four. Soviet malacologists recognise 7 genera, 12 subgenera and 70 species. These differences reflect differences in taxonomic thinking, not a genuine faunal difference (I have examined Soviet sphaeriids in the Leningrad Museum and have found them to belong to the same species as are found in western Europe). The causes of these differences are no doubt complex. It is difficult for Soviet malacologists to examine original types in western museums, so that they are obliged to turn to often incomplete and ambiguous early descriptions. It seems to me that their statistical analyses are not always based on sufficiently large samples and that their biogeographical conclusions make too little allowance for dispersal by birds and insects and for self-fertilisation in SPHAERIIDAE. They are, of course, entitled to Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 161 their own ideas and taxonomic methods, but not to upset a nomenclature that has been stable for so long. It may be observed that the Secretary’s proposals (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 60-62) involve the direct application of the Code without any use of the plenary powers where the Mollusca are concerned. Dr Starobogatov’s proposals invite the use of the plenary powers in a sense contrary to stability and uniformity of nomenclature. FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPTS OF PARANOMENCLATURE Z.N.(S.) 1973 (See vol. 36, pp. 11-14; vol. 37, pp. 141-144) R.W. Huddleston (Chevron Oil Field Research Company, P.O. Box 446, La Habra, California, U.S.A.). In response to Mr. Melville’s reply to my comments on paranomenclature (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 141-142) I acknowledge that there may be whole groups of fossils where a dual taxonomy could prove necessary. I maintain however, that these groups of fossils are not vertebrates nor do these groups possess the structural complexity found in the vertebrate skeleton. In defense of paranomenclature, Mr. Melville pointed to the examples of ammonites and their aptychi as well as holothurians and detached spicules; thyncholites and nautiloids, as areas where paranomenclature concepts could benefit taxonomic problems. However, in all of these invertebrate groups it is an ‘either-or’ situation. Either one element is present (i.e. nautiloid shell) or the other element is present (i.e. thyncholite). Among fossil vertebrates it is not a simple ‘either-or’ situation. The large number of individual elements comprising the vertebrate skeleton vary considerably in their individual diagnosticity and preservability in the fossil record. Vertebrates are represented in the fossil record by material ranging from single elements to hundreds of different elements. The question remains, at what stage of completeness or incompleteness are these fossil vertebrate remains classed as taxa and Parataxa. At the extreme end of incompleteness are the single elements such as the isolated teeth in mammals, elasmobranchs and holocephalians and otoliths in teleostean fishes. The diagnosticity of these elements is so significant as to be of greater taxonomic value than more complete fossils lacking these elements. It is the degree of structural complexity in the vertebrate skeleton, rarity of complete vertebrate skeletons in the fossil record and the inadequate definition of ‘whole’ or ‘more complete’ fossils upon which paranomenclatural concepts rest that are the greatest concerns in the application of paranomenclatural concepts to fossil vertebrates. If parataxonomy is to be applied indiscriminately to all fossil groups regardless of whether it is needed or not, some system will have to be established to define at what stage of completeness fossil vertebrate remains are considered taxa or parataxa. This distinction between which remains are considered taxa and which are parataxa is not a trivial matter, especially in view of the fact that names for parataxa will not compete for priority with names for taxa. The concept of priority is fundamental. The preamble to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature states, ‘Priority is the basic principle of zoological nomenclature.’ I believe that to apply paranomenclature to fossil vertebrates, in which no 162 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 clear delineation between the various degrees of completeness can be made, would generate instability in the nomenclature of this group. This instability would result from the various conflicting independent subjective judgements as what forms compete for priority and which forms do not. I realise that the concept of paranomenclature is not to provide a separate nomenclature for fragments of any and every kind; it nevertheless gives ‘official’ sanctions to such activities, which even Mr. Melville agrees (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 143) would lead to chaos. I strongly urge that before a concept such as paranomenclature (affecting the fundamental principle of priority) is incorporated into the Code and applied to all fossil groups, that its potential, far reaching effects are more fully and carefully examined. Mr. Melville has pointed out several areas where such concepts are needed. My concern is for those areas (i.e. vertebrates) which are not in need of paranomenclatural concepts but which would nevertheless be strongly affected by its incorporation into the Code. The current definition of paranomenclature coupled with the complexity of the vertebrate structure and the imperfection of the fossil record creates a dangerous combination which contributes to the instability of many vertebrate fossil names on a nomenclatural basis. My concerns do not involve some ‘naturally inherent quality of the animals’, to quote Mr. Melville, nor does it advocate constraints or barring of taxonomic thought. It is simply a concern that paranomenclature applied to vertebrate fossils will generate instability and confusion as to which fossils would be taxa and which would be parataxa. What I have tried to explain is not how paranomenclature will affect those groups of invertebrates where Mr. Melville proclaims their necessity, but rather the problem of applying the definition of paranomenclature to those groups possessing such structural complexity as the vertebrates. I see no orderly way to apply paranomenclature to vertebrate fossils without disrupting traditional views on the nomenclature of this group or without affecting an orderly flow of nomenclatural concepts. Once again I strongly urge that at least fossil vertebrates be excluded from coverage under the proposed concepts of paranomenclature. Acknowledgements I thank Chevron Oil Field Research Company for permission to publish these comments and to D. Haman of Chevron Oil Field Research Company for helpful comments and review of this note. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 163 CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 3: PROPOSED NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE TERM OF SERVICE OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED AT HELSINKI. Z.N.(G.) 181/2. In a letter to the Council dated 24 July 1979 Mr. Heppell voiced dissatisfaction with the procedures leading up to the nomination of retiring members of the Commission for possible re- election at a ‘Congress’ (i.e. a meeting of the Section on Zoological Nomenclature and the Division of Zoology of IUBS). His letter was discussed at the General Meeting of the Commission at Helsinki in 1979, and he and the Secretary were appointed as a subcommittee to consider these questions. 2. The Constitution (Article 2a) at present provides that the term of that one-fifth of the members who have had the longest service terminates at the close of each ‘Congress’. As the present ‘Congress’ meets every three years, this provision implies that the normal term of office of a member is 15 years. In practice, however (as Mr. Heppell showed in tabular form), the retiring one-fifth scarcely, if ever, consists of members who have all served 15 years. The intervention of retirement at age 75, of resignations and of death leads inevitably to the advancement in seniority of members lower down the list, and this is aggravated if the interval between ‘Congresses’ becomes irregular for any reason. Thus, of the five members retiring at the Helsinki ‘Congress’, three had been elected in 1968, and two in 1972. 3. Mr. Heppell’s proposals for remedying this situation (in which the facts clearly did not correspond to expectations) involved all the members elected at a given Congress being grouped in a Class together with those elected since the preceding Congress. All the members of a Class would have equal seniority and would retire simultaneously. Our proposals follow that model. 4. It may be helpful to have something of the historical background explained. From 1904 (Berne) to 1948 (Paris) the Commission’s members were grouped in precisely the sort of classes envisaged by Mr. Heppell. Each class retired automatically at the close of a Congress and was known as the class of the year in which it retired. In those days, members were automatically eligible for re- election. The present system of rotation was introduced at Paris in 1948 and was merely adapted to the conditions of life in TUBS in 1973. Under that scheme, however, members elected in inter- Congress periods to fill casual vacancies served only for the unexpired part of the term of their predecessor, or otherwise were placed in the class whose term of service was to expire first. We do not propose to re-introduce this provision. 164 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 5. Our proposals, which consist of a re-draft of Article 3a of the Constitution, are appended. If accepted by the Commission and by the next ‘Congress’ (Ottawa, 1982), the first formation of the members into classes would take place after that ‘Congress’. It is interesting to see how the first set of classes would be made up: (a) the senior class would presumably consist of the members still outstanding from those elected at Monaco in 1972 (i.e. those not considered at Ottawa). These number 7 (Brinck, Alvarado, Binder, Vokes, Holthuis, Bernardi, Dupuis); (b) the next senior class would consist of those elected between the close of the Monaco Congress and the close of the Bangalore ‘Congress’. These number 6 (Mroczkowski, Welch, Kraus, Ride, Sabrosky, Cogger); (c) the next senior class would consist of those elected between the close of the Bangalore ‘Congress’ and the close of the Helsinki ‘Congress’. These number 7 (Hahn, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Bayer, Corliss, Starobogatov, Melville); (d) the most junior class would consist of those elected between the close of the Helsinki ‘Congress’ and the close of the Ottawa ‘Congress’. At the outset, therefore, there would be only four classes instead of the full number of five envisaged in our proposals. This is because the most senior class will be empty, all its members having been lost to the Commission or already re-elected to serve in a more junior class. Thus, unless Council should decide to terminate the term of service of that class prematurely (Article 3a (vii) of our proposals), there would be no vacancies arising from its expiry in 1985; and the class whose term would end in the year 2000 would comprise members elected to fill vacancies arising between the Ottawa Congress and the next succeeding one. 6. Finally, it should be noted that our proposals do not affect the number of members of the Commission (Article 2a of the Constitution) nor the procedure for nominating and electing new members (Article 4), nor that for determining the eligibility of retiring members for re-election (Article 3b). D. HEPPELL R.V. MELVILLE Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 165 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION It is proposed that the existing Article 3a be deleted and replaced by the following: Article 3. Term of service of members of the Commission. (a) Normal term. The normal term of service of amember of the Commission shall be reckoned as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) All members shall be grouped into classes according to the date of their election or most recent re-election, and within each class all members shall have equal seniority. A class shall consist of members elected or re- elected at a Congress, together with any members elected during the period since the close of the previous Congress. The term of service of the most senior class shall terminate at the close of a Congress; but no member of that class shall be automatically eligible for re-election (Section b of this Article). No further entries to a class shall be made after the close of a Congress, and a new class shall be opened on the election of the first member to be elected thereafter. The number of vacancies resulting from the expiry of the term of service of the most senior class shall equal the number of members who remained in the class until the date of its termina- tion, but the Commission retains discretion to vary its numbers at any time (Article 2a) and may, on the recommendation of the Council, decide not to fill all vacancies arising at a given Congress. If no Congress is held by the end of the third calendar year after the close of the preceding Congress, the term of service of the most senior class may, if the Council so decides, be terminated at the end of that calendar year, and members elected or re-elected thereafter shall form a new class as if there had been a Congress. When no members remain in the most senior class, or when more than half the total number of members is in the most junior class, the term of service of the most senior class may be terminated prematurely, if the Council so _ decides, whereupon a new class shall be opened. There shall be no more than five completed classes at any one time. rovisions of this Article remain unchanged.]_ —__ 166 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE DEFERMENT OF PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE PROVISIONS TO REGULATE PARANOMENCLATURE. Z.N.(S.) 1973 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The purpose of this paper is to give some further explanation of the reasons for deferring publication of the results of the votes on Voting Papers (80)18, points 3 and 4, and (80)39 (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 47-48). In nearly all the groups in which dual taxonomies are used, they are expressed by dual nomenclatures (e.g. ammonites and aptychi; nautiloids and rhyncholites; holothurians and holothurian spicules, to mention but a few). In other words, Article 24b(i) of the present (1964) Code is ignored. The aim of the Editorial Committee’s proposals (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 11-14) was to legalise this widespread and long-continued practice, in response to requests from workers in these fields. Unfortunately, those proposals encountered determined opposition from workers in one group — the conodonts — who have adopted a different procedure. Whereas nearly all the work done on conodonts in the first 100 years since they were discovered was concerned with discrete elements, nowadays more attention is given to associations of elements known as apparatuses. The classification of elements as such cuts across the classification of apparatuses as such, so that a given genus of elements may be found in two, three or more genera of apparatuses. Nevertheless, conodont workers since 1966, and increasingly since 1972, have applied Article 24b(i) as though both elements and apparatuses could be dealt with in a single classification. It is now possible using statistical methods on large samples to associate together the elements that constituted a given apparatus, even if no specimen displaying that apparatus as a whole has been found. The oldest name among those of the constituent elements is then applied to that apparatus. At the species level, however, the specific name will only be applied to apparatuses that can be considered conspecific with the apparatus that contains the type specimen of the element with the oldest name. Closely‘similar elements that occur in apparatuses considered not to be conspecific with that species will be given different names. At the generic level, the oldest generic name applied to any of the elements will be applied to the apparatus unless the apparatus is considered not to be Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 167 congeneric with the one that represents the type species of the genus with the oldest name. In that case, some other generic name will be used. A classic example of the way in which this method works in practice can be found in Bergstrom & Sweet, 1966, Bull. amer. Paleont. vol. 50, No. 229. This paper deals with the conodont fauna of a small part of the Ordovician System of the United States. Element species of a single element genus are distributed between two or even three apparatus genera. In some cases, a single binomen may mean both an element species (in a genus represented in two or three apparatus genera) and an apparatus species; in more numerous cases, a single generic name may be used to denote a number of element species (distributed in a number of apparatus genera) and an apparatus genus. It is impossible to tell by inspection which of two taxonomic meanings is intended by a particular citation of aname. A single nomenclature is made to serve the needs of two different, cross-cutting taxonomies in conodonts. The task before the Commission is thus to find some way by which the procedure adopted by the conodont workers and that adopted for over 150 years by workers in other groups with parataxonomic problems can be covered by the Code. This will evidently be difficult and delicate, and may involve devising provisions that apply only to named groups of animals. 168 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE RESULT OF VOTE ON PROPOSALS FOR SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS (FIFTH INSTALMENT). Z.N.(S.) 2342 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature This report presents the result of the Commission’s vote on the proposal that names published with the notation ‘var.’ or ‘form’ before 1961 are to be treated as having subspecific rank unless it is clear from the context of the work that the author used one of those terms to denote an infrasubspecific taxon. This proposal figured as Article 45¢(i) of the Sixth Draft of the Third Edition of the Code (November 1977) and was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 217 as paragraph 19 of the Commission’s report to the Section on Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki. It was approved by the Special Session of the Commission at Stensoffa, by the General Meeting of the Commission at Helsinki, and by the Section on Zoological Nomenclature and the Division of Zoology at Helsinki. On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)30 for or against the proposal presented in the following form: Code Article Commission Report to Section on Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki, 1979, Section B 4Se(i) 19. That the use of either of the terms ‘variety’ or ‘form’ with a name of the species-group published before 1961 is to be interpreted as denoting subspecific rank unless it is clear from the context of the work in which the name was first published that the author was using the name to denote an infrasubspecific taxon. The status of names treated as sub- specific by authors observing the mandatory provisions of Article 45e(i) of the Code concerning the interpretation of the terms ‘variety’ and ‘form’ would be maintained. The Code Article 45e(i) currently makes it mandatory for names published before 1961 with the terms ‘variety’ or ‘form’ to be treated as of subspecific rank. In some groups large numbers of names were used to characterize mere colour variants and their Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 169 introduction into nomenclature would greatly complicate homonymy without any benefit. The provision permits discretion in the case of such names. The following background note was sent out with the voting Paper. V.P.(80)30 — APPENDIX Background to the proposal This proposal modifies Article 45e(i) adopted at Monaco, 1972, concerning the interpretation of the terms ‘var.’ and ‘form’. The London (1961) Code said that the use of either of those terms before 1961 was not to be interpreted as an express statement of either subspecific or infrasubspecific rank. Many zoologists took this to mean that they could apply their judgment to a given use of either term in its context, and decide whether the author who had used the term intended it for a taxon of one rank or the other. However, the London Code also said, in Article 45d(i), that the rank of a taxon was to be interpreted as subspecific if, before 1961, the author did not clearly state its rank. The Monaco decision stated that the terms ‘var.’ and ‘form’, if used before 1961, were to be interpreted as denoting subspecific rank. The proposal in the 6th Draft, Article 45g(i), was that ‘Use of either of the terms “variety” or “form” before 1961 is to be interpreted nomenclaturally as denoting subspecific rank unless the author made it clear that he was using the name to denote an infrasubspecific category or a population within a subspecies’. No separate attention was drawn to this in the articles published in Bull. Zool. Nom. vol. 34, part 3, or vol. 35, part 2. No comments were received from the zoological public. The subject was very fully discussed by the special meeting at Stensoffa, which concluded that zoologists should have discretion to treat such names as having infrasubspecific rank where it was clear from the context that that had been the original author’s intention. At the same time, the meeting resolved that such names published before 1961 and adopted before 1980 as the valid names of sub- species should continue to be available names in the species group. It is a mere matter of historical fact that the term ‘variety’ has been used in many different ways. In some cases it denotes an individual variant, in others a seasonal form, in yet others an undoubted subspecies. However, in groups where polymorphism is widespread (e.g. Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Bivalvia, Gastropoda) it has been extensively used at infrasubspecific level. To confer 170 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 automatic availability on all such names would lead to nomenclatural chaos. The proposal was accepted by the Section on Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposal contained in paragraph B.19 of the Commission’s report to the Section on Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Willink, Cogger, Hahn, Bernardi, Brinck, Ride, Tortonese, Corliss, Habe, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Welch, Heppell, Halvorsen, Nye, Bayer Negative Votes — five (5): Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Sabrosky Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder, Dupuis and Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their votes: Starobogatov: ‘The original text in the 6th Draft is clearer and does not lead to endless confusion as this text does. Many “infrapopulational” variants of old authors have now become good species in Mollusca and Insecta. The new text of the provision leads the specialist to establish new names for well-known species.’ Lehtinen: ‘Article 45e(i) concerns one of the central problems of zoological nomenclature. It should be modified in a logically acceptable and at the same time, absolutely unequivocal form. The current form adopted at Monaco, seems to be unequivocal, but its principle certainly is not generally accepted. The leading principle of the London Code obviously was more sound, and the same is true for the proposal made at Helsinki, but their practical application is difficult and not unequivocal. The proposal made at Helsinki, 1979, is clearly better than the two preceding forms of this article, but still its interpretation may be disputable. I prefer the proposed form of Article 45e(1) in relation to the present Code, but I should like to leave this article for further discussion and later improvement. In my opinion, the bulk of obscure infrasubspecific names in many groups, published before 1961, have already been revised and treated in the best possible way. The status of all such names should be maintained as they are now, applying the valid Code. The Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 171 situation may be different in a number of groups, but it will never be the same in all animal groups. Therefore I suggest that the possibility should be discussed to accept from some date onwards only subspecific names that have originally been published in the category of species-group names, even in regard to all unrevised names published before 1961. Polymorphic species with a few, morphologically distinct and discontinuous morphs is a type of infraspecific variation that belongs under Article 45e. The morphs clearly represent a category, the names of which are not available among the species-group names. However, the subspecies of some groups are or can be defined mainly according to presence or relative abundance of some morphs, and morphs in many groups have been repeatedly confused with subspecies or species. In my opinion, the Code needs some specified recommendations for treating of polymorphic species in general and geographically balanced cases separately. The presence of a nomenclaturally valid subspecific name simultaneously as an infrasubspecific name of another subspecies of the same species is highly confusing. This is possible, when a morph has originally been described as the oldest available name for a subspecies, although the same morph is present in populations of more than one subspecies. _ The above mentioned instance clearly shows that there are cases of infrasubspecific variation which are not infrasubspecific, but represent a category hierarchically parallel to subspecies. An active statement of such cases is necessary in a revised Code.’ Sabrosky: ‘Voting on this subject is subject to ruling by the Council on my ruling in the matter and your appeal (Sept. 15) [see below]. I have delayed this long in the hope that the result would be available. However, if the Council has ruled against me, but the result has not yet been communicated to me, then I should record a -vote that can be counted. I would object that the “Background to the Proposal” is entirely one-sided and does not present arguments for the other side.’ THE PRESIDENT’S RULING On 15 September 1980 I received a copy of a letter from the President to the Editorial Committee. In the first three paragraphs he restated the formal position established by the London and Monaco decisions on Article 45e(i) of the Code as it is stated in the ‘Background to the Proposal’ herein. He then continued: ‘4. Is the present proposed wording a substantive change? Yes, unquestionably, in my opinion. Instead of “grandfathering” into availability all var. and form names proposed before 1961, it relegates some of them to infrasubspecific status and also introduces 172 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 a subjective element meaning that all the numerous var. and form names will have to be re-examined to see whether infrasubspecific rank was suggested — in whatever shades of grey or interpretation that may involve. Some will no doubt prove to be infrasubspecific. But that will not be the end of the matter: one must then seek to find out whether such a name has been treated before 1961 as having subspecific rank. What a time-waster! ‘5. Has this substantive change been duly published, one year in advance of a vote, for comment by zoologists? The Editorial Committee published substantive proposals for general debate in Bull. zool. Nom. for November 1977, October 1978, July 1979 and August 1979. Nowhere in these announcements is there any mention of the var. and form problem. ‘It is true that a revision of this provision appeared in Draft 6, and Ride and Melville maintain that this satisfied the requirement for publication at least one year before voting. In my view this is not consistent with our separate publication of the major issues in the four parts of the Bulletin noted above, in which the Secretary, for the Editorial Committee, pointed out that proposals of a major character “must be opened for general debate before the Commission can vote on them”. Obviously, such major proposals for substantive changes needed to be highlighted to focus discussion on them. This has never been done with the var. and form problem, and it seems to me that the Editorial Committee can now be charged with gross negligence or oversight, or at worst for trying to slip something through by not making zoologists aware of the fact that something has been changed. Protests are certain to develop, just as Townes has long regarded — and with some justice, I believe — some Commission actions as illegal, and as I have so regarded Commission actions on the yucca moths and on the family name ATTACIDAE, neither of which I recognise as legitimate. ‘6. Am I biassed because I am opposed to the present var. and form provision? No doubt I am, but I have tried to be as objective as possible in considering the position of the Commission vis-a-vis zoologists and the image of the Commission. ‘7. Can one now consider this a major change, after it was accepted at Stensoffa and Helsinki? In my opinion, any member at any stage in the proceedings can challenge a procedural error or inadequacy, especially one as serious as a failure to publish a major change of comment. Certainly this is true as long as the Code has not been finally adopted (it is still subject to a vote by the full Commission). Even after adoption, a charge of failure to observe proper procedure would be cause for challenge and demand for reconsideration, which could result in (1) reversal, or (2) affirmation of what had been adopted, or perhaps (3) adoption of some compromise. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 173 ‘8. Conclusion: as President of the Commission, acting under Bylaw 16, I rule that the proposed var. and form change is a major change that was not properly published as such and therefore cannot be included in the new Code, and that the Monaco provision, with such editorial work as may be appropriate, is all that we can legitimately use at this time.’ The President went on to explain that any member of the Commission could appeal to the Council against his ruling, under Bylaw 25. I therefore did so on 15 September 1980, explaining that I agreed with the President’s interpretation of what the London Code said and of the Monaco amendment. I went on: ‘I disagree with the President, first, on the procedural issue. We never formally bound ourselves to publish all proposals for substantive changes in the Bulletin and in the Bulletin alone. The point at issue was published in Draft 6, much more than a year before the voting paper — V.P.(80)30 — was issued. I consider that that voting paper was legitimately issued under the authority of the decision taken by the Section on Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki as ratified by the Division of Zoology. A challenge to the correctness of our procedure therefore amounts to a challenge to the Helsinki ruling by the Section and Division, by which alone we are authorised to continue working on the Third Edition of the Code and take it to publication. Such a challenge can obviously only be dealt with when those bodies next meet, at Ottawa in 1982.’ I accordingly urged the Council to reject the President’s ruling. In a later letter received on 26 September 1980, the President indicated that he would abstain from voting on the issue. Professor Dr Holthuis had already indicated that he supported the President’s position. The remaining members of Council at that time (Heppell and Brinck) supported the Secretary’s position. The President’s ruling was accordingly rejected. DECLARATION OF RESULT OF VOTE I hereby declare that the votes cast on V.P.(80)30 and in the subsequent Council vote were cast as set out above and that the proposal contained in that voting paper will be incorporated into the Code by the Commission, in accordance with the authority given to it by the Division of Zoology of IUBS at Helsinki, in words to be prepared by the Editorial Committee. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 March 198! 174 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 OPINION 1182 TETHYIDAE IN MOLLUSCA, PORIFERA AND TUNICATA: REMOVAL OF THE HOMONYMY RULING.-(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) itis hereby ruled that the stem of the generic name Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, is TETHYD ; (b) The generic name Tethyum Gunnerus, 1765, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of 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) Tethya Lamarck, [1814] (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by H. Milne Edwards, 1849, Alcyonium lyncurium Linnaeus, 1767 (Name Number 2123); (b) Pyura Molina, 1782 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Pyura chilensis Molina, 1782 (Name Number 2124). (3). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) aurantium Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Alcyonium aurantium (the valid name, at the time of this ruling, for the type species of Tethya Lamarck, [1814]) (Name Number 2747); (b) chilensis, Pyura, Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Pyura chilensis (specific name of type species of Pyura Molina, 1782) (Name Number 2748). (4). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) TETHYDIDAE (correction, through the ruling under the plenary powers in (1)fa) above of TETHYIDAE) Rafinesque, 1815 (as “Tethydia’’) (type genus Tethys Linnaeus, 1767) (Name Number 511); (b) APLYSIIDAE Swainson, 1840 (as “Aplysianae”) (type genus Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767) (Name Number 512); (c) TETHYIDAE J.E. Gray, 1867 (as “Tethyadae”) (type genus Tethya Lamarck, 1814) (Name Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 175 Number 513); (d) PYURIDAE Hartmeyer, 1908 (type genus Pyura Molina, 1782) (Name Number 514). (5). The generic name Tethyum Gunnerus, 1765, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2117. (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names with the Name Numbers specified: (a) TETHYIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (as “Tethydia”), an incorrect spelling in consequence of the ruling given under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above (Name Number 484); (b) TETHYIDAE Huntsman, 1912 (a junior homonym of TETHYIDAE J.E. Gray, 1867) (Name Number 485). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1780 The origin of the present case lies in a request from Mr Joshua L. Baily, Jr, received on 17 October 1966, for the completion of the ruling in Opinion 200 on the generic names Tethys and Aplysia by adding the corresponding family names (TETHYIDAE and APLYSIIDAE) to the Official List. It was not then possible to agree on a final text, but this was done in 1975. Mr Baily’s application was sent to the printer on 16 May and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 144-145. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was sent to the statutory serials and to three malacological serials. Dr L.B. Holthuis wrote on 2 October 1975 to draw attention to the existence of the homonymous family name TETHYIDAE in Porifera (type genus Tethya Lamarck, [1814]). Dr W.O. Cernohorsky wrote on 25 November 1975 giving the correct authors and dates for the two molluscan family names involved. The application was supported by Dr Allyn G. Smith (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco). Dr Jon-Arne Sneli (Biologisk Stasjon, Trondheim, Norway) sent a note received on 21 January 1976 drawing attention to another homonymous use of the family name TETHYIDAE in Tunicata (Ascidiacea). These comments entailed much bibliographic work and correspondence with those directly involved as well as with other specialists to establish the original references for the various generic, specific and family-group names involved, and for the fixations of type species for the genera in question. These 176 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 consultations led to the publication of a revised application by the Secretary on 28 February 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 247-251. New notices of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case were sent to the statutory journals, to seven general serials and to three malacological serials. Dr Holthuis wrote to correct the type-species designation for Tethya Lamarck and the status of Pyura chilensis Molina. His comment was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p.196, with the Secretary’s reply. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)20 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 247-251 as modified in vol. 35, p. 196. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Willink, Brinck, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Tortonese, Corliss, Dupuis, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye Negative Votes — none (0) Vokes was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. Dr Sabrosky asked whether the family name TETHYMELIBIDAE Bergh, 1890, ought not to have been placed on the Official Index, as requested by Mr Baily in his original application. This was admittedly overlooked by the Secretary in his revised application and the point has not been voted on by the Commission. The name is, however, plainly unavailable, being based, not on the stem of a generic name but on a fusion of the stems of two generic names. Dr Sabrosky also asked whether “Tethydia” Rafinesque, 1815, was based on Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 (the name for a genus of tectibranch gastropods suppressed in Opinion 200) or on Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 (the name for a genus of nudibranch gastropods). The name “Tethydia” is accompanied by the description “pas de tentacules” and by a number of generic names. In addition to Tethys L. and ‘Acera Cuv.’ there are four new nomina nuda: Agenor, Armina, Nereus and Peribea. All these are accepted as nudibranch names by Russell, H.D., 1971, Index Nudibranchs, Delaware Mus. nat. Hist., iv + 141 pp. This leaves no doubt that Rafinesque intended to name a family of nudibranchs based on Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, and that the present ruling is not misdirected on that score. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 177 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: APLYSIIDAE Swainson, 1840, Treatise Malacology, pp. 247, 248, 251 aurantium, Alcyonium, Pallas, 1766, Elenchus Zoophytorum, p. 357 chilensis, Pyura, Molina, 1782, Sag. Stor. nat. Chili, p. 348 Pyura Molina, 1782, Sag. Stor. nat. Chili, p. 196 PYURIDAE Hartmeyer, 1908, Zool. Annalen, vol. 3, pp. 7, 15, 26 Tethya Lamarck, [1814], Mém. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 1 (1), p. 69 TETHYDIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature, p. 141 TETHYIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, ibid. TETHYIDAE J.E. Gray, 1867, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1867, p. 540 TETHYIDAE Huntsman, 1912, Trans. Canad. Inst. No. 21, vol. 9 ¢2),.p. 133 Tethyum Gunnetus, 1765, K. norske Vidensk. Selskab. Skr. vol. 3, p. 102. The following is the original reference to a subsequent designation of a type species accepted in the present ruling: of Alcyonium lyncurium Linnaeus, 1767, as type species of Tethya Lamarck, [1814] by H. Milne Edwards, in Cuvier, Régne Animal, ed. 4 (Disciples’ Edition), vol. 20 (1836-1849), pl. 95. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (80)20 - were Cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1182. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 December 1980 178 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 OPINION 1183 TEREBRATULA LINEATA YOUNG & BIRD, 1828, AND RHYNCHONELLA SUBCONCINNA DAVIDSON, 1852 (BRACHIOPODA): DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPES RULING.-(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the following names are to be applied in accordance with the neotypes specified: (a) Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828 by specimen number BB 14882 in the Palaeontology Department of the British Museum (Natural History), London; (b) Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852 by specimen number B 33239 in the Palaeontology Department of the British Museum (Natural History), London. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) lineata, Terebratula, Young & Bird, 1828, as published in the binomen Terebratula lineata, and as interpreted by reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above (Name Number 2749); (b) subconcinna Davidson, 1852, as published in the binomen Rhynchonella subconcinna, and as interpreted by reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name Number 2750). HISTORY OF THE CASES Z.N.(S.)1217, 1218 Applications for the designation of neotypes by the use of the plenary powers for the two nominal species Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828, and Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852, were first received from Dr D.V. Ager (then of Jmperial College of Science, London S.W.7) on 25 April 1957. They were sent to the printer on 12 June 1957 and published on 26 August 1957 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 13, pp. 251-253, 254-256 respectively. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in three palaeontological serials. The application was supported by R.V. Melville (then of Geological Survey & Museum, London S.W.7). Professor J. Chester Bradley objected to the use of the plenary powers in the case; he thought that it should be dealt with under the ‘notification- Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 179 Paragraph 196, p. 103). Dr Ager, supported by Mr Melville, maintained his original request, which aimed at stabilising these disputed names in the sense that he had given them in a recent monograph. Furthermore, the species are of stratigraphical importance. There can be no doubt that the Commission was, at that Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Holthuis, Hering, Vokes, Prantl, Hank6, Dymond, Riley, Bonnet, Bodenheimer, Boschma, J aczewski, do Amaral, Cabrera, Hemming, Kiihnelt, Tortonese Negative Votes — seven (7) received in the following order: Lemche, Mayr, Key, Mertens, Sylvester-Bradley, J.C. Bradley, Stoll The votes were cast identically on both voting papers. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their votes on V.P.(58)7: Lemche: ‘The problem is not a nomenclatural one. The applicant should not be able to make the Commission responsible for the taxonomic view that lineata = bidens = triplicata, which is the sole purpose of this application.’ Mayr: ‘Even before reading Commissioner Bradley’s discourage at Copenhagen. If we set this precedent we may get flooded by applications. Regardless of whether the majority comes out “for” or “against”, the reasons for the “against” votes should be ae 180 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 J.C. Bradley: ‘The plenary powers are to suspend the rules. I object to misusing them by invoking them to hasten the application of a rule in connection with which a satisfactory procedure is already provided.’ The following comments were returned with V.P.(58)8: Lemche: ‘The problem is not a nomenclatural one. The applicant should not be able to make the Commission responsible for the taxonomic view that subconcinna = fodinalis, which is the sole purpose of this application.’ Mayr: ‘As correctly stated by Commissioner Bradley, since this name has enjoyed uninterrupted usage, is not now challenged, and is unequivocally represented by the figure of the holotype, the application for a neotype does not meet the requirements adopted at Copenhagen. Mere loss of the holotype is not enough. The applicant has provided no real evidence of confusion.’ Key: ‘The applicant has given no reasons why the notification and challenge procedure is inadequate to deal with the situation he describes.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: lineata, Terebratula, Young & Bird, 1828, Geological survey of the Yorkshire coast, 2nd edit., p. 232, pl. 7, fig. 10 subconcinna, Rhynchonella, Davidson, 1852, Monograph brit. foss. Brachiopoda (Palaeontogr. Soc.), vol. 1(3), p. 10, pl. 1, figs. Sa-c. The following are the original references to neotype designations accepted in the present Opinion: Ager, 1956, Monograph brit. Liassic Rhynchonellidae (Palaeontogr. Soc.) (1), pp. 40-43, pl. 3, figs. 6a—c (for Terebratula lineata), p. 10, pl. 1, figs. 5a-c (for Rhynchonella subconcinna). CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on voting papers (58)7 and 8 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in those voting papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1183. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 31 December 1980 —————————————————————— Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 181 POSTSCRIPT BY THE SECRETARY Before writing the above Opinion, I asked Professor Ager (now of University College, Swansea, U.K.) whether usage of the names involved was the same today as when his application was submitted over 20 years ago. He assured me that it was. Since his application for the use of the plenary powers had been approved by the necessary two-thirds majority, I drafted the Opinion accordingly. R.V.M. 182 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 OPINION 1184 DITYLENCHUS FILIPJEV, 1936, GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER CHITINOTYLENCHUS MICOLETZKY, 1922 (NEMATODA) RULING.-(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the generic name Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the generic name Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The generic name Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Anguillula dipsaci Kuhn, 1857, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names with the Name Number 2125 and with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. (3) The generic name Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Filipjev, 1936, Chitinotylenchus paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2126, and with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) dipsaci Kuhn, 1857, as published in the binomen Anguillula dipsaci (specific name of type species of Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936) (Name Number 2751); (b) paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922, as published in the binomen Chitinotylenchus paragracilis (specific name of type species of Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922) (Name Number 2752). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1955 The report on which the present Opinion is based was prepared by the Secretary and published on 31 March 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 241-244. 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, to seven general and one nematological journal. No comment was received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 183 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule, in Voting Paper (80)21 in Part | for or against the use of the plenary powers in the case, and in Part 2 to use those powers either to reaffirm the decision to suppress Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922, taken in Voting Paper (75)7, or to give Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, nomenclatural precedence over Chitinotylenchus. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980, the state of the voting was as follows: Part 1 Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mrockzowski, Willink, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Brinck, Corliss, Dupuis, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye Negative Votes — none (0) Part 2 Alternative A Affirmative Votes — four (4): Melville, Lehtinen, Ride, Alvarado Alternative B Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Willink, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Habe, Brinck, Corliss, Dupuis, Welch, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye Tortonese abstained from voting. Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. Professor Tortonese observed: ‘From their statements, the different specialists do not agree about the separation of the genera Ditylenchus and _ Chitinotylenchus. We cannot solve the nomenclatural problem if the taxonomic problem remains unsolved. I therefore agree with Professor Andrassy’s opinion (Bull. vol. 33, p. 243): I do not consider that Ditylenchus is threatened by a name that may be a synonym but on the value of which we are not sure.’ Dr Ride said: ‘If taxonomists decide that Chitinotylenchus really merits taxonomic separation from Ditylenchus, let them start afresh with good type material.’ 184 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922, Arch. Naturges., vol. A 87, pp. 546, 575 dipsaci, Anguillula, Kuhn, 1857, Z. wiss. Zool., vol. 9, pp. 129-137 Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, Proc. helminthol. Soc. Washington, vol. 3, pp. 81-82 paragracilis, Chitinotylenchus, Micoletzky, 1922, Arch. Naturges., vol. A 87, pp. 547, 575. The following is the original reference to a type-species designation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Chitinotylenchus paragracilis as type species of Chitinotylenchus by subsequent designation: Filipjev, 1936, Proc. helminthol. Soc. Washington, vol. 3, p. 81. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)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. 1184. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 January 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 185 OPINION 1185 SIMROTHIELLA PILSBRY, 1898 (MOLLUSCA, SOLENOGASTRES): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES RULING.-(1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898, are hereby set aside and Solenopus margaritaceus Koren & Danielssen, 1877 is designated as type species of that genus. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Dorymenia Heath, 1911 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Dorymenia acuta Heath, 1911 (Name Number 2127); (b) Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Solenopus margaritaceus Koren & Danielssen, 1877 (Name Number 2128). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) acuta Heath, 1911, as published in the binomen ; Dorymenia acuta (specific name of type species of Dorymenia Heath, 1911) (Name Number 2753); (b) margaritaceus Koren & Danielssen, 1877, as published in the binomen Solenopus margaritaceus (specific name of type species of Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898) (Name Number 2754); (c) sarsii Koren & Danielssen, 1877, as published in the binomen Solenopus sarsii (Name Number 2755). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2083 An application for the designation of a type species for Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898, was first received from Dr L. von Salvini-Plawen (University of Vienna) through Dr L.B. Holthuis on 22 July 1974. It was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 156-157. 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 five general and three malacological serials. The application was supported by Mr D. Heppell except for the 186 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 proposed amendment of sarsii to sarsi (paragraph (3)(c) and (4) of the applicant’s proposals). Mr Heppell pointed out that Solenopus sarsii was a correct original spelling; the fact that it was indeed the original spelling has been verified. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)22 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 156-157. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, © Mroczkowski, Willink, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin,Hahn, Brinck, Tortonese, Corliss, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye Negative Votes — five (5): Holthuis, Lehtinen, Dupuis, Cogger, Sabrosky Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘It seems that these are little-known species of no interest in applied science. A strict application of the Code would not cause much confusion, if any (at least, it does not appear from the application that it would). Heppell’s comment is perfectly correct.’ Lehtinen: ‘The arguments presented in favour of a proposed change of a valid original type designation are not sufficient. The Law of Priority should be applied in this case.’ Cogger: ‘No evidence is presented in support of the contention that the proposed action is needed to “...avoid further confusion, which would involve the renaming of the nineteen Dorymenia species and to correspond with the general acceptance and usage of over fifty years...”. A desire to maintain existing usage should notin itself be an adequate reason to overturn the provisions of the Code.’ Holthuis, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Hahn and Welch supported, and Mroczkowski, Brinck, Tortonese, Alvarado and Halvorsen opposed Mr Heppell’s comment which favoured the original spelling, Solenopsus sarsii. I have verified that that is the only original spelling of the name; and there can be no doubt that sarsius is an admissible latinisation of Sars. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 187 ORIGINAL REFERENCES acuta, Dorymenia, Heath, 1911, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 45, p. 95 Dorymenia Heath, 1911, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 45, 46 margaritaceus, Solenopus, Koren & Danielssen, 1877, Arch. Math. Naturv., vol. 2, p. 128 sarsii, Solenopus, Koren & Danielssen, 1877, Arch. Math. Naturv., vol. 2, p. 128 Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898, in Tryon, G.W., Manual of Conchology, vol. 17, p. 296. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)22 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1185. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 January 1981 188 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 OPINION 1186 TANYSTROPHEUS H. VON MEYER, [1852] (REPTILIA) CONSERVED RULING.-(1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Tanystropheus conspicuus H. von Meyer, [1852], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2129. (3) The specific name conspicuus H. von Meyer, [1852], as published in the binomen Tanystropheus conspicuus (specific name of type species of Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852], is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2756. (4) The generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], 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 2118. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2084 An application for the suppression of the generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], was first received from Dr Rupert Wild (Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Stuttgart, BRD) on 9 July 1974. It was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 27 June 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 124-126. 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 herpetological serials. As a result of criticisms, a revised paper was published in vol. 33, pp. 124-126. 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, to ten general serials and two herpetological serials. The application was supported by Dr G.E. Gow (University of Witwatersrand, RSA). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980) 23 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 125. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 189 Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Willink, Brinck, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Tortonese, Corliss, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Sabrosky, Heppell, Halvorsen, Bayer, Nye Negative Votes — Holthuis, Cogger Dupuis abstained from voting. Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘Article 24a nowhere says that the two synonyms have to be considered valid by their author(s). Under this Article, Macroscelosaurus must be considered a junior objective synonym of Tanystropheus.’ Dupuis: ‘Je m’abstiens, car je soupcgonne qu’une recherche historique sérieuse concernant le nom Macroscelosaurus n’a été poursuivie ni par le demandeur (R. Wild) ni par les auteurs dont il cite une supposition en passant dans un Traité (Peyer in Kuhn- Schnyder) alors qu’un nom aussi long et compliqué ne peut pas étre une pure invention de H. von Meyer.’ Cogger: ‘The single treatment of Macroscelosaurus as an available name “with its original date and authorship” (Article 11d) is apparently that of Kuhn, 1934, but the applicant is unable to verify that Kuhn’s attribution is correct, or that Miuinster’s Macroscelosaurus was ever published prior to its citation in synonymy by H. von Meyer, 1852. Consequently Macroscelosaurus Minster, 1834 cannot be shown to have been published and is not available under either of the provisions of Article 11d. Further, the name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852] is not available under Article 11d, and its suppression using the plenary powers would not only seem to be unnecessary, but would leave the basic problem unresolved if any worker was to locate the “missing” reterence to Macroscelosaurus Minster, 1834, which, having been used as an available name by Kuhn, would presumably become available as a senior synonym of Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852]. Although I oppose only parts 5a and Sd of the application, it seems appropriate to vote against the application as a whole.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: conspicuus, Tanystropheus, H. von Meyer, [1852], Zur Fauna der Vorwelt (2), p. 42 190 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], Zur Fauna der Vorwelt (2), p. 42 Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852], Zur Fauna der Vorwelt (2), p. 42. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on voting paper (80)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. 1186. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 January 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 191 OPINION 1187 OPHIOLEPIS MULLER & TROSCHEL, 1840 (OPHIUROIDEA).: DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING.-(1) Under the plenary powers, all designations is hereby designated to be the type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Ophiolepis Miller & Troschel, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary (3) The specific name superba H.L. Clark, PP 1S. as published in the binomen Ophiolepis superba (specific name of type species of Ophiolepis Miiller & Trosche!, 1840) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2757. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2097 The present case was prepared by Miss Ailsa M. Clark (British Museum (Natural History), London) and the Secretary as a by- DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (80)24 Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Willink, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Brinck, Tortonese, Corliss, Dupuis, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye Negative Vote — Cogger 192 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Ride: ‘Although I vote for the proposal, I must ask the Secretary to consider whether the Commission should also be required to make the name O. superba Clark an available name by the use of the plenary powers before placing it on the Official List. As I interpret the information given by the applicants, they are asking the Commission to accept O. superba as a replacement name for a homonym. But although H.L. Clark assumes it to be so, “O. annulosa Blainville” is not an available name. It is a misused name. The questions not covered by the Code are: ‘(i) Whether Miiller & Troschel established the new name Ophiolepis annulosa by using it in accordance with the wrong usage of a previous author (Blainville) when they established a new nominal genus for which they did not designate a type species from among several originally included species. I do not think Article 70b(i) covers this eventuality. ‘(ii) Ido not consider that Article 70b(i) allows O. annulosa to be made available from Lyman since, although he explicitly refers to the “wrong usage” of Blainville, and Lyman is designating a type species, it is not for a new nominal genus as required by the Article. It is a type by subsequent designation after the establishment of the nominal genus (Article 67b). ‘Unless O. annulosa Blainville is an available name, O. superba Clark is not a replacement name and is not available.’ Cogger: ‘Although Blainville clearly misidentified the material before him as Ophiura annulosa Lamarck, 1816, the applicants have correctly pointed out that Blainville had not established a new _ species. Consequently, Ophiolepis superba nom. nov. of H.L. Clark, 1915, is not a new name for a homonym but, under Article 72d, is simply a new name for Lamarck’s annulosa and has the same type specimen. Thus Clark’s Ophiolepis superba is a junior objective synonym of Ophiura annulosa Lamarck, and whether the nominal type species of Ophiolepis is O. annulosa of de Blainville (= O. annulosa Lamarck) or O. superba H.L. Clark (= O. annulosa Lamarck) seems irrelevant. The type species is still O. annulosa Lamarck and this is true now and would continue to be true whether or not the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 193 application is approved. It is implied (though not stated) that the purpose of the action sought is to conserve the name superba for the taxon represented by Blainville’s specimens. If so, an entirely different strategy involving use of the plenary powers to set aside the provisions of Article 72d would seem to be necessary.’ Reply by Melville: Careful reading of our application will show that we hold that all those who treated O. annulosa Blainville as a homonym of O. annulosa Lamarck were wrong. We state clearly that the case concerns a misidentified species. Under Article 49, the specific name wrongly used in such a misidentification cannot be used for the species in question under any circumstances. H.L. Clark was in fact not renaming a homonym, but giving a name to a species that had none of its own; we should have stated clearly that, in our view, he should have said ‘Ophiolepis superba sp. nov.’, instead of ‘nom. nov.’ Both the comments cited above show a misunderstanding of what H.L. Clark actually did, and of Article 49. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ophiolepis Miller & Troschel, 1840, Arch. Naturges., Jahrg. 6, vol. 1, p.328 superba, Ophiolepis, H.L. Clark, 1915, Spolia Zeylanica, vol. 10, p. 89. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (80)24 were cast as set out above, that the proposition 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. 1187. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 January 1980 194 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 TEIIDAE GRAY, 1827 (REPTILIA, SAURIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)1920 By William Presch (Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Fullerton, California 92634, U.S.A.) Thirty-seven genera of lizards restricted to the New World have been placed in the family TEIIDAE since the work of Boulenger, 1885. The name TEIIDAE was proposed by Gray in 1827, but two years earlier Gray had proposed the family TUPINAMBIDAE. Under Article 23d of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, TUPINAMBIDAE has priority over TEIIDAE which is in general current use. The object of the present application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to grant the name TEIIDAE Gray, 1827, precedence over the name TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825. 2. TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825, p. 199, was established for the nominal genus Tupinambis Daudin, 1802, p. 5, type species Lacerta teguixin Linnaeus, 1758, p. 208, by monotypy. 3. TEIIDAE Gray, 1827, p. 204, was established for the nominal genus Teius Merrem, 1820, pp. 13, 60, type species Lacerta teyou Daudin, 1802, p. 195, by monotypy. 4. Between 1758 and 1884 lizards currently placed in the TEIIDAE were distributed under 27 family-group names. Boulenger, 1884, p. 335, proposed the currently accepted arrangement of families and then Boulenger, 1885, p. 330, published a list of genera included in the TEIIDAE. Since then the name TEIIDAE has been in general current use, for example by Boulenger, 1884; Camp, 1923; Cope, 1892, 1900; Duellman, 1979; Estes, 1969; Etheridge, 1967; Gugg, 1938; MacLean, 1974; Northcutt, 1978; Presch, 1980; Tihen, 1964; Uzzell, 1973; Vanzolini & Ramos, 1977; Wever, 1978. 5. To the best of my knowledge the name TUPINAMBIDAE has not been used since it was made available, whereas the name TEIIDAE has been in continuous use for over 50 years. In the interests of stability I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820), is to be given precedence over TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 (type genus Tupinambis Daudin, 1802), whenever the two names are applied to the same taxon; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Teius Merrem, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Lacerta teyou Daudin, 1802; Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 195 (b) Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 (gender: masculine) type species by monotypy, Lacerta teguixin Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802 (specific name of the type species of Teius Merrem, 1820); (b) teguixin, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 (specific name of the type species of Tupinambis Daudin, 1802); (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology: (a) TEIDDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820) with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence, by use of the plenary powers in (1) above, whenever it and TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825, are applied to the same taxon; (b) TUPINAMBIDAE- Gray, 1825 (type-genus Tupinambis Daudin, 1802) with an endorsement that it is not to have priority over TEIIDAE Gray, 1827, whenever both names are applied to the same taxon. REFERENCES BOULENGER, G.A., 1884. Synopsis of the families of existing Lacertilia. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5), vol. 14, pp. 117-122. 1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum (Natural History) London, Ed. 2, vol. 2, xiii + 497 pp. CAMP, CHARLES L., 1923. Classification of the lizards. Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 48, pp. 289-482. COPE, E.D., 1892. The Osteology of the Lacertilia. Proc. amer. philos. Soc., vol. 30, pp. 185-222. 1900. The Crocodilians, Lizards and Snakes of North America. Ann. Rept. U.S. nat. Mus. for 1898 (1900), pp. 151-1294. DAUDIN, F.M., 1802. Histoire Naturelle des Reptiles, vol. III, p. 85. DUELLMAN, W.E. ed., 1979. The South American Herpetofauna. Univ. Kansas Press Monograph No. 7, 485pp. ESTES, R., 1969. Relationships of two Cretaceous lizards (Sauria, Teiidae) Breviora, No. 317, 8pp. ETHERIDGE, R.E., 1967. Lizard caudal vertebrae. Copeia No. 4, pp. 699-721. GRAY, J.E., 1825. Synopsis of the genera of Reptiles and Amphibians. Ann. Philos. vol. 26 (N.S. vol. 10), pp. 193-217. 1827. Synopsis of the genera of Saurian Reptiles in which some new genera are indicated and the others reviewed by actual examination. Philos. Mag. N.S. vol. 2(7), pp. 54-58. GUGG, W., 1938. Der skeralring der plagiotremen Reptilien. Zool. Jb. vol. 65, pp. 337-416. 196 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 208. MacLEAN, W.P., 1974. Feeding and locomotion mechanisms of teiid lizards: Functional morphology and evolution. Pap. Avul. Zool. S. Paulo, vol. 27(15), pp. 179-213. MERRE\M, B., 1820. Tentamen Systematis Amphibiorum, 191 pp., Marburg. NORTHCUTT, R.G., 1978. Forebrain and midbrain organization in lizards and its phylogenetic significance. In Greenberg, N. and MacLean, P.D. eds., Behavior and Neurology of Lizards. Nat. Inst. Mental Health No. (ADM) 77-491, 352pp. PRESCH, W., 1980. Evolutionary history of the South American microteiid lizards (Teiidae: Gymnophthalminae). Copeia (1): pp. 35-36. TIHEN, J.A., 1964. Tertiary changes in the herpeto fauna of temperate North America. Senek. Bio. 45: pp. 265-279. UZZELL, T., 1973. A revision of lizards of the genus Prionodactylus with a new genus for P. leucostictus and notes on the genus Euspondylus (Sauria, Teiidae). Postilla, No. 159. 67 pp. VANZOLINI, P.E. & ANA MARIA M. RAMOS 1977. A new species of Colobodactylus with notes on the distribution of a group of stranded microteiid lizards (Sauria, Teiidae). Pap. Avul. Zool. S. Paulo, vol. 31(3), pp. 19-47. WEVER, E.G., 1978. The Reptile Ear, Princeton Univ. Press, 1024pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 197 GENERIC NAME AHUAUTLEA DE LA LLAVE, 1832 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA, CORIXIDAE): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.)2299 by Antti Jansson (Department of Zoology, University of Helsinki, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki 10, Finland) Corixia mercenaria Say, 1832 was described from material obtained from Mexican markets as a product called ‘ahuautle’; the specimens were originally collected from Lake Texcoco. The front page of the paper gives the printing date as ‘Dec. 1831’, but actual printing evidently did not take place until early 1832, probably January-February (cf. Jansson, 1979). Original specimens of C. mercenaria have been lost, but the species has been uniformly interpreted by several authors (Champion, 1901; Lundblad, 1928; Jaczewski, 1931; Hungerford, 1948). Further, Lundblad, 1928, based his description of the genus Corisella mainly on Corixia mercenaria, and Hungerford, 1948, chose C. mercenaria to be the type species of Corisella and selected a whole ‘series of neotypes’ which were also obtained from Mexican markets; from this series Jansson, 1979, designated one male specimen as the neotype. 2. Ahuautlea-mexicana de la Llave, 1832 (printed in July 1832) was described from material obtained from Mexican markets and from Lake Texcoco. None of the specimens on which the description was based is known, and the description is mostly of such a nature that it applies to nearly any corixid of the size of a ‘rice grain’. For instance, Guérin-Méneville, 1862, commented on the description, but could not recognize the species. Orozco y Berra, 1864, quoted the description in full, but then it remained ‘unnoticed until the late 1950’s. 3. Corixa femorata Guérin-Méneville, 1857 was also described from material bought from Mexican markets as ‘ahuautle’. The type series was deposited in the Paris Museum, and the species later became the type species of the genus Krizousacorixa Hunger- ford, 1930. 4. Ancona, 1933, studied the composition of the ‘ahuautle’ by sampling Lake Texcoco, and found that the most common species of CORIXIDAE was Krizousacorixa azteca Jaczewski, 1931, but in small numbers K. femorata (Guérin-Méneville, 1857), Corisella mercenaria (Say, 1832) and C. texcocana Jaczewski, 1931 [= C. tarsalis (Fieber, 1851)] were taken also. However, while this was the situation in the early 1930’s, other papers clearly indicate that the species composition has largely varied from time to time; C. mercenaria is the only species that has been reported from the 198 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 ‘ahuautle’ steadily throughout the past 150 years (Say, 1832; Guérin-Méneville, 1862; Kirkaldy, 1898; Champion, 1901; Ancona, 1933; Olivares, 1964). 5. Deevey, 1957, found de la Llave’s 1832 description of Ahuautlea mexicana and without any truly supporting facts claimed that A. mexicana ‘has priority over the generic name Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 and the specific name Corixa femorata Guérin- Méneville, 1857’. In the following discussion about the composition of the ‘ahuautle’ Deevey, 1957, referred to Ancona, 1933, and changed his mind by stating that A. mexicana ‘is ordinarily Krizousacorixa azteca Jaczewski, 1931; it may also be K. femorata (Guérin-Méneville, 1857), while Corisella texcocana Jaczewski and C. mercenaria (Say) may be less important components of the product’. 6. Olivares, 1964, referring to Deevey, 1957, and widely interpreting de la Llave’s 1832 text, then proposed the synonymy of Krizousacorixa femorata (Guérin-Méneville, 1857) with Ahuautlea mexicana de la Llave, 1832. Sailer, 1977, adopted this synonymy in the preface to the reprint edition of Hungerford’s 1948 mono- graph on the CORIXIDAE of the Western Hemisphere. 7. Recent investigation (Jansson, 1979) has shown that Ahuautlea mexicana de la Llave, 1832 could not have been any of the species placed today in the genus Krizousacorixa Hungerford, but belonged to those placed in Corisella Lundblad, the most likely species being C. mercenaria (Say). To end the confusion, Jansson, 1979, designated the specimen designated as the neotype of Corixia mercenaria Say, 1832, also as the neotype of Ahuautlea mexicana de la Llave, 1832. This action made A. mexicana a junior objective synonym of C. mercenaria (cf. paragraph 1 and 2 above), and Corisella a junior objective synonym of Ahuautlea. 8. Say, 1832, used the generic name “‘Corixia, Geoff, Latr.”’ for all the species of CORIXIDAE he dealt with in that paper, but because he credited Geoffroy for the genus and had previously used the form Corixa Geoff. (Say, 1825), Corixia was obviously an incorrect spelling (misprint?) of Corixa. The generic name Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 would thus have priority over the generic name Corisella Lundblad, 1928. However, the generic name Ahuautlea has been used only by Deevey, 1957; Olivares, 1964; and Sailer, 1977, and in all these cases as a name with suggested priority over Krizousacorixa, but the generic name Corisella is well known and has been widely used during the past years (e.g. Applegate, 1973; Brooks & Kelton, 1967; Frick & Sauer, 1974a, 1974b; Hilsenhoff, 1970; Hungerford, 1948; Hurlbert & al., 1970; Jansson, 1976; Lansbury, 1955, 1960; Scudder, 1976; Wilson, 1958). Obviously, to revive for the well known genus Corisella a name which is little Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 199 known and has been used only in connection with suggested priority over quite another genus could only lead to further con- fusion. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Ahuautlea as suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the generic names (a) Corisella Lundblad, 1928 (gender: feminine), type species as designated by Hungerford, 1948, Corixia mercenaria Say, 1832, and (b) Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 (gender: feminine) type species by original designation Corixa femorata Guérin-Méneville, 1857 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the specific names (a) mercenaria Say, 1832, as published in the binomen Corixia mercenaria, and (b) femorata Guérin-Méneville, 1857, as published in the binomen Corixa femorata (specific names of the type species of Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930, respectively) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ANCONA, H.L. 1933. El Ahuautle de Texcoco. Anales Inst. Biol. Univ. Nacional Mexico vol. 4, pp. 51-69. APPLEGATE, R.L. 1973. Corixidae (water boatmen) of South Dakota glacial lake district. Entomol. News vol. 84, pp. 163-170. BROOKS, A.R. & KELTON, L.A. 1967. Aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (Hemiptera). Mem. Entomol. Soc. Canada vol. 51, pp. 1-92. CHAMPION, G.C. 1901. Biologia Centrali-Americana. Insecta. Rhynchota. Hemiptera-Heteroptera. Vol. 2, pp. 375-383. DEEVEY, E.S. 1957. Limnologic studies in Middle America. Trans. Connecticut Acad. Arts Sci. vol. 39, pp. 217-328. FRICK, J.H. & SAUER, J.R. 1974a. Osmoregulation in the adult water boat- man, Corisella edulis Champion (Het., Corixidae). Comp. Biochem.. Physiol. vol. 47(A), pp. 789-797. 1974b. Water balance in the adult water boatman, Corisella edulis Champion (Het., Corixidae). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. vol. 48(A), pp. 105-113. GUERIN-MENEVILLE, F.E. 1857. Entomologie appliquée: hautlé — pain d’insectes. Le Moniteur Universel, Journal Officiel de l’Empire Frangais 200 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 330, p. 1298 (26 November 1857). 1862. Analyses d’ouvrages nouveaux; Ahuautle, notice par M. de la Llave, etc. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) vol. 14, pp. 282-285. HILSENHOFF, W.L. 1970. Corixidae (water boatmen) of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. Arts & Letters vol. 58, pp. 203-235. HUNGERFORD, H.B. 1930. New Corixidae from western North America (Hemiptera). Pan-Pac. Entomol. vol. 7, pp. 22-26. 1948. The Corixidae of the western hemisphere (Hemiptera). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. vol. 32, pp. 1-827. n HURLBERT, S.H., MULLA, M.S., KEITH, W.E., WESTLAKE, W.E. & DUSCH, M.E. 1970. Biological effects and persistence of Dursban in freshwater ponds. J. Econ. Entomol. vol. 63, pp. 43-52. JACZEWSKI, T. 1931. Studies on Mexican Corixidae. Ann. Mus. Zool. Polonici vol. 9, pp. 187-230. JANSSON, A. 1976. Audiospectrographic analysis of stridulatory signals of some North American Corixidae (Hemiptera). Ann. Zool. Fennici vol. 13, pp. 48-62. 1979. The identity of Ahuautlea mexicana de la Llave (Heteroptera, Corixidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol. vol. 55, pp. 251-257. KIRKALDY, G.W. 1898. An economic use for waterbugs. Entomol. Monthly Mag. vol. 34, pp. 173-175. LANSBURY, I. 1955. Distributional records of North American Corixidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Canadian Entomol. vol. 87, pp. 474-481. 1960. The Corixidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) of British Columbia. Proc. Entomol. Soc. B.C. vol. 57, pp. 34-43. DE LA LLAVE, P. 1832. Ahuautle. Registro Trimestre, Mexico, vol. 1, pp. 331-337. LUNDBLAD, O. 1928. Drei neue Corixidengattungen. Zool. Anz. vol. 79, pp. 148-163. OLIVARES, B.R. 1964. A reconsideration of the nomenclature of one of the species of Mexican Corixid (Hem.), known as ‘Ahuautle’. Entomol. Monthly Mag. vol. 100, p. 240. OROZCO Y BERRA, M. 1864. Memoria para la carta hidrogrdfica del Valle de Mexico. Mexico, Boix, 185 pp. SAILER, R.E. 1977. Preface to the reprint edition. (In) Hungerford, H.B. 1948: The Corixidae of the western hemisphere (Hemiptera). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. vol. 32. Reprinted by Entomol. Reprint Specialists, Los Angeles. pp. v-vi. SAY, T. 1825. Descriptions of new Hemipterous insects collected in the expedition to the Rocky Mountains, performed by order of Mr. Calhoun, secretary of war, under command of Major Long. J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia vol. 4, pp. 307-345. 1832. Descriptions of new species of Heteropterous Hemiptera of North America. New-Harmony, Indiana, 39 pp. SCUDDER, G.G.E. 1976. Water-boatmen of saline waters (Hemiptera: Corixidae). (In) Cheng, L.: Marine insects. North-Holland Publ. Co., pp. 310-368. WILSON, C.A. 1958. Aquatic. and semiaquatic Hemiptera of Mississippi. Tulane Stud. Zool. vol. 6, pp. 115-170. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 201 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO GRANT PRECEDENCE TO THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME EPHYDRIDAE OVER HYDRELLIIDAE (INSECTA, DIPTERA). Z.N.(S.)2334 By Wayne N. Mathis (Department of Entomology, NHB-169, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 20560, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to request the use of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’s plenary powers to grant precedence to the family name EPHYDRIDAE over its senior synonym HYDRELLIIDAE when the two are considered as synonyms. 2. Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, p. 783, proposed the tribe name ‘Hydrellideae’, based on the generic name Aydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, p. 790. The type species of this genus is Hydrellia aurifacies Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, p. 791 (= Notiphila flaviceps Meigen, 1830, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins., vol. 6, p. 72), by subsequent designation by Coquillett, 1910, p. 553. Although the family-group name continued to be given status at the tribal and subfamilial levels, it has never been adopted at the familial level since its proposal. 3. Seven years after Robineau-Desvoidy’s proposal of HYDRELLIDEAE, Zetterstedt (1837, p. 48) proposed the sub- family name EPHYDRINAE based on the generic name Ephydra Fallén, 1810, p. 22. The type species of this genus is Ephydra riparia Fallén, 1813, K. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl. for 1813(2), p. 246, by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1832, p. 413. All subsequent authors known to me have used EPHYDRIDAE as the family name, although sometimes with a variant spelling. Of the -hundreds of publications that could be listed as documentation, | have selected and annotated the following: _ Loew (1860; review of European Ephydridae, as “Ephy- drinidae’’). Loew (1862; review of North American Ephydridae, as ““Ephydrinidae’’). Becker (1896; review of literature and higher classification on world basis; species treatments limited to Europe). Becker (1905; catalog of Palaearctic species). Becker( 1926; review of Palaearctic species). Cresson (1942-1949; synopses of species of subfamilies (one subfamily not completed) for Nearctic Region). Wirth (1965; catalog of North American species). Wirth (1968; catalog of Neotropical species). Nartschuck (1970; keys to species of European USSR). 202 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 Colless & McAlpine (1970; Insects of Australia). Richards & Davies (1977; Imms’ general text). Cogan & Wirth (1977; catalog of Oriental species). 4. Suppression of HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, when used synonymously with EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837, seems clearly warranted in the interest of nomenclatural stability. The family name HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, however, should not be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Names in Zoology, as it was and is still given status at the tribal and familial levels. 5. The Commission is therefore requested: (1) (2) (3) (4) to use its plenary powers to grant precedence to the family name EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837, over the family name HYDRELLIIDAE Robineav- Desvoidy, 1830, when the two are considered to be synonymous; to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ephydra Fallén, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1832, Ephydra riparia Fallén, 1813; (b) Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent desig- nation by Coquillett, 1910, Hydrellia aurifacies Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) riparia Fallén, 1813, as published in the bino- men Ephydra riparia (specific name of type species of Ephydra Fallén, 1810); (b) flaviceps Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Notiphila flaviceps (valid name for the type species of Aydrellia Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830); f to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (type genus Ephydra Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (type genus Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) whenever the two names are held to be synonyms; (b) HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, (type genus Aydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 203 1830) with an endorsement that it is not to be given. priority over EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms. REFERENCES BECKER, T., 1896. Dipterologische Studien IV. Ephydridae. Berl. Entomol. Zeit. vol. 41(2), pp. 91-276. —___1905. Ephydridae. Pp. 185-215. Jn, Becker, T., et al., eds., Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren. Vol. 4. Budapest. 1926. Ephydridae. Family 56, pp. 1-115. Jn, Lindner, E., ed., Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, Vol. 6(1). Stuttgart. COGAN, B.H., & WIRTH, W.W., 1977. Family Ephydridae. Pp. 321-339. Jn, Delfinado, M.D. and Hardy, D.E., eds., A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Volume III. Suborder Cyclorrphapha (excluding Division Aschiza). Honolulu. COLLESS, D.H. & McALPINE, D.K., 1970. Diptera. Pp. 656-740. In, The Insects of Australia, Melbourne Univ. Press. Victoria. COQUILLETT, D.W., 1910. The type species of the N. American genera of Diptera, U.S.A. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. Vol. 37, pp. 499-647. CRESSON, E.T., Jr., 1942-1949. Synopses of North American Ephydridae _ (Diptera). Pt. I-IV. Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. vol. 63-74. CURTIS, J., 1832. British Entomology: Being illustration and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 9, pls. 384-433. FALLEN, C.F., 1810. Specimen entomologicum novam Diptera disponendi methodum exhibens. 26pp. Lund. LOEW, H., 1860. Die Europaeischen Ephydrinidae und die bisher in Schlesien beobachteten Arten derselben. In [his] Neue Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Dipteren. Siebenter Beitrag. Programm Realschule zu Meseritz, 1860, pp. 1-46. 1862. Monographs of the Diptera of North America. Part I. Smithsn. Inst., Smithsn. Misc. Collect. vol. 6(141), pp. 1-221. NARTSCHUK, E.P., 1970. 94. Fam. Ephydridae — Shore Flies. Pp. 363-388. In, Stackelberg, A.A., and Nartschuk, E.P., eds., Vol. 5, Flies, Fleas. 2nd Pt. In, Bei-Bienko, G.Y., ed., Keys to the Insects of European USSR. Leningrad (in Russian). RICHARDS, O.W. & DAVIES, R.G., 1977. Imms’ General Textbook of Entomology. Vol. 2: Classification and Biology. 10th Ed. 1354 pp. London. ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, J.B., 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Inst. de France, Sci. Math. et Phys., Acad. Roy. des Sci., Mem. présentés par divers Savans, vol. 2, pp. 1-813. WIRTH, W.W., 1965. Family Ephydridae. Jn, Stone, A., et al., eds., A catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. Agri. Handbk. 276, USDA. 1696 pp. 1968. Family Ephydridae. Jn, Papavero, N., ed., A Catalog of the Diptera of the Americas South of the United States. Dept. Zool. Sec. 204 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 Agri., Sao Paulo, fasc. 77, pp. 1-43. ZETTERSTEDT, J.W., 1837. Conspectus familiarum, generum et specierum dipterorum, in fauna insectorum Lapponica descriptorum. Jsis (Oken’s) 1837, pp. 28-67. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 205 NARBIS CAPSIFORMIS GERMAR, [1838] (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA, NABIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2147 By Izyaslav M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) Nabis capsiformis Germar, [1838], p. 132, was described from South Africa (Cape of Good Hope). The species is very common in nearly all tropical and subtropical regions of the world. N. capsiformis is used as the valid name of the species in hundreds of works including faunistic lists, biocoenological papers, keys of regional faunas and catalogues. Those of Benedek (1969), Gross (1963), Kerzhner (1970), Kerzhner & Jaczewski (1964), Kiritshenko (1951), Remane (1964), Stichel (1958-1960), Villiers (1952), Wagner (1967) and Zimmerman (1948) are indicated here for fulfilment of the provisions of Article 79b of the Code. 2. Nabis angustus Spinola, 1837, p. 107 is described from Bombay. The name was never used as a valid one in the primary zoological literature. It was synonymised under Nabis capsiformis Germar by Distant (1904, p. 400) and from this date considered as a junior synonym of that name. No evidence exists that the African and Asiatic specimens are specifically or subspecifically distinct. 3. Kerzhner (1970, p. 353) discussed the dates of publi- cation of Germar’s and Spinola’s works and paid attention to the priority of Spinola’s forgotten name. Now it is possible to give more precise conclusions. 4. Germar’s paper is published on p. 121-192 of ‘Revue entomologique, publiée par G. Silbermann’, vol. 5. This paper was dated 1837 by the majority of bibliographers and hemipterologists, presumably 1839 by Kerzhner (1970) and 1840 by Sherborn Undex Animalium, 1801-1850). The title-page of the volume is dated 1837, but printing was certainly finished in late 1840 because p. 351 contains an obituary of L. Gyllenhal, who died on 13 May 1840, and p. 348 contains an announcement of the sale of Dejean’s collection on 1 December 1840. Germar’s paper is preceded in the volume by a paper of Chevrolat (p. 41-110) dated under the title “Juillet 1838” and by a review of a work of Aubé(p. 111-114), published in Paris in September 1838 (Sherborn, op. cit.). The acceptance of livraisons 25 to 28 of ‘Revue entomologique’ by the library of the French entomological society was indicated at ‘Séance du 21 novembre 1838’ (Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 1838, p. LXV). These livraisons are indicated as belonging to vol. 4 (op. cit. 1838, p. XC) but certainly belong to vol. 5 because all 5 volumes of ‘Revue’ include 30 livraisons (op. cit. 1833-1841) and livraisons 206 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 29 and 30, displayed at ‘Séance du 3 fevrier 1841’ (op. cit. 1841, p. III) form the end of vol. 5. Moreover it is stated by Hagen (1862; Bibliotheca entomologica, vol. 2, p. 166) that Silbermann’s ‘Revue entomologique’ is published in ‘six livraisons par année’, i.e. each volume contains six numbers. Vol. 5 from the library of the French entomological society (xerox copies of necessary pages were sent to me by Dr. J. Péricart) bears handwritten inscriptions ‘Séance du 21 9bre 1838’ (‘9bre’ corresponding to November as in Roman numbering of months still used in 19th century) on the title-page and on p. 121, the first page of Germar’s paper, and ‘Séance du 3 fevrier 1841’ on p. 225. Accordingly I accept [21 November 1838] as the date of publication of Germar’s paper. 5. Spinola’s book was published in 1837 between March 4 (fpinola, 1837, p. 383) and September 6 (Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 1837, p. LIX). A new title-page was printed in 1840 and has sometimes been wrongly used for dating Spinola’s names (e.g. by Distant, 1904). 6. In accordance with the Article 79b of the Code, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name angustus Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Nabis angustus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name capsiformis Germar, [1838], as published in the binomen Nabis capsiformis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name angustus Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Nabis angustus, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BENEDEK, P. 1969. Heteroptera VII. Fauna Hungariae, 94. Budapest. 86 pp. DISTANT, W.L. 1904. The Fauna of British India. Rhynchota vol. 2, pt. 2: 243-503. London. GERMAR, E.F. [1838]. Hemiptera Heteroptera promontorii Bonae Spei, nondum descripta, quae collegit C.F. Drége. Silbermann’s Rev. entomol. t. 5: 121-192. Strasbourg et Paris (printed in Strasburg). GROSS, G.F. 1963. Coreidae, Neididae and Nabidae. Insects of Micronesia vol. 7, No. 7: 357-390. Honolulu. KERZHNER, I.M. 1970. Neue und wenig bekannte Nabidae (Heteroptera) aus den tropischen Gebieten der Alten Welt. Acta entomol. Mus. Nat. Pragae vol. 38, 1969: 279-359. KERZHNER, I.M. & JACZEWSKI, T.L. 1964. Hemiptera (Heteroptera). In: Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 207 Keys to insects of the European part of the USSR vol. 1: 655-845. Moscow and Leningrad. (In Russian). KIRITSHENKO, A.N. 1951. Héteroptera of the European part of the USSR. Opred. po faune SSSR 42. Moscow and Leningrad. 423 pp. (In Russian). REMANE, R. 1964. Weitere Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Gattung Nabis Latr. (Hemiptera Nabidae). Zool. Beitr. (N.F.) vol. 10: 253-314. SPINOLA, M. 1837. Essai sur les genres d’insectes appartenants a l’ordre des Hémipteéres . . . Génes. 383 p. STICHEL, W. 1958-1960. Jllustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen, II. Europa vol. 3. Berlin-Hermsdorf. 428 pp. VILLIERS, A. 1952. Hémiptéres de l’Afrique noire (Punaises et Cigales). Inst. Fr, Afr. noire, Initiations africains 9. Dakar. 256 pp. WAGNER, E. 1967. Wanzen oder Heteropteren II. Cimicomorpha. Die Tier- welt Deutschlands Teil 55. Jena. 179 pp. ZIMMERMAN, E.C. 1948. Heteroptera. Insects of Hawaii vol. 3. Honolulu. 255 pp. 208 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 CLYTIA LAMOUROUX, 1812, LAOMEDEA LAMOUROUX, 1812. AND CAMPANULARIA LAMARCK, 1816 (COELENTERATA, HYDROIDA): PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS OF TYPE SPECIES BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS, AND COMMENTS ON RELATED GENERA. Z.N.(S.)2326. By Paul F.S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). 1. Introduction The marine hydroid family CAMPANULARIIDAE includes several intertidal and offshore genera widely known among biologists. One of these, Obelia Péron & Lesueur, 1810, p. 355, although origin- ally based on the medusa stage, has become the best known of any genus of colonial hydroid; but the closely related Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184, and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, p. 112, are also well known. Another familiar genus in this family is Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184. There are long-standing nomen- clatural problems concerning all these genera and some of the species in them. Campanularia and Laomedea have been confused by many authors, and some have used Obelia in place of Laomedea. Since the genera are comparatively well known the need for stability is pressing, but there is confusion also over the type species of these genera. The purpose of this paper is to propose designations of type species under the plenary powers of the Commission where necessary, to stabilise the generic nomenclature in this family. The proposals follow a world-wide generic revision of the family in which the need for the use of these powers has been made apparent (Cornelius, in prep.). 2. Laomedea and Obelia 2. The widely used genus name Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184 (Coelenterata, Hydroida, CAMPANULARIIDAEBE), is a junior subjective synonym of another well known name, Obelia Péron & Lesueur, 1810, p. 355 (Cornelius 1975, pp. 253-254), and under the Code should not be used. But the genus to which the name Laomedea has been applied is found on the shores of all continents except Antarctica. Application of the Code would lead to Laomedea being dropped, and this would cause confusion. 3. The following references establish a prima facie case for the conservation of Laomedea under the provisions of Article 23. Each is an important work in which Laomedea was used as a valid name: Kramp, 1935, 1938; Vervoort, 1946; Leloup, 1952; Buchanan, 1957; Hamond, 1957; Marine Biological Association, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 209 1957; Barrett & Yonge, 1958; Teissier, 1965; Robins, 1969. 4. Conservation of the name Laomedea can _ be conveniently achieved by designating as type species a species not originally included, so that there will no longer be any question of synonymy with the older name Obelia. The two species originally included in Laomedea were Sertularia dichotoma Linnaeus, 1758, p. 812 (now universally assigned to the ‘medusa genus’ Obelia) and S. spinosa Linnaeus, 1758, p. 812 (now assigned to the bryozoan genus Vesicularia Thompson, 1830, pp. 89, 97; e.g. Prenant & Bobin, 1956, p. 276); and neither could usefully be designated type species. Therefore, I propose that Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, p. 122, a species not originally included, be designated type species of the genus Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, by use of the plenary powers (paragraph 28). I define that genus as. follows (after Cornelius, in prep.): colonial CAMPANULARIIDAE with: polyp generation forming upright colonies; stolon branching but not anastomosing; no hydrothecal spherule; true diaphragm present; hydranth with well developed hypostome; gonotheca aperture typically circular, wide; gonophores sessile, interpreted as vestigial medusae in species which have been closely studied. 5. It should be noted in passing that Broch (1905, p. 10) proposed that Laomedea loveni Allman, 1859, p. 138, should be type species of Laomedea; but loveni was not originally included. The valid species Joveni has been widely referred to the genus Gonothyraea Allman, 1864, p. 374, a practice which seems biologically sound. Hence the Commission is not asked to ratify Broch’s invalid designation. 3. Campanularia, Orthopyxis and Rhizocaulus 6. The well known genus name Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, p. 112, also presents problems which need action under the plenary powers. Campanularia had no type species validly desig- nated until Nutting (1915, p. 28) selected Sertularia verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811. Naumov, 1960, p. 249 (repeated in trans- lation in Naumov, 1969, p. 269) later designated S. volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811, as type species and Millard, 1966, p. 477 and Millard, 1975, p. 203, concurred; but Nutting’s designation of verticillata has priority. However, there are difficulties resulting from Nutting’s overlooked designation. The species verticillata stands out from the others in the genus Campanularia s. str. and some authors have removed it to its own genus. I agree with this action (Cornelius, in prep.). 7. Stechow, 1919, was the first to propose a genus to accommodate S. verticillata (and some dubious species similar in colony habit which he listed). For this genus he introduced the name Rhizocaulus Stechow, 1919, p. 852, type species Sertularia 210 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, by original designation. It is proposed to retain the name Rhizocaulus, by setting aside Nutting’s desig- nation (paragraph 28). Application of the Code would restrict Campanularia to verticillata and the few similar nominal species listed by Stechow, 1919, and Naumov, 1960, 1969. The familiar intertidal and shallow water species usually referred to Campanularia would need a new genus name. Since no familiar name is available confusion would be inevitable, so long as the generic separation of verticillata were upheld. 9. A second genus was later established to accommodate S. verticillata and one other species, namely Verticillina Naumov, 1960, pp. 9, 115, 122, 269 (also in translation in Naumov, 1969, pp. 6, 115, 123, 291); type species Sertularia verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811, by original designation. Although more pleasing than Rhizocaulus, the name Verticillina is clearly a junior objective synonym of Rhizocaulus since it has the same type species, and regrettably it should not be used. 10. It should again be noted in passing that Broch, 1905, p. 10, designated ‘Campanularia calyculata Hincks, 1853’, p. 178 (lapsus for caliculata) as type species of Campanularia, but caliculata was not among the originally included species. The species C. caliculata is currently referred to the genus Orthopyxis J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, pp. 297, 355 (type species by monotypy Clytia (Orthopyxis) poterium J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, p. 297, subject- ively regarded as conspecific with caliculata by Cornelius, in prep., and by others listed therein). Orthopyxis was introduced by Agassiz, 1862, as a subgenus of Clytia on page 297 of his work, including the ‘new’ species poterium alone; but on page 355 he ‘upgraded Orthopyxis to genus. [Although employing the combina- tion Clytia poterium in the ‘Explanation of the plates’ following page 380 of the main text, in the captions of plates 28 and 29 there- in; and the lapsus Clythia poterium on the plates themselves. Never theless, the name Orthopyxis was validly introduced.] On page 355 of the work Agassiz, 1862, implicitly used the combinations ‘Orthopyxis (Orthopyxis) poterium’, ‘Orthopyxis (Campanularia) volubiliformis’ and ‘Orthopyxis (Laomedea) integra’ of various authors). Thus poterium can righly be regarded as type species by monotypy of the subgenus Orthopyxis Agassiz and of the genus Orthopyxis Agassiz. 11. There is some debate about whether Orthopyxis s. str. _ and Campanularia s. str. should be taken as one genus or two. Millard, 1975, combined them; but Ralph, 1957, and Cornelius, in prep., have upheld a separation. If the two genera are regarded as distinct, then I believe none would doubt that caliculata would Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 | 211 ideally go into Orthopyxis, and not into Campanularia. Hence Broch’s, 1905, invalid designation of ‘calyculata’ as type species of Campanularia would, if accepted, prove confusing. A new genus name would have to be found for Campanularia auctorum. No familiar name is available, and the Commission is not asked to ratify Broch’s invalid proposal. 12. I therefore propose that Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811, should be designated as type species of Campanularia by use of the plenary powers. Campanularia could then still be used sens. auct.; and the species S. verticillata would become known as Rhizocaulus verticillatus, which is taxonomically acceptable. 13. The remaining species once assigned to Campanularia in the sense of, for example, Hincks, 1868, and Bedot, 1901-1925, would have to be placed in other genera, in keeping with some previous opinions. These genera would be: Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 (as defined here); the acceptable genus Hartlaubella Poche, 1914, p. 76 (to accommodate Sertularia gelatinosa Pallas, 1766, p. 116, alone; discussion in Cornelius, in prep.); and the unaccept- able Paracalix Stechow, 1923a, p. 3, which under the Code is avail- able to receive the remainder. 14. The name Paracalix has not been used since it was introduced. The type species of Paracalix, namely Campanularia pulcratheca Mulder & Trebilcock, 1914, p. 11 (by monotypy), was based on a deformed specimen of Campanularia sp., possibly C. volubilis (Linnaeus, 1758); so that there are strong subjective grounds for regarding Paracalix and Campanularia as congeneric. Unless the name Campanularia were given the meaning proposed here (paragraphs 6-16, 28) Paracalix would replace Campanuzlaria, to the detriment of established usage. But designating C. volubilis (Linnaeus, 1758) as type species of Campanularia would make Paracalix a very safe junior subjective synonym of Campanularia, and the problem would be resolved. It seems unlikely that the type species of Paracalix would ever again be regarded as a valid species by a serious worker. But if it were, then if necessary it could be removed to the genus Paracalix without affecting the stability of the name Campanularia. 15. If the rules were applied and the genus name Campanularia were restricted to the large, upright-growing species Sertularia verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, and the few closely allied species taxa listed in Stechow, 1919, and Naumov, 1960, 1969, then Campanularia would no longer be available for the remainder of the genus sens. auct.; that is for the small, stoloniferous species with which the name is usually associated. This would cause con- fusion among a wide variety of biologists ranging from advanced course students and their teachers to developmental physiologists, 212 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 ecologists and others engaged in research. Conservation of the existing widespread use (but not necessarily the sense) of Campanularia, and stability, would be achieved by setting aside Nutting’s designation of S. verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of Campanularia; and admitting Naumov’s (1960) designat- ion of S. volubilis Linnaeus, 1758.1 define the genus Campanularia as follows (after Cornelius, in prep.): stoloniferous and colonial CAMPANULARIIDAE, stolon not anastomosing; hydrothecae borne on pedicels inserted on the stolon at irregular intervals; sub-hydrothecal spherule present; hydrothecal diaphragm absent; no medusa stage. This definition expressly excludes the genus Orthopyxis J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, pp. 297, 355, as redefined by Ralph, 1957, p. 834, and by Cornelius, in prep. But it happens that the species of Orthopyxis do not impinge on the immediate discussion. 16. It should be stressed that the proposed type species of Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, is Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758 (=C. volubilis sens. auct., e.g. Hincks, 1868) and not S. volubilis sens. Ellis & Solander, 1786, p. 51 (usually subjectively referred to Clytia hemisphaerica (Linnaeus, 1767); details in Millard, 1966, p. 477 and Cornelius, in prep.). This point is particularly important since ‘Sertularia volubilis Ellis & Solander’ was designated as type species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184, by Mayer, 1910, p. 262. Since this is not the same as S. volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, Clytia is a genus based on a misidentified type species. Under Article 70a(i) the Commission is invited to use its plenary powers to designate the species that Ellis & Solander had before them, namely, Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856a, p. 359, as type species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812. The reasons are as follows. Ellis & Solander included among their indications of S. volubilis an illustration with a binominal name, that is to say Sertularia uniflora Ellis, 1768, pl. 19, fig. 9 (there being no related text). The Ellis, 1768, engraving was that used in the later, Ellis & Solander work so that the two names are objectively linked. However, the combination Sertularia uniflora had been used still earlier, by Pallas, 1766, p. 121, and Ellis’s usage was homonymous. [The Pallas species was in fact a junior objective synonym of S. volubilis Linnaeus, 1758 — the other species; details in Cornelius, in prep.] The earliest unpreoccupied name which it is possible to link unequivocally with S. uniflora sens. Ellis, 1768, is Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856a, pp. 359-360, pl. 13, fig. 8. Alder in his text related johnstoni to the illustration of Ellis & Solander, 1786. The type species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, should, therefore, be known as Clytia johnstoni (Alder, 1856a). Most authors have taken C. johnstoni to be subjectively conspecific with Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 213 Medusa hemisphaerica Linnaeus, 1767 (=Clytia hemisphaerica auct.); but the two are respectively hydroid and medusa stages in a genus with many unsolved taxonomic problems and there are still some doubts that they represent the same species (discussion in Cornelius, in prep.). 17. Lamouroux, 1812, originally included three species in Clytia, cited as ‘Sertularia volubilis Ell.’, ‘S. syringa Ell.’ and ‘S. verticillata Ell.’. The references must be to Ellis & Solander, 1786, and not to Ellis, 1755, since binominal names occur only in the later work. The nominal species concerned, as it happens, were all included in Linnaeus, 1758. 18. Although the name Medusa hemisphaerica Linnaeus, 1767, has been attributed to Gronovius 1760, p. 38, by some authors his usage was not strictly binominal (Millard, 1966, p. 477). Similarly, Bedot’s implication (1901, p. 486) that Houttuyn, 1770, p. 423, might have introduced the name hemisphaerica so early as 1761, is misleading. Houttuyn did not use the words ‘Medusa hemisphaerica’ in a binominal sense; and the volume in which they appeared was dated 1770, conveniently following most of the other early works in question. 19. Lastly, Medusa hemisphaerica Linnaeus, 1767, is type species of the genus Thaumantias Eschscholtz, 1829, p. 102 (designated by Forbes, 1848, p. 41). Thaumantias is hence a junior subjective synonym of Clytia. The name Thaumantias was once widely used but no longer finds a place in standard works (e.g. Kramp, 1961). The subjective synonymy of hemisphaerica with the type species of Clytia [namely C. johnstoni (Alder, 185a; see paragraph 16)] issostrong as to make unlikely the future resurrection of Thaumantias. Even if the two species were recognized it is most improbable that they would be placed in separate genera. 4. Other names 20. If the present proposals are adopted certain unfamiliar genus and subgenus names will fall, to the advantage of hydroid nomenclature. 21. The genus Campalaria Hartlaub, 1897, p. 449, was introduced to embrace solely the nominal species Campalaria conferta Hartlaub, 1897. The name Campalaria has apparently been used only once since its introduction, by Hamond, 1957, p. 315, in the combination Laomedea (Campalaria) conferta. The species, itself now regarded as invalid (Cornelius, in prep.), falls within the generic diagnosis given for Laomedea in paragraph 4; and if the proposals in paragraph 28 are accepted, the genus name Campalaria will be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Laomedea as here understood. If the proposals are not accepted, 214 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 then Campalaria would have to replace Laomedea, to the detriment of established usage. 22. The subgenus Eulaomedea Broch, 1910, p. 189, has as type species Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, p. 122, by monotypy. The name would fall as a junior objective synonym of Laomedea. Stechow, 1923b, p. 95, referred Eulaomedea to Laomedea, not recognizing the subgenus, a course with which I agree. But Splettstosser, 1924, p. 424, and Hummelinck, 1936, pp. 51, 57, interpreted the subgenus Eulaomedea widely, that is in the sense in which the authors listed in paragraph 3 understood the genus Laomedea, The genus name Laomedea was applied by Broch, 1910, 1928, SplettstOsser, 1924, and Hummelinck, 1936, to a large group of species comprising, they said, three subgenera: Eulaomedea ' (=Laomedea s. str.), Obelia Péron & Lesueur, 1810, and Gonothyraea Allman, 1864. But the great majority of authors have used Laomedea in the narrow sense and regarded it and Obelia and Gonothyraea as full genera. 23. Apart from subgeneric use without comment by Vervoort, 1946, pp. 284-285, also Vervoort, 1959, p. 316, the name Eulaomedea was not used again until Rees & Thursfield, 1965, p. 101, employed it as a genus name, but likewise without proper explanation. Rees wrote: “The reason for adopting Eulaomedea in preference to Laomedea will be discussed elsewhere; it is sufficient here to state that the type species of Laomedea is a true Obelia producing [a] medusa’; indicating that he had realized the synonymy between Obelia and Laomedea mentioned in paragraph 2. The only other use of Eulaomedea of which I am aware was by Millard, 1975, p. 223, who did not comment on the nomenclatural problems and who used the name in the sense of Laomedea as understood here. Reversing my previous opinion (Cornelius, 1975, pp. 253-254) I recommend conserving the name Laomedea s. str. Although Eulaomedea is available under the Code it has hardly been used. In any case, the oldest available name for the genus under discussion would be Campalaria (see paragraph 21), not Eulaomedea. 24. The subgenus Paralaomedea was apparently introduced by Broch, 1928, p. 74, as Laomedea (Paralaomedea). The taxon was actually first proposed and defined by Splettstosser, 1924, pp. 424-425, but given neither formal subgeneric rank nor a name. Broch, 1928, gave it both, applying the new name Paralaomedea. The subgenus has always included only the species Laomedea neglecta Alder, 1856b, p. 440, pl. 16, figs 1-2, which is type species by monotypy. Hummelinck, 1936, p. 51, and Vervoort, 1946, p. 285, followed Broch’s usage, Vervoort only in his key to species; but the name seems otherwise unused. I have concurred Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 215 (Cornelius, in prep.) with these authors that there might be a case for referring the species neglecta to a supra-specific taxon distinct from other species of Laomedea, on the basis of its reproductive structures. But the acknowledged medusoid nature of the female gonophore of neglecta, described by Splettstésser, 1924, suggests that there are not good grounds for a separation. But if a separation were upheld the name Paralaomedea would be both available and acceptable taxonomically. Meanwhile, and subject to the present proposals being accepted, I regard the subgenus Paralaomedea as a junior subjective synonym of the genus name Laomedea. 25. Broch, 1910, p. 184, and Broch, 1928, p. 73, referred all CAMPANULARIIDAE lacking a hydrothecal diaphragm to the genus Campanularia Lamarck, 1816. He recognized two subgenera: Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, in which medusa release occurred; and Eucampanularia Broch, 1910, p. 184, in which the gonophore was sessile (i.e. in which the medusa was retained and vestigial). Hummelinck, 1936, p. 49-50, and Vervoort, 1946, pp. 268-269, followed Broch’s, 1910, usage. But all subsequent workers have understood the genus Campanularia in the more restricted sense, equivalent to Broch’s subgenus Eucampanularia; and have re- instated Clytia to full genus status. The subgeneric name Eucampanularia has apparently not been used again. The genera Clytia and Campanularia s. str. (=Broch’s Eucampanularia) have been widely regarded as distinct, and there seems no value to classification in following Broch (1910, 1928) in uniting them as subgenera of a single genus. Further, his action was nomenclaturally invalid since it is logically untenable to treat Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, as a subgenus of the younger genus Campanularia Lamarck, 1816. 26. The species Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811, has been designated type species of Eucampanularia Broch, 1910 (by Cornelius, in prep.). If the present proposal is adopted, that volubilis should become type species of Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, then the subgenus name Eucampanularia Broch, 1910, would fall in the objective synonymy of the genus name Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (see paragraph 28). 27. Some names derived from Campanularia and Laomedea are considered as unjustified emendations or incorrect subsequent spellings (Cornelius, in prep.), and hence as invalid or not available: Campanula Westendorp, 1843, p. 23; Lomedea Dana, 1846, p. 689; Campanulata J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, p. 354; Clytea Wright, 1862, p. 308; Clythia J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, pl. 28; Clythia van Beneden, 1866, p. 166; Cmpanularia Mulder & Trebilcock, 1914, p. 11; Laomedia Nutting, 1915, p. 123; Eulaomeda Rees & Thursfield, 1965, p. 102. 216 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 5. Proposals 28. To preserve the established use of the genus names Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, the Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, and having done so to designate the nominal species Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, as type species of that genus; (b) to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, other than that of Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, by Naumov, 1960; (c) to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, and having done so to designate the nominal species Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856a, as type species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857; (b) Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation by Naumov, 1960, ratified by use of the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758; (c) Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above, Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856a; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) flexuosa Alder, 1857, as published in the binomen Laomedea flexuosa (specific name of type species of Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812); (b) volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sertularia volubilis (specific name of type species of Campanularia Lamarck, 1816); (c) johnstoni Alder, 1856a, as published in the binomen Campanularia johnstoni (specific Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 217 name of type species of Clytia Lamouroux, 1812). Acknowledgements I am deeply grateful to Professor W. Vervoort, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, for detailed advice during the prepar- ation of this submission, and for criticizing the manuscript. Drafts of the paper were criticized also by Dr. N.A.H. Millard, South African Museum, Cape Town, by Dr. R.B. Williams of Tring, and by the Secretary of the Commission; and to all of these I am gratefully indebted. REFERENCES AGASSIZ, J.L.R., 1862. Contributions to the natural history of the United States of America. Second monograph. Vol. 4. Boston (Little, Brown & Co.) and London (Tribner & Co.), pp. i-viii, 1-381, (1)-(12), pls 20-35, text-figs 1-50. ALDER, J., 1856a. A notice of some new genera and species of British hydroid zoophytes. Ann, Mag. nat. Hist. (2) vol. 18, pp. 353-362. —— 1856b. Descriptions of three new British zoophytes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) vol. 18, pp. 439-441. —— 1857. A catalogue of the zoophytes of Northumberland and Durham. Trans Tyneside Nat. Fid Cl. vol. 3, pp. 93-162. (Although the wrapper date “ 1856, a footnote on p. 87 of the volume is dated 29 January, 1857. ALLMAN, G.J., 1959. Notes on the hydroid zoophytes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) vol. 4, pp. 137-144. ; —— 1864. On the construction and limitation of genera among the Hydroida. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) vol. 13, pp. 345-380. BARRETT, J.H., & YONGE, C.M., 1958. Collins pocket guide to the sea shore. London (Collins), pp. 1-272, pls 1-40 + I-XL, text-figs 1-179. BEDOT, M., 1901. Materiaux pour servir 4 l’histoire des hydroides. Ire période. Revue suisse Zool. vol. 9, pp. 379-515. —— 1905. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. 2me période (1821 a 1850). Revue suisse Zool. vol. 13, pp. 1-183. —— 1910. Matériaux pour servir 4 Vhistoire des hydroides. 3me période (1851 & 1871). Revue suisse Zool. vol. 18, pp. 189-490. —— 1912. Matériaux pour servir 4 Vhistoire des hydroides. 4me période (1872 4 1880). Revue suisse Zool. vol. 20, pp. 213-469. 218 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 . — — 1916. Matériaux pour servir 4 l’histoire des hydroides. Sme période (1881 4 1890). Revue suisse Zool. vol. 24, pp. 1-349. —— 1918. Matériaux pour servir 4 Vhistoire des hydroides. 6me période (1891 4 1900). Revue suisse Zool. vol. 26 (Suppl.), pp. 1-376. —— 1925. Matériaux pour servir 4 l’histoire des hydroides. 7me période - (1901 4 1910). Revue suisse Zool. vol. 32 (Suppl.), pp. 1-657. BENEDEN, P.-J. VAN, 1866. Recherches sur la faune littorale de Belgique (Polypes). Mém. Acad. R. Sci. Lett. Belg. vol. 36 (2), pp. 1-207. BROCH, H., 1905. Nordsee-Hydroiden von dem norwegischen Fischereidampfer ‘Michael Sars’ in den Jahren 1903-1904 gesammelt, nebst Bemerkungen Uber die Systematik der Tecaphoren Hydroiden. Bergens Mus. Arb. (1905) (6), pp. 1-26. —— 1910. Die Hydroiden der arktischen Meere. Fauna arct. vol. 5, pp. 127-248. —— 1928. Hydrozoa I. Tierwelt N.- u. Ostsee vol. 3(b), pp. 1-100. BUCHANAN, J.B., 1957. The hydroid fauna of the Gold Coast. Revue Zool. Bot. afr. vol. 56, pp. 349-372. CORNELIUS, P.F.S., 1975. The hydroid species of Obelia (Coelenterata, Hydrozoa: Campanulariidae), with notes on the medusa stage. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.) vol. 28, pp. 249-293. (In preparation.) Hydroids and medusae of the family Campanulariidae recorded from the eastern North Atlantic, with a World synopsis of genera. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.) DANA, J.D., 1846, 1849. United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Under the Command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N. Zoophytes. Philadelphia (Lea & Blanchard), vol. 1 (1846) text, pp. i-vii, 1-740; vol. 2 (1849) atlas, pp. 1-12, pls 1-61. (Dating of this work follows Haskell, 1942, pp. 50, 54.) ELLIS, J., 1755. An essay towards a natural history of the corallines, and other marine productions of the like kind, commonly found on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. London (John Ellis [himself] ), pp. i-xvii, 10 pp. of contents (unpaginated), 1-103, pls 1-38 + one unnumbered. —— 1768. An account of the Actina sociata, or clustered animal-flower, lately found on the sea-coasts of the new-ceded Islands. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London (1767) vol. 57, pp. 428-437. — & SOLLANDER. D.C., 1786. The natural history of many curious and uncommon zoophytes, collected from various parts of the globe. London (B. White & P. Elmsly), pp. i-xii, 1-206, pls 1-63 + pp. 207-208 following. Edited by Martha Watt. ESCHSCHOLTZ, F., 1829. System der Acalephen. Berlin (F. Dummler), pp. i-vi (p. vi being misnumbered iv), 1-190, pls 1-16. FORBES, E., 1848. A monograph of the British naked-eyed medusae: with figures of all the species. London (Ray Society), pp. i-vi (unnumbered), 1-104, pls 1-13. GRONOVIUS L.-T., 1760. Observationes de animalculis aliquot marinae aquae innatantibus atque in littoribus Belgicis obviis. Acta helv. vol. 4, pp. 35-40. HAMOND, R., 1957. Notes on the Hydrozoa of the Norfolk coast. J. Linn. Soc. London (Zool.) vol. 43, pp. 294-324. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 219 HARTLAUB, C., 1897. Die Hydromedusen Helgolands. Zweiter Bericht. Wiss. Meeresunters. Helgol. (N.F.) vol. 2 (Heft 1), pp. 449-536. HASKELL, D.C., 1942. The United States Exploring Expedition, 1838-1842 and its publications 1844-1874. New York (The New York Public Library), pp. i-xii, 1-188, pls 1-5 (unnumbered). HINCKS, T., 1853. Further notes on British zoophytes, with descriptions of new species. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) vol. 11, pp. 178-185. —— 1868. A history of the British hydroid zoophytes. London(Van Voorst), vol. 1 (text) pp. itxvii, 1-338, text-figs 1-45, frontis.; vol. 2 (plates) pls 1-67. (In most copies each plate carries the date 1869, but in some the date is 1868. All examples of vol. 2 I have seen have the title page dated 1868, regardless of the date on each plate.) HOUTTUYN, M., 1770. Natuurlyke Historie of uitvoerige beschryving der Dieren, Planten en Mineraalen, volgens het Samenstel van den Heer Linnaeus. Met naauwkeurige Afbeeldingen. Eeerste Deels, veertiende Stuk. De Wormen en Slakken. Amsterdam (De Erven van F. Houttuyn), pp. i-vi, 1-532. HUMMELINCK, P.W., 1936. Hydropoliepen. Flora Fauna Zuiderzee (Suppl.), pp. 41-64. KRAMP, P.L., 1935. Polypdyr (Coelenterata). I. Ferskvandspolypper og Goplepolypper. Danm. Fauna vol. 41, pp. 1-208. —— 1938. Marine Hydrozoa, a. Hydroida. Zoology Iceland vol. 2(5A), pp. 1-82. —— 1961. Synopsis of the medusae of the World. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. vol. 40, pp. 1-469. LAMARCK, J.B.P.A. DE, 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres. Vol. 2. Paris (Verdiére), pp. 1-568. LAMOUROUX, J.V.F., 1812. Extrait d’un mémoire sur la classification des polypiers coralligénes non entiérement pierreux. Nouv. Bull. sci. Soc. Dhilom. Paris vol. 3, pp. 181-188. LELOUP, E., 1952. Coelentérés. Faune Belg., pp. 1-283. LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema naturae. 10th edition. Vol. 1. Holmiae (L. Salvii), pp. i-iv, 1-824. —— 1767.Systema naturae. 12th edition. Vol. 1, pars 2. Holmiae (L. Salvii), pp. 533-1328 + 36 pp. of indexes and appendix, unpaginated. MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 1957. Plymouth marine fauna. Plymouth (Marine Biological Association of the U.K.), 3rd edition, pp. i-xliii, 1-460. MAYER, A.G., 1910. Medusae of the World. Volume II. The hydromedusae. Washington (Carnegie Institution), pp. 231-498, i-xv, pls 30-55, text- figs 121-327. MILLARD, N.A.H., 1966. The Hydrozoa of the south and west coasts of South Africa. Part III. The Gymnoblastea and small families of Calyptoblastea. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. vol. 48, pp. 427-487. —— 1975. Monograph on the Hydroida of southern Africa. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. vol. 68, pp. 1-513. MULDER, J.F., & TREBILCOK, R.E., 1914. Victorian Hydroida. With description of new species. Geelong Nat. vol. 6, pp. 6-15. NAUMOYV, D.V., 1960. Gidroidy i gidromeduzy morskikh, solonovatovodnykh 220 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 i presnovodnykh basseinov S.S.S.R. Fauna S.S.S.R. vol. 70, pp. 1-626. — 1969. Hydroids and hydromedusae of the U.S.S.R. Fauna S.S.S.R. vol. 70, pp. 1-660. (Israel Program for Scientific Translations cat. no. 5108.) NUTTING, C.C., 1915. American hydroids. Part III. The Campanularidae and the Bonneviellidae. Spec. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus., pp. 1-126. PALLAS, P.S., 1766. Elenchus zoophytorum. The Hague (F. Varrentrapp), ; pp. i-xxvii, 1-451. PERON, F., & LESUEUR, C.-A., 1810. Tableau des caractéres génériques et spécifiques de toutes les esptces de méduses connues jusqu’a ce jour. Annls. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (1809) vol. 14, pp 325-366. (Dating follows Sherborn, C.D., 1914, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) vol. 13, pp. 365-368.) POCHE, F., 1914. Das sytem der Coelenterata. Archiv. Naturgesch. vol. 80 (Abt. A, Heft 5), pp. 47-128. PRENANT, M., & BOBIN, G., 1956. Bryozoaires. Premiére partie. Entoproctes, phylactolemes, cténostomes. Faune Fr. vol. 60, pp. 1-398. RALPH, P.M., 1957. New Zealand thecate hydroids. Part I. Campanulariidae and Campanulinidae. Trans. R. Soc. N.Z. vol. 84, pp. 811-854. REES, W.J., & THURSFIELD, S., 1965. The hydroid collections of James Ritchie. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. (B) vol. 69, pp. 34-220. ROBINS, M.W., 1969. The marine flora and fauna of the Isles of Scilly. Cnidaria and Ctenophora. J. nat. Hist. vol. 3, pp. 329-343. SPLETTSTOSSER, W., 1924. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Gattung Laomedea (sensu Broch). Zool. Jb. (Syst.) vol. 48, pp. 367-432. STECHOW, E., 1919. Neue Ergebnisse auf dem Gebiete der Hydroidenfor- schung. Miinchener Med. Wochenschr. (1919) vol. 30, pp. 852-853. —— 1923a. Neue Hydroiden der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition, nebst Bemerkungen uber einige andre Formen. Zool. Anz. vol. 56, pp. 1-20. —— 1923b. Zur Kenntnis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres, Amerikas und anderer Gebiete. II Tiel. Zool. Jb. (Syst.) vol. 47, pp. 29-270. TEISSIER, G., 1965. Inventaire de la faune marine de Roscoff. Cnidaires — cténaires. Roscoff (Station Biologique de Roscoff), pp. 1-64. THOMPSON, J.V., 1830. Memoir V. On Polyzoa, a new animal discovered as an inhabitant of some zoophites — with a description of the newly instituted genera of Pedicellaria and Vesicularia, and their species. Zoological Researches, and Illustrations: or natural History of non- descript or imperfectly known animals, vol. 1 (4), pp. 89-102. (Dating of this work follows Sherborn, C.D., 1922, Index Animalium part 1, p. CXxii.) VERVOORT, W., 1946. Hydrozoa (C I). A. Hydropolypen. Fauna Ned. vol. 14, pp. 1-336. — 1959. The Hydroida of the tropical west coast of Africa. Atlantide Rep. vol. 5, pp. 211-325. WESTENDORP, G.D., 1843. Recherches sur les polypiers flexibles de la Belgique et particuliérement des environs d’Ostende. Annis Soc. Médico-Chirurgicale Bruges vol. 4, pp. ? (not seen). (Reprinted with same title, 1843, Bruges (F. de Pachtere), pp. 1-48, pl. 1; seen.) WRIGHT, T.S., 1862. On the reproduction of Thaumantias inconspicua. Q. J. microsc. Sci. (N.S.) vol. 2, pp. 221-222, 308. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 221 SEMBLIS MARGINATA PANZER, 1799 (INSECTA, PLECOPTERA): ADDITIONAL STEPS NEEDED TO CONSERVE THIS NAME. Z.N.(S.)1799 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature INTRODUCTION The present application began in 1967 with the publication by Dr Carlo Consiglio (University of Rome) of a paper in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, pp. 246-7 in which he showed, first, that Perla maxima (Scopoli, 1763), originally described in Phryganea, was applied by most authors (following Klapalek, 1923) to Perla grandis Rambur, 1842 (of which Perla alpicola Klapalek, 1900 is a synonym); and, secondly, that it was in fact a senior synonym of Perla marginata (Panzer, 1799), originally described in Semblis, a name in general use. He therefore asked for the suppression of Phryganea maxima Scopoli, 1763. 2. In 1969 Professor Brinck communicated a resolution of the Fourth Symposium on Plecoptera in opposition to Dr Consiglio’s proposal. The Commission’s Secretariat therefore took no further action on the case. In 1978, however, Professor Brinck wrote again to draw attention to Zwick’s 1973 monograph on Plecoptera (Das Tierreich vol. 94) in which Dr Consiglio’s view was upheld. He said that this view was now supported by him as well as by Professor Illies and Dr Zwick (both of Limnologische Flussstation, Schlitz, BRD). In further correspondence, he agreed that the relationship between Phryganea maxima Scopoli, 1763 and Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 would be better settled by the ‘relative precedence’ procedure than by outright suppression of the senior synonym. 3. Dr Consiglio’s original proposal, modified to take account of the ‘relative precedence’ procedure, was accordingly put to the Commission on 20 August 1979 in Voting Paper (1979)10 and was accepted by 17 votes to 2, with one abstention and three late affirmative votes. It was only when I came to prepare the Opinion giving effect to the Commission’s decision that I discovered that Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 — the name given precedence by the Commission’s vote — was technically invalid as a junior primary homonym of Semblis marginata Fabricius, 1793. This opened up a whole range of further complications, which would never have been resolved without the patient and generous help of Professor Brinck and Dr Peter Zwick, for which I am most grateful. 222 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 THE IDENTITY OF SEMBLIS MARGINATA FABRICIUS, 1793 4. Semblis marginata Fabricius, 1793, seems to have been completely overlooked for nearly 140 years. The only citations known to Dr Zwick are: Pictet, 1833, Ann. Sci. nat. vol. 28, p. 53 Burmeister, 1839, Handb. Ent. vol. II (2)(ii), p. 880 Newman, 1839, Mag. nat. Hist. N.S. vol. 3, p. 36 Pictet, [1842], Hist. nat. Ins., Monogr. Névr., Perlidés, p. 200. In all these cases the name is given as an invalid, though senior, synonym of Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799. 5. Through the kindness of Dr Tuxen and Professor Brinck, Fabricius’s type of Semblis marginata was lent to Dr Zwick for study. He found it to be a female of Marthamea vitripennis (Burmeister, 1839). He further reported: ‘Perla vitripennis Burmeister, 1839, p. 880, was described recognizably and has been in continuous use at least since the excellent redescription by Pictet, [1842], based on the female type which is now lost. P. bicolor Burmeister, 1839, has been thought to be the male of P. vitripennis since Pictet, [1842] and the surviving type that I saw some years ago confirms this view. There has been no other ambiguity about the identity of P. vitripennis and the name has been used in a uniform way all the time. This alone makes it worth preserving, and warrants the suppression of its unused senior synonym Semblis marginata Fabricius, 1793, which has never been considered to denote a valid species, and which has been completely forgotten for over 100 years. This is the more desirable because Perla vitripennis is widely known as the type species of Marthamea Klapalek, 1907.’ THE NOMENCLATURAL VALIDITY OF PERLA VITRIPENNIS BURMEISTER, 1839 6. The nomenclatural validity of Perla _ vitripennis Burmeister, 1839 clearly depends on the action of the first reviser who considered that name and P. bicolor as synonyms and clearly selected one as the valid name. It has not been easy to establish the facts on this point. Schneider, 1848, Uebers. Arb. Verdnd. schles. Ges. vaterl. Kultur im Jahre 1847, p. 113, was the first definitely to treat both names as denoting one species; but when he spoke of males he used the n2™e P. bicolor, and when of females, the name P. vitripennis. In 1885, Z. Entomol. Breslau, p. 30, he used P. vitripennis as the valid name, but did not cite P. bicolor as a synonym. 7. In 1888, Rostock, Neuroptera germanica, die Netzfliigler Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 223 Deutschlands (Zwickau), p. 162, clearly used P. vitripennis Burmeister as the valid name (by printing it in bold-faced type) and cited P. bicolor as a synonym. This first reviser action is the foundation of all current practice, from Klapalek, 1907, Rospr. Ceske Akad., ser. 2, vol. 16(16), p. 19, onwards. No action by the Commission is necessary on this point. 8. The following references satisfy the requirements of Article 79b in demonstrating usage of Perla vitripennis Burmeister, 1839, as a valid name (the last such use of P. bicolor was by Albarda, 1889, Cat. Névroptéres Pays-Bas): 1940. Claassen, P.W. Cat. Plecoptera of the World. Mem. Cornell Univ. agric. exper. Station, vol. 232, pp. 1-235 1942. Vasiliu, G.D. & Costea, A., Syst. Uberpriifung Steinfliegen (Plecoptera) Rumaniens und deren geogr. Ausdehnungsflache. Anal. Inst. Cerc.pisc. Roman. vol. 1, pp. 191-204 1951. Despax, R. Plécoptéres. Faune de France, vol. 55, pp. 1-280 1955. Illies, J. Steinfliegen oder Plecoptera. In Dahl (ed.), Tierwelt Deutschlands, vol. 43, pp. 1-150 1957. Winkler, O. Plecoptera slovenska. Biol. prace vol. 3(7), pp. 1-98 1959. Aubert, J. Plecoptera. Insecta helvetica, vol. 1, pp. 1-138 1963. Les Plécopteéres de la péninsule ibérique. Eos, vol. 39, pp. 23-107 1966. Zhiltzova, L.A. (Plecoptera of European USSR outside the Caucasus). Entomol. Obozr vol. 45, pp. 525-549 1966. Illies, J. Katalog der rezenten Plecoptera. Das Tierreich, vol. 82, pp. I-XXX, pp. 1-631 1966. Berthelemy, C. Rech. écol. biogéogr. Plécoptéres et Coléoptéres d’eau courante (Hydraena et Elminthidae) des Pyrénées. Ann. Limnol. vol. 2, pp. 227-458 1967. Russev, B. (Hydrobiol. invest. Marica, II). Bull. Inst. Zool. Mus. Sofia vol. 24, pp. 87-99 1972. Zwick, P. Die Plecopteren Pictets und Burmeisters, mit Angaben iiber weiteren Arten. Rev. suisse Zool. vol. 78 (1971), pp. 1123-1194 Insecta: Plecoptera. Phylogenetisches System und Katalog. Das Tierreich, vol. 94, pp. I-XXXII, 1-465 1974. Kis, B. Plecoptera. Fauna Rep. soc. Romania vol. 8 (7), pp. 1-273 1980. Kittel, W. Widelnice (Plecoptera) Rzeki Pilicy, I. Acta Univ. lodz. ser. 2, vol. 9, pp. 79-118. DESIGNATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF MARTHAMEA KLAPALEK, 1907 9. Marthamea was established by Klapalek, 1907, Rospr. Ceske Akad., ser. 2, vol. 16 (16), p. 19, for P. vitripennis Burmeister, 1839 and P. selysi Pictet, [1842], p. 208. Neither was designated as type species. It was not until 1923, Colls. zool. Selys Longchamps, p. 97, that he clearly designated P. vitripennis as type species. At the same time he cited P. vitripennis and P. bicolor together and clearly chose the former as the valid name. 1973. 224 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 10. The CONCLUSIONS International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked to take the following actions, in addition to those that it has already taken on Voting Paper (1979) 10: (1) (2) (3) (4) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name marginata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Semblis marginata, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; to place the generic name Marthamea Klapalek, 1907 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Klapalek, 1923, Perla vitripennis Burmeister, 1839, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name vitripennis Burmeister, 1839, as published in the binomen Perla vitripennis (specific name of type species of Marthamea Klapdlek, 1907) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the specific name marginata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Semblis marginata, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above. This application is supported by Dr Peter Zwick, Professor Dr Joachim Illies, and Professor Dr Per Brinck. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 225 NOMIOIDES SCHENCK, 1866: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA, HALICTIDAB). Z.N.(S.) 2178 By Yu. A. Pesenko and I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad, USSR) 1. Schenck, 1866, p. 333, established a new genus Nomioides for one species, Andrena pulchella Jurine, 1807 (with Apis parvula Fabricius, 1798 cited in synonymy). There was no redescription of the species but a reference was given to a previous good description of A. pulchella by Schenck, 1859, p. 295). . 2. It was shown by Mocsary, 1879, p. 30, and accepted by Handlirsch, 1888, pp. 398-399 and Bliithgen, 1925, p. 7, that Schenck, 1859, has misidentified Andrena pulchella. Nomioides pulchellus Jurine sensu Schenck, 1859, 1866, non Jurine, 1807, is identical with Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790, p. 109, while Andrena pulchella Jurine, 1807 is a junior synonym of Andrena variegata Olivier, 1789, p. 139, now Nomioides variegatus. The identity of Apis parvula Fabricius is doubtful; it is most probably a synonym of Nomioides minutissimus (Rossi) or of some other related species. 3. As Schenck misidentified the type species of his new genus, the type species should be designated by the Commission (Code, Art. 70a). . Sandhouse, 1943, p. 578, and Michener, 1965, p. 183, 1978, p. 504, indicated as type species of Nomioides ‘Andrena pulchella Jurine, 1807 = Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790’, but this synonymy is wrong (see above). No other citations of the type species of Nomioides are known to us. 5. It is evident that A. minutissima Rossi (= N. pulchella sensu Schenck), i.e. the species actually before Schenck, and not A. pulchella Jurine, i.e. the species named by Schenck, is understood as type species by all later authors. For example, Bliithgen, 1925, p.4, distinguished the N. minutissima group which was later treated by Cockerell, 1935, p. 90, and Bliithgen, 1937, p. 3, as the subgenus Nomioides s.str., while Bliithgen, 1937, p.3, named the N. variegata group as the subgenus Eunomioides. Therefore designation of Apis minutissima as type species of Nomioides seems to be the best solution. 6. An additional problem is the gender of the name Nomioides. As indicated by Bliithgen, 1925, p. 6, Schenck, Handlirsch, Morawitz and Margetti used the name as feminine, and Mocsary, Friese, Cockerell, Alfken, Gribodo and Debski as masculine, while if we consider the origin of -ides from the Greek eidos, the name would be neuter. In the International Code of 226 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 Botanical Nomenclature the names ending in -oides are regarded as feminine (Recommendation 75A(4)) while in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature such names are cited as examples of masculine (Art. 30a(ii)). Bliithgen, 1925, accepted the gender as feminine following Schenck’s original view, and this gender was used by all subsequent authors. If we change the gender to masculine according to the Zoological Code, the endings of 135 available specific names in Nomioides must be changed. However, we consider that an exception from the Code is not warranted. 7. Nomioides is accepted as distinct by all modern workers. It includes 65 species which are distributed in all the Old World except the northern part of the Palaearctic. 8. In accordance with the above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Nomioides Schenck made prior to the ruling now asked for, and having done so, to designate Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790, as type species of this genus; (2) to place the generic name Nomioides Schenck, 1866 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in 1 above, Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name minutissima Rossi, 1790 as published in the binomen Apis minutissima (specific name of type species of Nomioides Schenck, 1866) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BLUTHGEN, P., 1925. Die Bienengattung Nomioides Schenck. Stett. entomol. Ztg, vol. 85, pp. 1-100. — 1937. Halictinae (Hymenoptera: Apidae) von den Kanarischen Inseln. Comment. biol., vol. 6, (11), pp. 1-11. COCKERELL, T.D.A., 1935. Scientific results of the Vernay-Lang Kalahari Expedition, March to September, 1930. Hymenoptera (Apoidea). Ann. Transvaal Mus., vol. 17, pp. 63-94. HANDLIRSCH, A., 1888. Die Bienengattung Nomioides Schenck. Verh. zool.- bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 38, pp. 395-405. MICHENER, Ch. D., 1965. A classification of the bees of the Australian and South Pacific regions. Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 130, pp. 1-362. ——1978. The classification of Halictine bees: tribes and Old World non-parasitic genera with strong venation. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., vol. 51, pp. 501-538. MOCSARY, A., 1879. Data nova ad faunam hymenopterorum Hungariae Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 227 meridionalis. Mathem. és. term. K6zl. (Publ. math. phys. Acad. Hung. Sci.) vol. 16, pp. 1-70. OLIVIER, G.A., 1789. Encyclopédie méthodique, Histoire naturelle, vol. 4, Insectes. ROSSI, P., 1790. Fauna Etrusca, vol. 2. Liburni (Pisis). SANDHOUSE, G.A., 1943. The type species of the genera and subgenera of bees. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 92, pp. 519-619. SCHENCK, A., 1859. Die nassauischen Bienen. Revision und Erganzung der friiheren Bearbeitungen (Jahrbticher des Vereins ftir Naturkunde im Herzogthum Nassau Heft 7, 9, und 10). Jahrb. Ver. Naturk. Nassau, vol. 14, pp. 1-415. —1866. Verzeichniss der nassauischen Hymenoptera Aculeata mit Hinzufiigung der tibrigen deutschen Arten. Berlin entomol. Zeitschr. vol. 10, pp. 317-369. 228 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 CORRECTIONS TO DATA OF THREE FAMILY-GROUP NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES ON THE OFFICIAL LIST (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). (Z.N.(S.) 2187. By C.F. Cowan (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over Sands, Cumbria, LAI1 7DR, England) By Direction 99, published 16th May, 1958, nine butterfly Family-Group names were placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with name numbers 225-233. 2. Names 226, 230, and 232, respectively SATYRIDAE, DANAIDAE and NYMPHALIDAE, are correctly listed. 3. Names 225, MORPHIDAE, 227, COLIADINAE and 233, PAPILIONIDAE have already been the subjects of requests (Cases Z.N.(S.) 2201, 2186 and 2245 respectively). 4. Meanwhile the following minor facts are brought to notice regarding the entries for the remaining three names: No. 228 ‘ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, 1844, Cat. Méth. ...p. 2’. This date and reference repeats Duponchel’s earlier valid proposal of this name: ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, [1835] (in Godart, J.B.) Hist. nat. Lép. Pap. France, Suppl. vol. 1(livr. 23), pp. 394, 395. No. 229 ‘APATURIDAE Boisduval, 1840. Gén. Ind. méth. Europ. Lép. etc.’ Correct, but the title was in Latin (Genera et Index methodicus Europaeorum Lepidopterorum), and the accents should be deleted. No. 231 ‘LIMENITIDINAE Butler, 1869, Cat. diurn. Lep. Fabricius, p. 57.’ As Sherborn, 1934 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. oe 13: 311) showed, the date of publication of this work prefaced on 3 Dec. 1869) was [12 February 1870]. 5. Itis recommended that the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology be corrected in accordance with paragraph 4 above. Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main 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 dona- tions 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. © 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. Volume 38, Part 4 ISSN 0007 - 5167 pp. i-iv, 229— 318 T.P., I-VIII 30 November 1981 AS tA J 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 Price £10.00 (All rights reserved) : : 7 » é Via ite a! —— A. ; Re VELA) oh be ' Nar. oe ei b arc ' oni? it —— art Oe a ~ pt ae wat Gey | ee ee eae hat = \ = co . ~ ps rs | war wt: : 8 “yy! be % ti OR ee 3 “ai canes aaite or Pep cite pa ie e + s . Ms big’ £4 ) et he eae ae eae r99 i ‘ eae cam YM ~ fs! r é e ri cm | : “i * A a tz ar’ “ae! .¥ a | me Ra ab 7 Fis f eee a i A Pp hy a ete Se i a es 2 <>. +s a ) ss 7 , ‘ , : a 4 be ‘wy Su a why . it i e a, eer a Pabst ; ce ae 4 ei: aT \ Witbyek - a Be pee: §. j a ut hy . ~ o- ’ x Ma, ad) ye Wee a sh et ty eae “ . Ftp . . s\ o 7] = 4 : “so ; < _ 4 J ® 4 oe oe i pet oot nh ee THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., 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 5BD). 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) Prof. T. HABE (Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido, Shimizu City 414 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 Tucumdén, 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, 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 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, Paris, 75005, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, 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 (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, 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. GOGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdtsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) 27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 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) Dr. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. Barry Cox Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ........ (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain DABS 2 ibe R aay, Ss sae. cee RE (e)c CListiofmewiapplications po: faseeesencted & osteate iw cite Special announcements: -qessh, et nee eee. Se SL Financial Report, 1980 and Accounts of the International Trust for ZoologicaliNomenclathrestisos 35-b 052: 3.oncaseeb bent. beak nee Comments On the proposed suppression of Rafinesque, 1822, “On the turtles of the Wnited\Statess, (EB: Holthuis) i2e3 FCB ee PES, cece On the proposed conservation of Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda)(L:BeHolthais)! ..2. teeth 2 2 Oe aes On a request for a change in Article 40 of the Code (W.O. Cernohorsky) On the proposal that Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 and generic names ending in -chromis be ruled to be masculine (W.I. Follett & LJ. Dempstes) toss foas:0atextee sf seredeeeris eo ks..baatcepeas td x hook On the proposed conservation of the generic name Typus Sellards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata),(D.L.F Sealy)) £225....i.kecse0 5 2 .0cet anne On the proposed conservation of Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L.B. Holthuis) .....................2.0.00000 Commission Report The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of Second Vote on proposals on Parataxa (The Secretary) ...................... Opinions Opinion 1188. Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 (Insecta, EACH te CMISETVERE 555 cnn ooo 2-00 sags ae een ae teats 3 Opinion 1189. CIRCINAE in Aves and Mollusca: removal of the BRCOMINGINY TINY ogee ss nn ec cece SAK oR a tees ane Sa Bei Opinion 1190. Pterois zebra Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829 (Pisces, Scorpaenidae) placed on the Official List ................... Opinion 1191. Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 (Hemiptera, Berytinidae); lectotype designation confirmed ....................... Opinion 1192. Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873 (Insecta, Homoptera, Coccidae): neotype designated ....................00.005 Opinion 1193. Ceratophysella Bérner, 1932 (Insecta, Collembola) conserved iil Page 229 229 229 230 233 236 237 237 284 286 303 238 Opinion 1194. Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): neotype ACSIB DAE le erie on Fad cl peste pad Pe rb pemadocons yo ndeh Poe «2 = ERAS Opinion 1195. Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda): the type species is Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 ...... Opinion 1196. Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): designation of type species and of neotype for that species ........ Opinion 1197. Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825, C. comptonii Gray, 1847, C. bicolor Gaskoin, 1849 and C. angustata Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda): placed on the Official List ...............-....:.eseeeeee Opinion 1198. Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) suppressed ................06000eeeeee nese es Direction 109. Seven family-group names in Insecta, Heteroptera placed.on Official List (2.2... 2202 5.05. cceddsce ec eck wet leceseedee conten sens Direction 110. /xodes Latreille, 1795 (Arachnida, Acarina): entry in Official List of generic names confirmed .................4:0+eeeeeeeee New and Revived Cases Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Lacertilia): proposed designation of a type species by use of the plenary powers (The Secretary) ... Typus_ Sellards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata): proposed conservation under plenary powers (F.M. Carpenter & P. Wihrallgg hy Sertedi Bie det Sad sk tot Yn Sede Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Heteroptera): proposed nomenclatural variation (I.M. Kerzhner) .i.........0.0.2.5.0.cc0tbeoscececececensenss nes Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Byrrhidae): proposed conservation (M. Mroczkowski) .............:22--0ssseee+s Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia): proposals to clarify the type species of the genus (G.H. Brown) ............-. Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation (A.R. Banner & D.M. Banner) ............---.2:--00 256 259 266 270 274 276 280 283 285 288 292 294 297 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 38, part 4 (pp. 229-318), T.P., I-VIII 30 November, 1981 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal cir- cumstances the Commission may start to vote on applications pub- lished 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 (that marked with an asterisk involves the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b): (1) Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Lacertilia), proposed designation of a type species by use of the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1172. The Secretary. (2) Typus Sellards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata), proposed conservation under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2359. F.M. Carpenter & P. Whalley. (3) Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Heteroptera), pro- posed nomenclatural validation. Z.N.(S.) 2148. I.M. Kerzhner. *(4) Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Cole- optera, Byrrhidae), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2317. M. Mroczkowski. (5) Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia), proposals to clarify the type species of the genus. Z.N.(S.) 1986. G.H. Brown. (6) Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2370. A.R. & D.M. Banner. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applica- tions have been received since the publication of vol. 38(3) on 30 July 1981 (those marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b.): (1) Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (Diptera, EMPIDIDAE), proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2380. M. Chvala & K.G.V. Smith. (2) Proposal to regulate the names of taxa above the family 230 (3) ® (5) (6) (7) *(8) (9) *(10) (11) (12) (13) *(14) (15) (16) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 group. Z.N.(S.) 2381. A. Rasnitsyn. Leptobrachium parvum Boulenger, 1893 (Amphibia, Anura), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2382. A. Dubois. Hyla reinwardtii Schlegel, 1840 (?) (Amphibia, Anura), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2383. A. Dubois. Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), pro- posed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2384. D.S. Fletcher & I.W.B. Nye. Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2385. N.J. Cazzaniga. “Onomatophore”, possible use of, in the Code. Z.N.(S.) 2386. The Secretary. Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 (Rhizopoda, Amoebida), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2387. F.C. Page. Generic names, proposed standard procedure for deter- mining gender. Z.N.(S.) 2388. G.C. Steyskal. Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Aphidoidea), proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2389. H.L.G. Stroyan. Guignotus Guignot, 1945 (Insecta, Coleoptera), pro- posed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2391. O. Bistrom. Cythere oblonga Brady, 1866; C. pavonia Brady, 1866 and C. crispata Brady, 1868 (Crustacea, Ostracoda), proposed validation of lectotypes. Z.N.(S.) 2392. J. Athersuch. Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera, SIMULIIDAE), proposed neotype designation. Z.N.(S.) 2393. I.A. Rubtsov. Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915; S. ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844 (Insecta, Diptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2394. I.A. Rubtsov. Agromyza Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera), proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2395. G.C. Steyskal and K.A. Spencer. Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2396. G.C. Steyskal and K.A. Spencer. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE We announce with great regret the death of Dr G.F. de Witte, and also the resignation of Dr N.E. Hickin, to whom we Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 231 express our thanks for his many years of service on the Trust. We are pleased to announce the appointments to the Trust of Professor Barry Cox (King’s College, University of London) and Dr E.P.F. Rose, T.D. (Bedford College, University of London). SIZE AND PRICE OF BULLETIN The number of New Applications and Comments already in proof awaiting publication remains substantial and a number of Opinions are also ready for printing. We shall therefore try to main- tain the Bulletin at its present size, as enlarged by 12 pages for each of the four parts of Volume 38 (1981), throughout 1982. Despite ever rising costs, the Trust is glad to announce that the price of Vol- ume 39, for 1982, will be held at the current 1981 price of £40 per volume of four parts. PUBLICITY FOR THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION On 23 October, 1981 the Secretary of the Commission, Mr R.V. Melville, addressed the Cambridge College of Arts and Technology on the work of the Commission. His theme was “Zoological Nomenclature: its importance to the non-taxonomist”. FINANCIAL SUPPORT The Finance Report for 1980 published in this present issue of the Bulletin (page 233) shows that the Trust desperately needs addi- tional funds if the work of the Commission is to continue on even its present scale. We renew our appeal (Bulletin, volume 38, part 3, page 155) to the generosity of all readers and indeed of all zoologists and others who stand to benefit from the Commission’s work. In the meantime, we acknowledge with grateful thanks the following donations, received since the publication of volume 38, part 3 of the Bulletin on 30 July, 1981: The Charitable Trust Committee of the British National Oil Corporation; Professor C.D. Michener (University of Kansas, U.S.A.); Professor S.J. Gould (Museum of Com- parative Zoology, Harvard, U.S.A.); Dr D.F. Waterhouse (CSIRO, Department of Entomology, Canberra, Australia). NOMINATIONS TO FILL COMMISSIONER VACANCIES In addition to the announcement made in the Bulletin, volume 38, part 3, page 154, a notice was sent through the good offices of the Secretariat of the International Union of Biological Sciences to all the national adhering bodies of the I.U.B.S. about the vacancies on the Commission and inviting nominations to fill them. We have so far received nine nominations. 232 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 XXI GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES: 22-28 AUGUST, 1982 Readers of the Bulletin know of the forthcoming General As- sembly of the I.U.B.S. at Ottawa in 1982. The Section on Zoological Nomenclature of the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. will welcome the participation of local zoologists interested in nomenclature. We shall ask the local organizers of the Assembly to notify their colleagues of this and to invite them to apply to Dr Harold Cogger, Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W., Australia (Secretary of the Division of Zoology) for recognition as members of the Section. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 4 November 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 233 FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1980 The sales of the International Code, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Opinions and Official Lists amounted to £10,447 during 1980 (£8,924 in 1979). The printing costs of the Bulletin and distribution of the publications were £4,002 (£4,422) and the supporting services and administration £8,634 (£10,404). As the zoologist appointed last year to assist part-time was not employed after February 1980 through lack of funds, expenditure on the salaries was less in 1980. However, towards the end of 1980, the work increased generally, especially that on raising money for the Trust. As a result it was necessary to engage a part-time employee to help with the production of the Bulletin which is the visible link between the Commission and zoologists all over the world and, as such, plays a vital role in the life of the Commission. The working deficit for the year was £2,222 (£5,937) covered by Bank deposit interest of £1,555 (£673) and donations from member countries of the International Union of Biological Sciences amounting to £1,330 (£2,334). Grants from H.M. Government made by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (U.K.) via the Royal Society amounted to £5,000 and from the International Union of Biological Sciences, £4,281. This year ended with a surplus of £2,942 (£2,070) giving revenue reserves of £10,767 (£7,825). Provision for the publication of the 3rd edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was made by the setting up of a special account containing a specific donation of £5,000 from a member of the Trust and £7,000 transferred from the revenue reserve. It should be noted that the annual grant from the U.K. Government through the Royal Society will come to an end in 1981 and that from IUBS may cease in 1982. Cost free accommodation for the Trust’s and_ the Commission’s offices and the services of the members of the Secretariat, which are remunerated at nominal rates all help the Trust at this crucial time to keep the work of the Commission going. However, it cannot be stressed too strongly that the Commission’s work can no longer be funded in this unrealistic way. A target of at least £50,000 a year has been set to finance the Commission’s work. To enable it to develop its services more fully would require an additional £15,000 a year. The appended accounts and balance sheet were adopted at the Annual General Meeting of the Trust held on 2nd June, 1981. F.G.W. JONES Managing Director and Secretary, International Trust for Zoological 22 July, 1981 Nomenclature. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 234 a i I a spunj dy} Wo payeooy[e YOO LF pue UOKeUOp Iy1DAdS kB se PAAIoIaI YYN' SF JO SISISUOD ‘oINyejOUIWION [Bo1d0]00Z JO apod jeuoneussjuy oy) Jo UOIPY pig oy) Jo SuNnuid oy} 10J spews uorsiAoId oY], *Z ‘panyea udaq JOU sey SUOROTIGNY JO Y90I§ OYL “| ‘SALON €v LOL’ CCF 00°000°71 er’ LOL'Ol 8767 SO'S78°L Ev LOL‘ 7CF €0°S76'E 86'°SLPZ S0'6br'T 9b 769°97 LZ L0v'97 €0°901°7Z I9°LTT ELL b 61 16¢ ; €c 60S cr'008 0861 ‘UAAWAOA ISTE LV SV LAAHS HONV TIVE (ZION) NOISIAOUd OIAIOAdS 0861 103 snjding 6L6I ‘19quiacaq ISTE Je DouRleEg AAUASAY ANNAAAA SGNNd GALV TANNOODV JOURAPY UI paataoal suoNdisosqns s10}IpaiD Aipuns SHILITIGVITLNAYANO (Z 9}0N) pueH Ul pue que Je yse J[QeIAOIOY SOxe |, 19YIO puke 9UIOdUT soyeg WO onp sjunowy SLASSV LNAAANO uoneDeideg poye[nuinsdy -ssa7 4so0 ye guadinbg aoyff{O SLASSV GAaxI4 S78" LF S78°L OLO'% SSL'S S78" LF oe maT LSV'@ pst O€8"OI 8276'S Sc LL8‘P vce 6L6I aAYN.LV TONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YOd LSNUL TWNOILVNUALNI 235 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 ont — Sees Sa ae eee et ts tee en ie a a a a a a ee cn alee arate pl at pl ea aN a A NS nS, <7; a sJURJUNODIY pasajieyD ‘00 % AOOIMAVUD ‘AATAOW ieak ay} 10} snjding Suyeisdo ay} Jo pue 08 dey pue ond} & 9AId JUNODDY oINIpusdxq p 8° Ch6 CF 00°000°L 8E°7h6'6 Tr'699°Z1 6L' 1197 OS PSST $6'609°0I S¢'Lrb‘Ol 00°0 Oe'STe 71L'8S8°6 £6°€L7Z CECE 9b 700" 09°F£9°8 00°00T 19°81¢'Z 66°S17'9 [861 “ounr 46 HAE NIOM “uopuoT ‘moy piojpog ‘901g sower yea1D‘¢ ‘0861 ©} 8h6L “SIOV salueduIOD a4) YIM Ajdwod pue a}ep yey} UO popua SYOLIGNV AHL AO LYOdau LAAHS AONV IVE 07 poles UV AA AHL YOsA SN 1d UNS (7 910N) NOISIAOUd °8527 juowidinby a91JO Jo uoneidsideq suoneorqng jo uoINGIjsIq pure SunuLig 994 VIpNy sasusdxy a01JO suonnqiyu09g a0uBINSU] [BUOTIRNY pue sarieyes SASNHdxXd NOILVULSININGY “5527 LSAYALNI LISOddd ANVA SNOILVNOG S4SIT [BIIIO suotuidg 21Nj}e[SUSWION [Bd1d0/00Z jo uNatIng dpod jeuoneusaquy SNOLLVOI18Nd AO ATVS 61 “Taquisoaq ISTE ay) Je sv ssteyye s AueduIoOD ay) Jo 93k}s dy) JO MOIA ue oWOSU] poxouUR puk Joayg douR]eg sAOge ay) UOTUIdO INO UT OLO'CF 0L0°7 798" PT ve (464 por'or SL 6Eh'7Z 068°L ce6 OT €L9 Cee L >7Z6'8 a 0 €0S°8 LLE 236 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF RAFINESQUE, 1822, “ON THE TURTLES OF THE UNITED STATES”. Z.N.(S.) 2289 (see vol. 37, pp. 53-56) (i) by L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) So far as I can see, only Trionyx nasica (of which an objective character, viz., ‘the weight of fifty pounds’ is given) and Monoclida kentukensis (of which a good description is provided) are available names. The other ten names are nomina nuda, as, according to Article 16b(i), a vernacular name does not constitute an indication. It will thus be sufficient to suppress only the name Trionyx nasica. The generic name Monoclida is a junior synonym of Terrapene Merrem, 1820, and does not do any harm, and likewise the specific name kentukensis is a junior synonym of carolina Linnaeus, 1758. (ii) reply by H.M. Smith The Code as at present constituted, Art. 16b(i), does indeed eliminate a vernacular name as an indication, in the sense of Art. 12. The same provision is maintained in the proposed revision of the Code. Hence, only Monoclida, M. kentukensis and Trionyx nasica, of the names used in Rafinesque’s work, can be regarded as occupied as of that work since all others were accompanied only by vernacular names. Furthermore, of those three names, only T. nasica is a senior synonym of a currently accepted name, T. spiniferus (Le Sueur, 1827); of the other two, Monoclida is a synonym of Terrapene Merrem, 1820, and M. kentukensis is a synonym of T. carolina carolina Linnaeus, 1758) and neither is likely to cause confusion. Therefore suppression only of T. nasica would suffice to eliminate the actual nomenclatural confusion that would result from application of the Law of Priority to Rafinesque’s 1822 work. The view has long been expounded by one of us (H.M.S.), however, that when either the scientific or the vernacular name provides descriptive information (i.e. not simply locality, geological horizon, host, specimen number or label, or synonymic allocation as cited in Art. 16b), the requirement for an ‘indication’ in the sense of Art. 12 is met. Should that view ever be adopted in the Code, it would be useful for Rafinesque’s entire work of 1822, not simply the name T. nasica, to have been suppressed. Otherwise the latter option would be the simplest to effect nomenclatural stability. (iii) by A.F. Stimson (British Museum, Natural History) It is clear that Trionyx nasica should be suppressed, either by suppressing that name alone, or by suppressing the whole of Rafinesque’s 1822 paper. Which course is taken must depend on whether or not the other names are considered nomina nuda. I agree with Hobart Smith that such a term as ‘Dwarf soft- shelled turtle’, while evidently a vernacular, is also sufficiently descriptive to identify the species and may be regarded as a brief description. Art. 12 requires that to be available a name must be accompanied by a description, definition or indication. Art. 16b(i) states that a vernacular name does Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 237 not constitute an indication. Nowhere does it say that a vernacular name cannot constitute a description. Thus I support the original proposal to suppress Rafinesque’s 1822 work. COMMENT ON PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF ARTEMIA LEACH, 1819 (CRUSTACEA, BRANCHIOPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1984 see vol. 37: 223-227 By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) I will gladly support Dr Lochhead’s application to conserve the generic name Artemia Leach, 1819. There are, however, two minor points that I want to make. 1. Mathews (1911, Novitates Zoologicae, vol. 18(1), p. 18) noted that the four volumes of the first edition of Cuvier’s Régne Animal were published 7 December 1816, not in 1817 as mentioned on the title page. The date of Artemisia Latreille is thus 1816 (in Cuvier, Régne Anim. (ed. 1), vol. 3, p. 68). 2. The first type designation for the genus Artemia Leach that I know of is by Lucas (1840, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Myriapodes, p. 289), where under Artemia salina the author remarked: “L’espéce qui a servi de type a ce genre est un petit Crustacé.....” The same remark can be found on the same page in the 1842 and 1851 issues of the work. [Editor’s note. Dr Lochhead has written to say he is grateful for these comments: the corrections will be taken into account when the voting paper is issued. } COMMENT ON A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ARTICLE 40 OF THE CODE. Z.N.(S.)2250 By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Private Bag, Auckland, 1., New Zealand) I fully support Dr. Pettibone’s application (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p.7) for a change in Article 40 of the Code. This article does not serve any useful purpose other than to cloud the issue and lose sight of the true relationship and meaning of the family-group name in cases where the type genus has disappeared in synonymy. Article 40 is not only a source of confusion in Polychaeta but is also irritatingly present in Mollusca. An example is the current family-group name CYLINDROMITRINAE Cossmann, 1899, which is protected under Article 40 and must be given chronological priority over PTERYGIINAE Kuroda, 1934, even though its type genus Cylindromitra Fischer, 1884, has long ago disappeared in the synonymy of Pterygia Roding, 1798. Article 40 contributes very little to nomenclatural stability and should be either emended or even deleted from the Code. 238 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE RESULT OF SECOND VOTE ON PROPOSALS ON PARATAXA. Z.N.(S.)1973 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature As already reported in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 30-48, the proposals concerning names for ichnotaxa and parataxa were sent for voting in V.P.(80)18. That voting paper contained four points, of which Point 4 proposed that names given to parataxa should not compete with names given to nominal taxa in the Animal Kingdom. That proposal received an affirmative majority smaller than a two- thirds majority. Accordingly, under Bylaw 25, it was sent for a second vote in V.P.(80)39 on 24 November 1980. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eleven (11) received in the following order: Melville, Willink, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Habe, Corliss, Welch, Tortonese, Brinck, Binder, Bernardi Negative Votes — five (5) received in the following order: Holthuis, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Starobogatov and Nye Hahn, Dupuis, Lehtinen, Sabrosky and Bayer abstained. No vote was returned by Kraus. Halvorsen and Vokes were on leave of absence. The result of the vote on V.P.(80)39 is that the proposal again received a majority less than a two-thirds majority. Under Bylaw 36, the proposal is therefore rejected. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 239 OPINION 1188 APHIS PYRI BOYER DE FONSCOLOMBE, 1841 (INSECTA: HEMIPTERA) CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name pyri Vallot, 1802, as published in the binomen Aphis pyri, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) It is hereby ruled that the work by Kittel, 1827, Sur les pucerons, suivi de la description de quelques espéces nouvelles, Mém. Soc. linn. Paris, vol. 5, pp. 133-155 is not available for the nomenclature therein. (3) The specific name pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841, as published in the binomen Aphis pyri, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2758. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) pyri Vallot, 1802, as published in the binomen Aphis pyri, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 1078); (b) the following names published in combination with the generic name Aphis by Kittel, 1827: aquilegiae nigra (Name Number 1079) aquilegiae flava (Name Number 1080) sonchi pruinosa (Name Number 1081) sonchi viridifurcata (Name Number 1082) hyosciami (Name Number 1083) pyri (Name Number 1084) solani (Name Number 1085) piperis (Name Number 1086) epilobii (Name Number 1087) scirpi (Name Number 1088) (5) The title of the following work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology: Kittel, 1827, Sur les pucerons, suivi de la description de quelques espéces he ne Mem. Soc. linn. Paris, vol. 5, pp. 133-155 (Title Number 240 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2062 An application for the conservation of Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841, was first received from Dr V.F. Eastop (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 12 March 1974. It was sent to the printer on 5 April 1974 and published on 20 September 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 164-166. 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 seven entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Louise M. Russell (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA) and by Dr. Hille Ris Lambers (Bladluisonderzoek TNO, Bennekom, Netherlands), who pointed out that he had rejected Kittel’s names in 1939 (Temminckia, vol. 4, p. 2), as also did Doncaster in 1961 (Francis Walker’s Aphids, London) because Kittel was not consistently binominal. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (78)23 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 165-166. At the close of the voting period on 27 December 1978, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Vokes, Willink, Habe, Tortonese, Binder, Corliss, Welch, Heppell, Ride, Bayer, Cogger, Kraus, Nye, Sabrosky, Dupuis, Bernardi Negative Votes — none (0) A late affirmative vote was returned by Starobogatov. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Mroczkowski: ‘There is no need to place Kittel’s 1827 names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names if the whole work of Kittel, 1827, is placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works.’ Heppell: ‘I believe proposal 4b is unnecessary if proposals 2 and 5 are accepted. While I accept that it is desirable in the application to indicate which names are involved when the suppression of a work is asked for, I think it clutters the Official Index quite unnecessarily to add such included names individually.’ Sabrosky: ‘Re Kittel (1827), the mere fact that “the author did not consistently use binominals” would not necessarily make the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 241 work unavailable: the apparent polynominals might be acceptable compounds (Article 26a). The application does not make their derivation clear. Moreover, one might argue that Kittel’s names 1 through 4, and no. 13, were equivalent to saying “var. nigra”, “var. flava”, etc., as has apparently been done in considering Linnaeus (1758) to be consistently binominal! However, most important, the Kittel names were considered by the Commission in Opinion 50 (published 1912), and the Commission then viewed the polynominal specific names as unavailable, although the Summary mentioned only Aphis aquilegiae flava, the subject of the application submitted to it. To confirm this history, I vote for the proposals regarding Kittel’s work, but feel obliged to comment that an application which concerns an entire work should more adequately examine the work itself and justify the case.’ [Note by the Secretary: In view of Dr. Sabrosky’s comment, I examined Kittel’s work and found that that author had listed the Latin and French names in two columns, e.g.: p. 148 Aphis aquilegiae nigra Puceron noir de l’ancolie Aphis aquilegiae flava Puceron jaune de I’ancolie p. 149 Aphis sonchi pruinosa Puceron a duvet du laiteron Aphis sonchi viridifurca [sic] Puceron vert-brun du laiteron p. 154 Aphis salicis minor Petit puceron du saule This shows conclusively that the names in question are acceptable neither as trinominals nor as compound names. R.V.M. |] ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: pyri, Aphis, Vallot, 1802, Concordance systématique...a l’ ouvrage de Réaumur intitulé: Mémoires pour servir a Vhistoire des Insectes (Paris), p. 94 pyri, Aphis, Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841, Ann. Soc. entomol. France, vol. 10, pp. 189-190 The thirteen names listed in paragraph 4b of the ruling: Kittel, 1827, Mem. Soc. linn. Paris, vol. 5, pp. 133-155. The following is the title of the work placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology by the present ruling: Kittel, M.B., 1827, Sur les pucerons, suivi de la description de quelques espéces nouvelles, Mém. Soc. linn. Paris, vol. 5 (1826), pp. 133-155. 242 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(78)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. 1188. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 February 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 243 OPINION 1189 CIRCINAE IN AVES AND MOLLUSCA: REMOVAL OF THE HOMONYMY RULING.— (1) The requests to use the plenary powers to vary the stem, for the purposes of Article 29, of either the generic name Circus Lacepéde, 1799 (Aves), or (b) the generic name Circe Schumacher, 1817 (Mollusca) are hereby refused. (2) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the generic name Circus was first made available by Lacepéde, 1799, regardless of any prior publication by Bechstein. (3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Circus Lacepéde, 1799 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Lesson, 1828, Falco aeruginosus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2131); (b) Circe Schumacher, 1817 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Circe violacea Schumacher, 1817 (Name Number 2132); (c) Gafrarium Réding, 1798 (gender: neuter), type species, by subsequent designation by Dall, 1902, Venus pectinata Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2133): (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) aeruginosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Falco aeruginosus (specific name of type species of Circus Lacepéde, 1799) (Name Number 27359)¢ (b) scripta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Venus scripta (the valid name, at the time of this ruling, for the type species of Circe Schumacher, 1817) (Name Number 2760); (c) pectinata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Venus pectinata (specific name of type Hel) of Gafrarium Réding, 1798) (Name Number 2761 (5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836 (Aves), type genus Circus Lacepéde, 1799 (Name Number 515); 244 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 (b) GAFRARIINAE Korobkov, 1954 (Mollusca), type genus Gafrarium Schumacher, 1817 (Name Number 516). (6) The ae family-group name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number specified: CIRCINAE Dall, 1895 (Name Number 486). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S)2112 An application designed to remove the homonymy between the subfamily names CIRCINAE in Aves and CIRCINAE in Mollusca was first received from Dr. Barry Roth (California Academy of Sciences) on 3 February 1975. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 14 October 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 270— 273. 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, five general serials, ten ornithological and four malacological serials. Comments by Dr. E. Eisenmann, Mr. R.K. Brooke (to whom Dr. Roth replied) and Mr. D. Heppell were published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 143-145. Whereas Dr. Roth, in his original application, and Mr. Brooke proposed that the stem of one or other of the generic names involved be changed, Mr. Heppell proposed that the Law of Homonymy be allowed to operate and that the subfamily name GAFRARIINAE Korobkov, 1954 (generally considered a junior synonym of CIRCINAE Dall, 1895) be adopted as a replacement name. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper V.P.(80)25, either (A) for changing CIRCINAE (Mollusca) to CIRCEINAE, or (B) for changing CIRCINAE (Aves) to CIRCOINAE, or (C) for accepting GAFRARIINAE in place of CIRCINAE (Mollusca). It was pointed out that choices A and B would both require the use of the plenary powers, but that choice C would not. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Choice A — five (5): Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Habe, Nye Choice B — three (3): Willink, Corliss, Ride Choice C — fourteen (14): Melville, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Brinck, Tortonese, Dupuis, Welch, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 245 Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘To justify my voting on this case I want to make the following remarks: ‘(1) (concerning Alternative B). The change from CIRCINAE (for Circe) to CIRCEINAE is less drastic and shows the relation to the type genus better than does that of CIRCINAE (for Circus) to CIRCOINAE. ‘(2) (concerning Alternative B). The fact that some authors at present synonymise CIRCINAE (for Circus) — with ACCIPITRINAE does not mean that this will always be so: usually a period in which “lumping” is fashionable will be followed by one in which the trend will be to splitting. It is almost arrogant to believe that we have now achieved the definitive taxonomy of birds. ‘(3) (concerning Alternative C). CIRCINAE Dall, 1895 (for Circe) actually is only an accidental homonym of CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836, caused, not by nomenclature, but by the rules of grammar. As long as Circe is an available name, we cannot reject the family-group name based on it (if Circe were the only genus in a monotypical family, the name of the family would have to be based on the name Circe). The only alternative is to change its spelling or that of its homonym. The name CIRC(E)INAE Dall, 1895, in whatever spelling, is a senior synonym of GAFRARIINAE Korobkov, 1954, and the latter name cannot be used except by zoologists who think that Circe and Gafrarium belong to two distinct family-group taxa.’ Hahn: ‘I vote for Alternative A. As far as I can see, and in contrast to the opinion of Mr. Brooke, the avian family-group name CIRCINAE is still in use. I have found it in Grzimek’s Tierleben, vol. 7, p. 502, 1970, as well as in the German edition of O.L. Austin’s Die Végel der Welt, p. 81, 1963.’ Ride: ‘CIRCINAE is well known in Mollusca and is in current use. I see no advantage to users of the molluscan literature in dispensing with it merely to avoid having to use the plenary powers. Some amendments should be made to the proposal to cover Eisenmann’s point on Bechstein, and I ask for these to be taken care of by the Secretary.’ Bayer: ‘As a modern revision treats Circe Schumacher, 1817, as a synonym of Gafrarium Réding, 1798, it would seem preferable to let the Law of Homonymy apply and use GAFRARIINAE for the molluscan subfamily, thus avoiding a case in which a family- group name is based on a generic name not in use.’ 246 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: aeruginosus, Falco, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 91 Circe Schumacher, 1817, Essai vers test., pp. 50, 152 CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836, K. Vetenskaps-Akad. Handl. for 1835, p. 113 CIRCINAE Dall, 1895, Trans. Wagner free Inst. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 3, p. 552 Circus Lacepéde, 1799, Tableau des Oiseaux, p. 4 GAFRARIINAE Korobkov, 1954, Spravochnik i metodicheskoe rukovodstvo po Tretichnim Mollyuskam, p. 166 Gafrarium Roding, 1798, Museum Boltenianum, p. 176 pectinata, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, p. 689 scripta, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, p. 689 The following are the original references to designations of type species accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Falco aeruginosus as type species of Circus Lacepéde, 1799, by Lesson, 1828, Man. Ornithol., vol. 1, p. 105; of Venus pectinata Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of Circe Schumacher, 1817, by Dall, W.H., 1895, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 26, p. 350. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1980)25 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. 1189. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 March 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 247 OPINION 1190 PTEROIS ZEBRA CUVIER in CUVIER & VALENCIENNES, 1829 (PISCES, SCORPAENIDAE) PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name zebra Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, as published in the binomen Prerois zebra, and all uses of that name prior to its publication by Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name zebra Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829, as published in the binomen Pterois zebra, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2762. (3) The specific name zebra Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, as published in the binomen Prerois zebra, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1092. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2113 An application for the conservation of the name Pterois zebra Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829, was first received from Dr. @ystein Frgiland (University of Bergen, Norway) on 20 January 1975. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 250-251. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was sent to the statutory serials and to © five general and one ichthyological serial. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 251. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Brinck, Tortonese, Corliss, Dupuis, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye 248 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 Negative Votes — none (0) Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their votes: _ Holthuis: ‘To paragraph 9(1) of the application should be added, between “zebra” and “for the purposes”, “and all uses of this name before the publication of Pterois zebra by Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829.” ‘[This has been taken into account in drafting the present ruling. R.V.M.] Dupuis: ‘Je vote “pour” uniquement dans lintérét de la stabilité de la nomenclature, tant est une référence générale celle a Cuvier & Valenciennes, mais je regrette, en termes d’éthique, d’avoir a attribuer a ces auteurs un nom quils ont pillé chez d’autres.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: zebra, Pterois, Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, Voyage autour du monde... sur les corvettes de §.M. “I Uranie” et “la Physicienne” pendant les années 1817-1820, Zoologie vol. 4, p. 329 zebra, Pterois, Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829, Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 4, p. 269. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)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. 1190. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 March 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 249 OPINION 1191 BERYTUS CONSIMILIS HORVATH, 1855 (HEMIPTERA, BERYTINIDAE): LECTOTYPE DESIGNATION CONFIRMED RULING.— (1) The neotype designated by E. Wagner, 1966, for the nominal species Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855, is hereby set aside. (2) The lectotype designated by Péricart, 1976, for the above nominal species is hereby confirmed. (3) The specific name consimilis Horvath, 1855, as published in the binomen Berytus consimilis, and as defined by reference to the lectotype designated by Péricart, 1976, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2763. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2118 An application for the replacement of the neotype designated for Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 by Wagner, 1966 by a lectotype was first received from Monsieur J. Péricart (45 Montereau, France) on7 April 1975. It was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 255-256. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper- (1980)27 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 256. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Brinck, Tortonese, Corliss, Dupuis, Habe, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye Negative Vote: Lehtinen Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Lehtinen: ‘In Hemipteran species, the informative value of male characters is generally much higher than that of female 250 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 characters. As the neotype comes from the same geographic region as the series of syntypes, there are no reasons to suppose that possible patterns of geographic variation of this species could later cause confusion. A topotypic neotype stated to be conspecific with the syntypes by the applicant cannot threaten nomenclatural stability.’ Ride: ‘I vote against the proposal because it seems wiser to establish the taxonomy of the genus on Wagner’s revision which, as the applicant has said, is based upon modern taxonomic criteria; and the neotype chosen by Wagner is undoubtedly conformable with the taxonomic concept established there. However, I vote on the assumption that the male genitalia are diagnostic of the genus (sensu Wagner) and that Wagner, in establishing the neotype, did so in conformity with Article 75a—c. I ask the Secretary to confirm these aspects. If Wagner did not fulfil the requirements of Article 75a—c, the Council should decide whether to seek action to validate the neotype under the plenary powers. If the male genitalia are not diagnostic and the female characters are, I ask for my vote to be disregarded.’ {Note by the Secretary: as requested by Dr. Ride, I examined Wagner’s neotype designation. It was designated (a) in a revisory work in which the identities of closely similar species were studied, (b) not for its own sake, or as a matter of curatorial routine, or fora species whose name is not in general use, and (c) in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Article 75c. The neotype cannot, therefore, be invalidated on that score. I then consulted Dr. W.R. Dolling (Natural History Museum, London) on the question of which sex was the more diagnostic and he told me that the species could be recognised equally well from either sex. Under those circumstances, I decided to disregard Dr. Ride’s vote. R.V.M.] Sabrosky: ‘In spite of the fact that the proposed lectotype would not be in the museum of the original series, I prefer that solution to help deter the unnecessary multiplication of neotypes when they are not really necessary.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: consimilis, Berytus, Horvath, 1855, Rev. Entomol. vol. 4, pp. 320-324. The following is the original reference to a lectotype designation confirmed by the ruling given in the present Opinion: for Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 by Péricart, 1976, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 255-256. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 251 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)27 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. 1191. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 March 1981 252 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 OPINION 1192 LECANIUM ACUMINATUM SIGNORET, 1873 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA, COCCIDAE): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the neotype proposed by Ben-Dov, 1976, for the nominal species Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873, is hereby confirmed. (2) The generic name Kilifia de Lotto, 1965 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2134. (3) The specific name acuminatum Signoret, 1873, as published in the binomen Lecanium acuminatum, and as defined by reference to the neotype confirmed under the plenary powers in (1) above (specific name of type species of Kilifia de Lotto, 1965) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2764. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2119 An enquiry as to the best procedure to be followed in securing the name Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873, in its accepted sense was first received from Dr. Y. Ben-Dov (then of Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, R.S.A.) on 19 March 1975. An application was then prepared and sent to the printer on 16 May 1975; it was published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 257-260. 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, to five general and seven entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Douglass R. Miller, Dr. Louise M. Russell and Dr. S. Nakahara (USDA, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.). No adverse comment was received. Dr. Holthuis observed that Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873, was the type species of Kilifia de Lotto, 1965, by original designation, so that the applicant’s request for its designation as such under the plenary powers was not required. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)28 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 259-260. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 2353 following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Brinck, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Tortonese, Corliss, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Halvorsen, Nye, Bayer Negative Vote — Dupuis Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. Professor Dupuis commented ‘Néotype = faux légal’. Dr. Sabrosky commented ‘Re the Holthuis comment, the author no doubt wished to be sure that the designation of acuminatum was in the sense of the neotype and not of acuminatum Signoret as a synonym of hesperidum’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: acuminatum, Lecanium, Signoret, 1873, Ann. Soc. entomol. France (5) vol. 3, p. 397, pl. 11, fig. 1 Kilifia de Lotto, 1965, Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol.), vol. 16, p. 206. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)28 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. 1192. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 March 198] 254 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 OPINION 1193 CERATOPHYSELLA BORNER, 1932 (INSECTA, COLLEMBOLA) CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Cystioceras Borner in Schille, 1912, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Ceratophysella Borner, 1932 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Podura armata Nicolet, [1842], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2135. 3) The specific name armata Nicolet, [1842], as published in the binomen Podura armata (specific name of type species of Ceratophysella Borner, 1932), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2765. (4) The generic name Cystioceras Borner in Schille, 1912, 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 2119. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2120 An application for the conservation of the generic name Ceratophysella Borner, 1932 was first received from Dr. Peter Bellinger (University of California, Northridge) and Dr. Willem Ellis (University of Amsterdam) on 10 April 1975. It was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 274-276. 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, to five general and seven entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr. H. Janetschek (Universitat Innsbruck) and Dr. J. Rusek (Prague, Institute of Entomology). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on V.P.(80)29 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 275. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21), receiving in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowsk1, Brinck, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Tortonese, Corliss, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 255 Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Nye, Halvorsen, Bayer Negative Vote: Dupuis Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: armata, Podura, Nicolet, [1842], Neue Denkschr. allg. Schweiz. Gesellschaft, vol. 6, p. 57 Ceratophysella Bérner, 1932 in Brohmer, Fauna von Deutschland, 4th edit., p. 140 Cystioceras Borner in Schille, 1912, Spraw. Komisji Fysiogr, Kraju, vol. 46, pp. 126-127. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)29 were cast as set out above, that the request contained in that voting paper has been duly accepted 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. 1193. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 March 1981 256 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 OPINION 1194 ESCHARA SPONGITES PALLAS, 1766 (BRYOZOA): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of a type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766, are hereby set aside and the specimen so proposed by Hastings, 1974, is hereby confirmed as neotype of that species. (2) The generic name Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909 (gender: neuter), type species, by subsequent designation by Canu & Bassler, 1909, Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2136. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) spongites Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Eschara spongites (specific name of type species of Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909) (Name Number 2766); (b) errata Waters, 1878, as published in the binomen Lepralia errata (Name Number 2767). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1826 An application to determine the identity of the type species of Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909 was first received from the late Dr. Anna B. Hastings on 6 March 1967. After an exchange of correspondence, a paper was sent to the printer on 4 October 1967 and published on 7 December 1967 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 24, pp. 316-318. 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. Dr. Lemche objected to certain aspects of the case, and asked in particular that a description and illustration of the proposed neotype of Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766, be published in the Bulletin. He himself provided photographs of the specimen, which is in the Copenhagen Zoological Museum. For a number of reasons, it was not possible to agree with Dr. Hastings on the presentation of the description and illustrations of the proposed neotype until 1973. Since so much time had elapsed since the publication of the original application, it was thought best to republish it, accompanied by the additional material, and this was sent to the printer on 24 October 1973 and published on 28 June 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 177-181, pl. 1. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was again given in the same part Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 257 of the Bulletin and to the statutory serials. No 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 (1977) 18 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, p. 179. 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, Alvarado, Vokes, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Nye, Heppell, Ride, Bayer Negative Votes: Eisenmann, Dupuis Late affirmative votes were returned by Habe and Brinck. No voting paper were returned by Bernardi, Binder, Kraus and Willink. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Eisenmann: ‘Itis by no means clear to me from the application that predominant current usage favours the use of spongites for the American species rather than for the Mediterranean species to which the name is technically applicable.’ Dupuis: ‘Je refuse, ici comme ailleurs dans la plupart des cas, de désigner un néotype car cette opération est toujours en quelque nature une falsification des faits. Je constate, en outre, dans le cas particulier: (1) que la sélection d’un lectotype par Harmer est seul compatible avec la restriction antérieure (Recommandation 74A) de Pallas lui-méme; (2) que la Commission aurait tort, en usant de ses pleins pouvoirs, de porter atteinte 4 la Recommandation 74A; (3) que la requéte — méme révisée — se présente dans une grande confusion chronologique et omet plusieurs références (p. ex. Hincks & Thornely); (4) que l’argument de l’alinéa 14 est zoologique et subjectif et non pas nomenclatorial et objectif.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: errata, Lepralia, Waters, 1878, Proc. Manchester lit. & philos. Soc.., vol. 18, p. 11 spongites, Eschara, Pallas, 1766, Elenchus Zoophytorum, p. 45 Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909, Morphological and systematic studies on the cheilostomatous Bryozoa (Copenhagen), p. 324. 258 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(77)18 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. 1194. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 March 1980 POSTSCRIPT BY THE SECRETARY I first began to prepare this Opinion in the spring of 1978, after Dr. Hastings’ death. Among the letters on the file was one from Dr. Hastings saying that she intended publishing a full description of the proposed neotype ‘elsewhere’. I therefore asked Professor J.S. Ryland (University College, Swansea, U.K.) as her literary executor if there was any sign of such a paper (published or unpublished) among her papers. Professor Ryland was then serving for two years in the University of the South Pacific, Fiji. On his return he wrote to me in January 1981 to say that he could find no such work and suggested that there had been a misunderstanding on my part: in the first application (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, p. 318, 1967) Dr. Hastings had referred to the description of the neotype as being ‘in press’, and this was copied uncritically in the republished application (vol. 30, p. 181, 1974). In fact, that description had been published in 1968 (Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Zool.), vol. 16(9), pp. 361-362, and the delay in publishing this Opinion has been unnecessary. This is regretted. R.V.M. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 259 OPINION 1195 PLEUROCERA RAFINESQUE, 1818 (GASTROPODA): THE TYPE SPECIES IS PLEUROCERUS ACUTUS RAFINESQUE IN BLAINVILLE, 1824 RULING.— (1) The authorship of the specific name acutus, as published in the binomen Pleurocerus acutus, is to be cited as “Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824”. (2) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species for the nominal genus Pleurocera are hereby set aside and Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (gender, feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 (Name Number 2137); (b) Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Anculosa (Lithasia) geniculata Haldeman, 1840 (Name Number 2138). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824, as published in the binomen Pleurocerus acutus (specific name of type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Name Number 2768); (b) geniculata Haldeman, 1840, as published in the combination Anculosa (Lithasia) geniculata (specific name of type species of Lithasia Haldeman, 1840) (Name Number 2769). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)83 An application for a ruling on the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 was first received by the late Dr. C.W. Stiles from the late Dr. H.A. Pilsbry on 20 January 1925. Dr. Pilsbry pointed out that ‘Pleurocera [had] been universally used for species congeneric with P. acuta Raf. since 1872...’. Dr. Stiles pursued some correspondence on the case but had not circulated it to the Commission before he resigned on the grounds of ill health in 1935. The late Mr. Francis Hemming, the successor to Dr. Stiles as Secretary to the Commission, published a report on the case on 20 260 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 April 1951 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 2, pp. 6-17. His report posed the question whether or not the plenary powers should be used to designate Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque (sic) as type species of Pleurocera and concluded with a recommendation that they should be so used. His recommendation was supported by Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. and Dr. Emilio Berio; it was opposed by Dr. J.P.E. Morrison and Dr. Harald A. Rehder. Mr. Hemming sought advice from a number of specialists in Mollusca, but had no replies. When he handed the files over to me (as Assistant Secretary) in August 1958, he placed a minute on Z.N.(S.)83 saying ‘Case held up so far through difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of comments from workers familiar with the group’. In December 1958 Dr. Joseph Rosewater wrote to ask whether an Opinion had ever been issued on the case and expressed support for Mr. Hemming’s recommendation. In reply, I asked for the names of workers who might advise the Commission. After further extensive correspondence. I published a fresh report summarising the comments received in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 17, pp. 170-174 (8 April 1960). I had by that time returned to my permanent post with the Geological Survey of Great Britain (now incorporated in the Institute of Geological Sciences, London) and left the matter in the hands of the late Dr. W.E. China, my successor as Assistant Secretary to the Commission. A number of comments were received, mainly in favour of the course originally recommended by Mr. Hemming, but the case was not taken to a conclusion. In 1975, when I was again able to devote a small part of my time to the work of the Commission, I received an enquiry from Mr. David Heppell on the fate of the Pleurocera case. This led to a fresh round of correspondence. On 9 June 1976 I sent a revised report to the printer and this was published on 30 September 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 105-113. 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, to nine general serials and three malacological serials. In this, the third published report on the case, I presented the issues concerning the generic names separately from those concerning the family-group names involved, so that they could be voted on separately. The latter have, in fact, not yet been resolved and are not dealt with in the present Opinion. My proposal to use the plenary powers to designate Pleurocera acuta (sic) as type species of Pleurocera was supported by Dr. A.H. Clarke (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 197-198; vol. 36, pp. 140-141), Dr. Harald Rehder (vol. 34, pp. 198-199), Dr. D.W. Taylor (vol. 34, p. 199), Dr. Joseph Rosewater (vol. 36, p. 140), Dr. Henry van der Schalie and Dr. Billy Isom. It was opposed by Dr. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 261 Carol Stein (vol. 34, pp. 196-197; vol. 36, pp. 141-142), by Dr. J.P.E. Morrison (vol. 36, p. 139) and Professor Stansbery. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)31 in Part 1 on the authorship to be attributed to the name ‘Pleurocerus acutus’, and in Part 2 for or against the use of the plenary powers to designate that species as type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818. The following note accompanied the voting paper: ‘The essence of this case is whether the Code is to be strictly applied so that Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, is to be the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, by subsequent monotypy; or whether the plenary powers should be used to designate Pleurocera acuta (with authorship to be decided in the voting paper) as type species. ‘Until a late stage in the history of the case, it was thought that the binomen Pleurocera acuta had been first published by Rafinesque, 1831. Dr. Morrison stated, however, in vol. 36, p. 139, that that name was preoccupied by Pleurocerus acutus (attributed by him to “Raf. in Blainville”), 1824. Dr. Carol Stein threw helpful light on this name (vol. 36, pp. 141-142) and this was discussed by the Secretary (pp. 144-145). ‘The documentation in the case is voluminous. It is therefore important not to lose sight of the evidence of usage. Evidence provided by Dr. Rosewater (vol. 35, pp. 108, 111-113) and Dr. Burch (vol. 36, pp. 196-197) shows 50 references between 1918 and 1975 to the use of Pleurocera as though P. acuta were its type species, and 3 as though verrucosa were its type species. Dr. Burch also states (vol. 36, pp. 196-197) that a ‘search of the non- malacological biological and palaeontological literature will show that Pleurocera has almost invariably been used as though P. acuta were its type species, and that such references number in their hundreds’. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981 the state of the voting was as follows: Part 1 That the author of Pleurocerus acutus is ‘Blainville, 18247 — nine (9), received in the following order: Holthuis, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Habe, Heppell, Hahn, Tortonese, Brinck, Ride That the author of Pleurocerus acutus is ‘Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824’ — fourteen (14), received in the following order: 262 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 Melville, Willink, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Corliss, Welch, Dupuis, Lehtinen, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Nye, Sabrosky, Bernardi Part 2 Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Alvarado, Habe, Heppell, Corliss, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, Brinck, Ride, Binder, Bayer, Nye, Sabrosky, Bernardi Negative Votes — three (3): Starobogatov, Lehtinen, Cogger Abstention — Dupuis Halvorsen and Vokes were on leave of absence. No voting paper was returned by Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Heppell: ‘More than fifty years ago the ICZN was asked to decide whether the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, should be P. verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, or P. acuta Rafinesque, 1831. Whatever the merits of the arguments on each side, the original proposals and most of the subsequent comments have been in favour of P. acuta. The preponderance of usage also indicates that P. acuta is a good candidate for the use of the Commission’s plenary ower. On two previous occasions, after publication of the case in 1951 and 1960, complications involving names of the family group prevented a vote being taken on the question of the type species. With the passage of time the case for P. acuta has been strengthened by further general usage and some of the authors who formerly opposed it have changed their minds. It therefore looks suspiciously like sabotage when one of the few remaining advocates for P. verrucosa introduces at a very late stage in the discussion the assertion that P. acuta Rafinesque, 1831, cannot be named as type species because it is preoccupied. Unfortunately the Secretary, on the assumption that this information is correct and simply overlooked by all other workers who have taken an active interest in the case, has substituted “Pleurocerus acutus” for Pleurocera acuta on the voting paper, dating the taxon from 1824 and requesting an additional vote to determine its authorship. If Pleurocerus acutus Blainville, 1824, is seriously to be considered as type species of Pleurocera, why was it not mentioned by Morrison in his comment in 1951? Although it may be argued that the 1824 reference is ina rare publication, it is well known that the text of Blainville’s 1825 vee is identical and readily available in any good malacological library. ‘There is no doubt that Pleurocerus is an incorrect subsequent spelling for Pleurocera, even though it was also adopted by other Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 263 authors, for example Rang, 1829 (Manuel) and G.B. Sowerby, 1842 (Conch. Manual 2nd Edn). The status of the two specific names included by Blainville is obviously that of nomina nuda and they have always been regarded as such up till now. The descriptions of Blainville’s two (unnamed) subgenera cannot be applied to the specific names. Even if “Oxytréme” is regarded as an incorrect spelling for Oxytrema one cannot argue a single combined description of the subgenus and species under Article 16a(vi) as “Oxytréme” is not a new nominal genus. Even if it were it is evident from Dr. Stein’s own argument that Oxytrema acuta of 1824 could not be identified without the presumption that it is identical to Pleurocera acuta of 1831. I am not aware that a nomen dubium can become acceptable with its original date and authorship if the same name is subsequently published by another author and accompanied by an adequate description. ‘I am loath to impede the final progression of this case to a conclusive vote by invoking Bylaw 24, but I do earnestly request the Secretary to reconsider the attribution to be given to the taxon Pleurocera acuta and to treat an affirmative vote as affirming only that P. acuta is to be regarded as type species of Pleurocera by plenary power, together with the other matters arising consequentially therefrom. My vote is to be regarded as an affirmative vote but with Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, substituted for Pleurocerus acutus, 1824, wherever the latter name occurs in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the voting paper; my vote in paragraph 1 (which I consider unnecessary) is not to imply that I consider Pleurocerus acutus Blainville, 1824, as anything other than a nomen nudum; | vote against paragraph 5 as an incorrect subsequent spelling has no status in nomenclature as a separate taxon, so there is no “Pleurocerus Blainville, 1824” to put on any List, and the Commission was not required to decide whether this name was to be regarded as an emendation.’ Reply by the Secretary: | have not acceded to Mr. Heppell’s request to re-open this case under Bylaw 24 because I do not think that the proposition that Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 is a nomen nudum is tenable. I consulted Dr. Holthuis on this point, and he concurs with my view that the name acutus is indeed made available in Blainville. The relevant passage 1S: PLEUROCERE. Pleurocerus. Animal incomplétement connu, ayant la _ téte proboscidiforme; deux tentacules latéraux, subulés, aigus; les yeux a leur base externe. Coquille ovale ou pyramidale; ouverture oblongue; la lévre extérieure mince; l’interne collée contre la columelle, qui est lisse et torse, sans ombilic. 264 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 Opercule corné, ou membraneux. A. Espéces dont l’ouverture est seulement oblongue. Ex. Le Pleurocére oblong. Pleurocerus oblongus. B. Espéces dont l’ouverture est aigué aux deux extrémités, et dont l’antérieure se prolonge en une longue pointe aigué. (G. OXYTREME. Rafin.) ‘Ex. Le Pl. aigu. P. acutus. Observ. Nous n’avons vu nil’animal, nila coquille de ce genre, proposé par M. Rafinesque; peut-étre n’est-ce que la paludine coupée de M. Say? In Section B. of Pleurocerus, while “Oxytréme” is clearly a vernacular name and not available, P. acutus is associated with the description of the Section, in which it is the only species. The name is, therefore, available and can only be disposed of by suppression under the plenary powers. An application to that effect could be considered on its own merits, independently of the determination of the nominal type species of Pleurocera. The status of Pleurocerus (whether an emendation or an incorrect subsequent spelling) has not been considered by the Commission and is in any case peripheral to the main issue. R.V.M. Dupuis: ‘Il est évident que Pleurocerus acutus n’est pas attribuable a de Blainville, qui n’a vu ni l’animal, ni la coquille, et n’indique aucune origine géographique. L’attribution du genre a Rafinesque est attestée par Blainville lui-méme. ‘L’attribution de l’espéce a Rafinesque peut résulter de plusieurs considérations: ‘(a) Blainville, qui était rédacteur du Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’ Histoire Naturelle, publié a Paris (non Bruxelles, contre Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 105) a été de bonne heure en rapport avec Rafinesque, comme le prouve I’article de celui-ci dans le tome 88, 1819, de ce journal. ‘(b) Il a existé un manuscrit de 1821 de Rafinesque sur les Gastropodes de l’Ohio et du Kentucky. Rafinesque, 1831, p. 6 (non reproduit dans Binney & Tryon, 1864) déclare en effet: “In 1821 I wrote the Monograph of the Univalve shells of Ohio and Kentucky, which I sent to Brussels for publication: it reached that city when Mr. Bory [de St. Vincent, rédacteur des Annales générales des Sciences physiques, Bruxelles] had returned to Paris, and I have never heard when it was printed...” Cette monographie n’a jamais paru, ni dans les Annales de Bory, ni dans le Journal de Blainville, mais |’existence du manuscrit dans les mains des zoologistes francais peut expliquer Vorigine des informations de Blainville. ‘(c) Rafinesque, 1831, p. 2, s’attribue l’espéce acuta dés 1818 (date de récolte ou de description in litt., mais non point de publication!) et indique son origine: Lake Erie [ce qui est Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 265 compatible en lieu et date — avec l’Ohio du manuscrit de 1821]. ‘Pour ces raisons, je vote pour acuta Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824. ‘Je m’abstiens sur tous les autres points, car les considérations d’usage mises en avant en faveur de acuta comme type du genre sont difficilement testables pour un non spécialiste étranger aux Etats- Unis (toutes les considérations d’usage n’ont, du reste, en général, qu’une valeur locale, temporaire ou disciplinaire souvent exagérée par les requérants)’ Cogger: ‘Where competent specialists disagree on nomenclatural matters one should invoke the plenary powers with caution. While there is no doubt from the various submissions that most workers in this century have accepted that acuta is the type species of Pleurocera, I remain unconvinced that nomenclatural stability would be seriously affected by the strict application of the Code, especially in view of the widely-acknowledged instability (by virtually all parties to the dispute) of pleurocerid systematics. Both sides (e.g. Stein and Davis) have resorted to special (and unsubstantiated) pleading for extreme positions, but neither the Code nor current usage should be sacrosanct. However, I remain unconvinced that stability of nomenclature is likely to be seriously compromised, and vote against the application.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: acutus, Pleurocerus, Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824, Dict. Sci. nat., vol. 32, p. 236 geniculata, Anculosa (Lithasia), Haldeman, 1840, Monogr. Limniades or freshwater univalve shells of North America. Suppl. to No. 1, p.1 Lithasia Haldeman, 1840, Monogr. Limniades or freshwater univalve shells of North America, Suppl. to No. 1, p. 1 Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, Amer. mon. Mag. crit. Review, vol. 3, p. 355 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)31 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. 1195. R.V. MELVILLE, Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 20 March 1981 266 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 OPINION 1196 BEYRICHIA M’COY, 1846 (CRUSTACEA: OSTRACODA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES AND OF NEOTYPE FOR THAT SPECIES RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers (a) all designations of type specimen for the nominal species Beyrichia kloedeni M’Coy, 1846 hitherto made are hereby set aside and the specimen proposed by Siveter & Sylvester-Bradley, 1976, is hereby designated as neotype of that species; (b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846 hitherto made are hereby set aside and Beyrichia kloedeni M’Coy, 1846, as interpreted by the neotype designated in (a) above is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Beyrichia kloedeni M’Coy, 1846, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2139. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) kloedeni M’Coy, as published in the binomen Beyrichia kloedeni (specific name of type species of Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846) (Name Number 2770); (b) tuberculatus Kloeden, 1834, as published in the binomen Battus tuberculatus (Name Number 2771). (4) The family name BEYRICHIIDAE Matthew, 1886 (type genus Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number SLT. (5) The generic name Beyrichia Boll, 1847 (a junior homonym of Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2120. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1117 An application to designate the type species of Beyrichia and the type specimen of that species was first received from the late Professor P.C. Sylvester-Bradley and Dr. Stuart A. Levinson on 4 May 1956. It was not sent to the printer until I read the file as Assistant Secretary in September 1959, when a revised version was Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 267 sent to the applicants for their approval. This was sent to the printer on 27 October 1959 and published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 17, pp. 227-230. No use of the plenary powers was called for. No comment was received. FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1960 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1960)30 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 17, pp. 229-230. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1961 there were 24 affirmative votes and one negative vote from Key, who observed: ‘(1) The citing of an older name (Battus tuberculatus) in the synonymy of Beyrichia kloedeni by M’Coy renders kloedeni clearly a replacement name and hence an objective synonym of tuberculatus, invalid as long as the latter is valid. (2) Under Article 72d, therefore, the type of kloedeni must be the type of tuberculatus, and the selection by the applicants of a different type is invalid. (3) Under Article 67e, furthermore, tuberculatus is the type species of Beyrichia. It is not true, of course, that kloedeni was “still born” and “invalidated for all time”, but otherwise the conclusions of Kesling & Wagner are in accordance with the Code. Since the applicants do not invoke the plenary powers, their request cannot be acceded to.” As Dr. Key’s view was undoubtedly correct, Professor Sylvester-Bradley was invited to write a short note for the Bulletin asking for those powers to be used. However, he found himself unable to agree with Dr. Key and declined to do so. He suggested that Dr. Anders Martinsson be approached, but no such note was ever received from him. REVIVAL OF THE CASE On 1 November 1973 a letter was received from Dr. David J. Siveter enquiring as to the fate of the original application by Professor Sylvester-Bradley and Dr. Levinson. After a lengthy exchange of correspondence, a fresh application was prepared and sent to the printer on 19 February 1976. It was published on 26 June 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 61-64. 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, six general serials and two palaeontological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were 268 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)32 for or against the proposals contained in Bull. zool. Nom.., vol. 33, pp. 63-64. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Starobogatov, Habe, Corliss, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, Heppell, Brinck, Lehtinen, Binder, Bayer, Bernardi, Nye Negative Votes — four (4): Dupuis, Ride, Cogger, Sabrosky Halvorsen and Vokes were on leave of absence. No voting paper was returned from Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Heppell: ‘This can be regarded as a straightforward case for the application of Article 70a. Beyrichia kloedeni M’Coy can then be interpreted as a replacement name for Battus tuberculatus M’Coy non Kloeden and as its type material is extant but unsatisfactory the need for it to be replaced by a neotype designated under the plenary powers follows as a matter of course.’ Dupuis: ‘Il me paraitrait preférable de considérer la synonymie kloedeni M’Coy, 1846 / tuberculatus Kloeden, 1834, donnée par M’Coy, comme une identification erronée d’espece- type. En ce cas, Beyrichia demeurerait avec son espéce-type kloedeni, fondée sur le lectotype de Sylvester-Bradley et Levinson. Tuberculatus, avec son néotype choisi par Martinsson, demeurerait utilisable pour inclusion — éventuellement — dans tout. autre genre.’ Ride: ‘While I agree with the intention of the application, the issue is not one of setting aside an earlier designation. A replacement name has ipso facto the same type as the name it replaces (Art. 72d). There is no designation to be set aside. The applicants should be seeking either for (a) B. kloedeni M’Coy, 1846, to be declared a species described in synonymy and the proposed neotype recognised for it, or (b) B. kloedeni M’Coy, 1846, to be suppressed and the “material from Ireland” to be set aside in favour of the proposed neotype for that species.’ Cogger: ‘The authors simply state that the application of the Code would result in changes to names that have been accepted by most (though clearly not all) workers for the past 26 years. They have not demonstrated that such an upset of current usage would seriously affect stability.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 269 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: Beyrichia M’Coy, 1846, Synopsis Silurian fossils of Ireland... (Dublin), p.57 Beyrichia Boll, 1847, Palaeontographica, vol. 1, p. 127 BEYRICHIIDAE Matthew, 1886, Proc. Trans. roy. Soc. Canada (1) vol. 3 (4), pp. 63 kloedeni, Beyrichia, M’Coy, 1846, Synopsis Silurian fossils of Treland... (Dublin), p.58 tuberculatus, Battus, Kloeden, 1834, Verstein. Mark Brandenburg, p. 112. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)32 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. 1196. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoolegical Nomenclature London 24 March 1981 270 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 OPINION 1197 CYPRAEA PIPERITA GRAY, 1825, C. COMPTONII GRAY, 1847, C. BICOLOR GASKOIN, 1849 AND C. ANGUSTATA GMELIN, 1791 (GASTROPODA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST * RULING.— (1) The request for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name piperita Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen Cypraea piperita, is hereby refused. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) piperita Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen Cypraea piperita (Name Number 2772); (b) comptonii Gray, 1847, as published in the binomen Cypraea comptonii (Name Number 2773); (c) bicolor Gaskoin, 1849, as published in the binomen Cypraea bicolor (Name Number 2774); (d) angustata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Cypraea angustata, and as interpreted by the neotype designated in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, p. 319 (Name Number 2775). (3) The specific name verconis Cotton & Godfrey, 1932, as published in the binomen Notocypraea verconis (a junior objective synonym of Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1093. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1510 An application for the suppression of Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825, under the plenary powers was first received from Dr. R.J. Griffiths on 30 November 1961. This was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, pp. 317-322, September 1962, and voted on in Voting Paper (1964)11, of which the voting period ended on 1 October 1964. Fourteen affirmative and two negative votes were received, but because of a number of critical comments, no Opinion was published. In October 1974, these comments were communicated to Dr. Griffiths. A revised application was prepared by Mrs. Green (then Scientific Assistant to the Commission), sent to the printer on 5 March 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom, . vol. 32, pp. 115-120. The problem was broken down into two parts: in the first part, the four following choices were offered: (1) direct application of the Code; C. piperita and C. comptonii could Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 + A then represent two species with C. bicolor representing either a subspecies of one of them or a third species; (2) use of the plenary powers to designate the lectotype of C. bicolor as neotype of C. piperita, so that the former name would disappear as a junior objective synonym of the latter; (3) use of the plenary powers to suppress piperita so that only C. comptonii and C. bicolor would survive as valid names; (4) use of the plenary powers to suppress C. piperita Gray, 1825 and all uses of that name prior to its use by Sowerby in 1832, so as to preserve the name in its current use. In the second part, the holotype of Notocypraea verconis Cotton & Godfrey, 1932 was designated as neotype of Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791 and it was proposed that the latter name be placed on the Official List. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1980)33, in part 1 of one of the four choices mentioned above, and in part 2 for or against the proposals concerning C. angustata Gmelin, 1791. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981 the state of the Voting was as follows: Part 1 Choice 1, Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Starobogatov, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, Heppell, Dupuis, Brinck, Lehtinen, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Nye, Sabrosky, Bernardi Choice 2, Affirmative Vote — Habe Choice 3, Affirmative Vote — none (0) Choice 4, Affirmative Vote — Corliss, Ride Part 2 Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Habe, Corliss, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, Heppell, Dupuis, Brinck, Ride, Lehtinen, Binder, Bayer, Nye, Sabrosky, Bernardi Negative Votes: Mroczkowski, Alvarado, Cogger Halvorsen and Vokes were on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Kraus. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Hahn: ‘If syntypes of C. piperita sensu Gray, 1825, are preserved, and if it is shown by them that specimens of C. comptonii 272 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 are slightly different, then apparently two different taxa are present. I therefore vote for choice 1.’ Cogger: ‘In regard to Part 1 I would agree with Drs Mroczkowski and Riedel, and with the comments of the late Dr. Lemche (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 117) that a vote for any but choice 1 would be an intrusion into a complex taxonomic problem. In regard to Part 2, the formal action taken in paragraph 7 (viz. to designate the holotype of C. verconis as neotype of C. angustata) obviates the need for the Commission to vote on the proposals. However, such an action in the submission is not only of dubious propriety (given the unresolved taxonomic problems) but is invalid in that it fails to fulfil the requirements of Article 75a and c. Incidentally, while deploring Iredale’s taxonomic method, I must accept his logic. The probability of a southern and southeastern Australian mollusc with direct development being the species before Gualterius in 1742 is exceedingly small.’ Bayer:‘Consultation with the malacological staff and examination of specimens in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution, consideration of the arguments presented and reference to the recent literature on cowries convince me that the problem of C. piperita-comptonii-bicolor is basically taxonomic. The names involved are legally available, the types are extant and available for study, and it remains for the malacologists to sort out the taxa in a thorough and modern way. To suppress names or establish neotypes in order to objectively but artificially synonymise nominal taxa that in fact may not be conspecific strikes me as premature and rash. My malacological colleagues unanimously agree with my view that the names piperita, comptonii and bicolor should remain available pending thorough taxonomic review, after which the nomenclatural situation can be reappraised.’ 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: angustata, Cypraea, Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 3421 bicolor, Cypraea, Gaskoin, 1849, Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 16 (186), p. 92 comptonii, Cypraea, J.E. Gray, 1847, Juke’s Voyage of H.M.S. Fly, vol. 2, Appendix, p. 356 piperita, Cypraea, J.E. Gray, 1825, Zool. Journal, vol. 1, p. 498 verconis, Notocypraea, Cotton & Godfrey, 1932, South Austr. Nat., vol. 13, p. 41. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 273 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)33 were cast as set out above, that the proposal to use the plenary powers 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. 1197. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 25 March 1981 274 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 OPINION 1198 SMINTHOPSIS MURINA VAR. CONSTRICTA SPENCER, 1896 (MAMMALIA, MARSUPIALIA) SUPPRESSED RULING .— (1) Under the plenary powers the species-group name constricta Spencer, 1896, as published in the binomen Sminthopsis murina:var. constricta, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The species-group name constricta Spencer, 1896, as published in the combination Sminthopsis murina var. constricta, 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 1094. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2080 An application for the suppression of Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896, was first received from Dr. M. Archer (Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Australia) on 19 August 1974. After an exchange of correspondence, it was sent to the printer on 9 June 1976 and published on 30 September 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. 33, pp. 127-128. 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 statutory serials, to six general and two mammalogical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)34 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 128. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Starobogatov, Habe, Corliss, Hahn, Tortonese, Brinck, Ride, Lehtinen, Bayer, Binder, Bernardi, Sabrosky Negative Votes — five (5): Welch, Heppell, Dupuis, Cogger, Nye ; Vokes and Halvorsen were on leave of absence. No voting paper was returned by Kraus. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Welch: ‘There is a chance that the type may still be found.’ Heppell: ‘I vote against the proposal on the grounds that the taxon Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer is only of Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 275 infrasubspecific status and consequently has no status in nomenclature. The applicant presents no evidence to the contrary and from his difficulty in associating the name with any recognised subspecies it must be assumed that there was nothing in Spencer’s original description to suggest that it was applied to anything more than an individual variant. It would be pointless to look for the types of named varieties as, to their authors, the two concepts of a type and a variety would have been mutually exclusive. As such names were generally not recognised as being available even to designate subspecific taxa, it would be better if the Commission did not accord them the false status implied by the untenable Monaco ruling even to the extent of adding one to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names.’ Dupuis: ‘Je n’estime pas devoir supprimer (c’est toujours commettre un faux) les nomina dubia. S’ils sont vraiment douteux, ils ne génent personne. S’ils deviennent génants, c’est qu ils cessent d’étre douteux et s’ils ont priorité, il faut alors le reconnaitre loyalement.’ Cogger: ‘The Commission is being asked to use its plenary powers to resolve what is primarily a taxonomic problem. Stability of nomenclature is not seriously at issue, and the matter can be resolved by available taxonomic procedures.’ Nye: ‘The nomenclatural type of S. ooldea should be designated as the neotype of S. murina var. constricta. S. ooldea was established only in 1965 so cannot be regarded as a long-established name.’ Bernardi: ‘11 me semble justifié de supprimer le nom constricta parce que le type de cette entité n’est pas connu avec certitude.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference to a name placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: constricta, Sminthopsis murina var., Spencer, 1896, Rep. Horn Exped. Central Australia, pt. 2, Zoology, p. 33. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)34 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 rep a Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion o. 1198. R.V. MELVILLE, Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 8 April 1981 276 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 DIRECTION 109 SEVEN FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN INSECTA HETEROPTERA PLACED ON OFFICIAL LIST RULING.— (1) The following family-group names in Insecta Heteroptera are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) CIMICIDAE Latreille, [1802] (as ‘Cimicides’), type genus Cimex Linnaeus, 1758 (Official List of Generic Names No. 275) (Name Number 524); ANTHOCORIDAE Fieber, 1837 (as ‘Anthocoridea’), type genus Anthocoris Fallén, 1814 (Official List of Generic Names No. 524) (Name Number 525); NABINI Costa, 1852, type genus Nabis Latreille, [1802] (Official List of Generic Names No. 525)(Name Number 526); PROSTEMMATIDAE Reuter, 1900, type genus Prostemma Laporte, [1832] (Official List of Generic Names No. 1186) (Name Number 527); NOTONECTIDAE, Latreille, [1802] (as ‘Notonectariae’), type genus Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758 (Official List of Generic Names No. 526) (Name Number 528); REDUVIIDAE Latreille, 1807 (as ‘Reduvini’), type genus Reduvius Fabricius, 1775 (Official List of Generic Names No. 527) (Name Number 529); TRIATOMINI Jeannel, 1919, type genus Triatoma Laporte, [1832] (Official List of Generic Names No. 528) (Name Number 530). (2) The following incorrect original spellings of family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: Cimicides Latreille, [1802] (Name Number 487); Anthocoridea Fieber, 1837 (Name Number 488); Prostemmina Reuter, 1890 (Name Number 489); Notonectariae Latreille, [1802] (Name Number 490); Reduvini Latreille, 1807 (Name Number 491). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)958 In May 1955 an application was received from the late Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski for the placing on the Official List of family-group names in Hemiptera Heteroptera based on generic Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 277 names already dealt with by the Commission in Opinions 81 and 104. Professor Jaczewski asked for seven names to be placed on the Official List and for 83 names (incorrect original and subsequent spellings, and names based on invalid generic names) to be placed on the Official Index. The application was eventually edited by the late Dr. China and published on 2 February 1962 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, pp. 15-22. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 18 January 1963 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1963)2 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, pp. 15-22. Dr. China, as Assistant Secretary, sent the following note with the Voting Paper: ‘The Assistant Secretary disagrees with the policy of placing innumerable such incorrect spellings on the Official Index, and knows that a number of Commissioners will support him in this. It is therefore suggested that Commissioners vote to place on the Official Index only those names that are listed by Professor Jaczewski as incorrect original spellings of family-group names, and those based on either invalid or misidentified type genera.’ This reduced the 83 names proposed by Professor Jaczewski to 13. At the close of the voting period on 18 April 1963, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-four (24) received in the following order: China, Hering, Holthuis, Bonnet, Vokes, Obruchev, Key, Riley, Mayr, Uchida, Lemche, Alvarado, Bradley, Jaczewski, Stoll, do Amaral, Hemming, Binder, Brinck, Boschma, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Evans Negative Votes — none (0) A late affirmative vote was received from Munroe. No voting papers were returned by Borchsenius and Miller. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Key: ‘While thus voting for the Assistant Secretary’s restriction of the original application, I wish to put on record my opinion that the proper way to deal with this sort of situation is for the Commission, by formal vote, to adopt an appropriate Direction or repeal or amend an existing Direction, as may be required.’ Bradley: ‘It must be kept in mind that we are dealing with family-group names, not necessarily family names. We must not invalidate any name with a termination that could be used for a 278 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 family-group taxon of whatever rank. Since terminations have not been fixed for tribe, subtribe and superfamily, that means that we may not interfere with any combination of genus and suffix that is linguistically properly formed. Just as a genus, proposed first as a subgenus, dates from that event, so a family, if proposed as a subfamily or tribe, also dates from that occasion.’ SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE At this distance in time, and when the protagonists are no longer living, it is impossible to find out why an Opinion or Direction was not published at that time (1963). When I came to re- examine the file at the end of 1977, I judged it prudent to consult the President of the Commission, Dr. C.W. Sabrosky, on the steps to be taken. He took the view that, as the family-group names placed on the Official List were all well known names in current use, a Direction could be issued without a further vote being taken. We also agreed that the names to be placed on the Index could be reduced from the 13 proposed by Dr. China to the incorrect original spellings; and in the light of the comment by the late Professor Chester Bradley, I found these to number five. The present Direction has accordingly been drafted in accordance with those terms of reference. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Direction: ANTHOCORIDAE Fieber, 1837 (as “Anthocoridea”), Beitr. Nat. Heilwiss. vol. 1, p. 106 CIMICIDAE Latreille, [1802] (as “Cimicides”), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 240 NABINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum regni neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Naples), p. 66 NOTONECTIDAE Latreille, [1802] (as “Notonectariae”), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 253 PROSTEMMATIDAE Reuter, 1890 (as “Prostemmina”) Rev. Entomol. Caen, vol. 9, p. 289 REDUVIIDAE Latreille, 1807 (as “Reduvini”), Gen. Crust. Inst. (Paris) vol. 3, p. 126 TRIATOMINI Jeannel, 1919, Insectes Hémiptéres vol. 3, Voy. Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale, pp. 176, 177, 309. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 279 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on V.P.(63)2 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 Direction No. 109. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28 April 1981 280 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 DIRECTION 110 IXODES LATREILLE, 1795 (ARACHNIDA: ACARINA): ENTRY IN OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES . CONFIRMED RULING.— (1) The generic name Ixodes Latreille, 1795 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Acarus reduvius Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby confirmed in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 208. (2) The specific name ricinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Acarus ricinus (the valid name under Article 24a, for the type species of Ixodes Latreille, 1795) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2787. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1130 The generic name /xodes Latreille, 1795 (Mag. encyclop. vol. 4, p. 18) was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 73 (Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 73, no. 1 (Publ. 2657), pp. 23-31, 1922) in the following entry: ‘Ixodes Latreille, 1796a, 179, type Acarus ricinus Linnaeus, 1758.’ Unfortunately, that entry was incorrect in two respects. First, the generic name Ixodes was first published by Latreille in 1795, and secondly, the type species is not Acarus ricinus. The entry was therefore withheld for further study when the first instalment of the Official Lists was published in book form in 1958. It is true that in both 1796 (Précis caract. Ins., p. 179) and in [1802] (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., vol. 3, p. 66) Latreille again published Ixodes and that on both occasions the only species referred to the genus was Acarus ricinus Linnaeus, 1758; but nothing can override the fact that the genus was established in 1795 with Acarus reduvius Linnaeus, 1758 as the sole included species, hence the type species by monotypy. In 1901 Neumann (Mém. Soc. zool. France, vol. 4, p. 282) clearly synonymized Acarus reduvius and Acarus ricinus, and chose the latter as the valid name for the species. He is the First Reviser under Article 24a. In 1957, the late Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, sought the advice of Dr. Turk on the best solution to the Ixodes problem. In an unpublished note later circulated to the Commission, Dr. Turk purported to show that Neumann had not acted as first reviser in terms of Copenhagen Decision No. 123, although I do not see how that position can be upheld. He showed that A. reduvius was a composite species, because the references Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 281 cited in synonymy refer to an insect while the description clearly denotes a female of A. ricinus before it has had its first meal of blood. Dr. Turk therefore (a) designated the specimen on which Linnaeus based his description as the lectotype of A. reduvius, and (b), assuming that no author had preceded him, purported to act as First Reviser in designating A. reduvius as the valid name among the two synonyms, A. reduvius and A. ricinus. It seems to me, however, that the grounds upon which Mr. Hemming advised Dr. Turk to reject Neumann’s first-reviser action — namely, that A. reduvius was a composite species — are without foundation. However, as that note was never published, neither his lectotype selection nor his purported action on the specific name has any standing. On 26 September 1957 Mr. Hemming invited the members of the Commission to vote under the One-Month Rule on V.P.(O.M.)(57)18 for or against the proposals put forward over Dr. Turk’s name. At the close of the voting period on 26 October 1957, there were 18 affirmative and two negative votes. In the course of the voting, Mr. Hemming received the following letter from Dr. Otto Kraus, which caused him to withdraw the voting paper. Dr. Kraus said: ‘I can never agree with the proposals made by Dr. Turk. To my mind Neumann, 1901, is to be treated as First Reviser. In 1901 he selected one of the two names (ricinus, reduvius), i.e. ricinus, as the valid name for this species of tick. Since 1901 the name ricinus has been used continuously, and reduvius is a long-forgotten name. I feel that the proposal in the voting paper is against the principle of stability and I hope that it will be rejected. The name ricinus is a very well known and important one and is used in all modern textbooks and other general literature. It should by all means be protected.’ It is therefore clear that the /xodes problem is solved by the direct application of the Code: Acarus reduvius Linnaeus, 1758 is its nominal type species, by monotypy, but the valid name for that species is Acarus ricinus Linnaeus, 1758, under Article 24a, by the First Reviser Action of Neumann, 1901. The present Direction can therefore be issued as a correction to Opinion 73 without the need for a further vote by the Commission. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Direction: Ixodes Latreille, 1795, Mag. encyclop. vol. 4, p. 18 ricinus, Acarus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 615. 282 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the present Direction No. 110 is issued in conformity with Article 24a of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (2nd edition, 1964) as a correction to Opinion 73 and that no exercise of its plenary powers by the Commission is involved. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 April 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 283 EREMIAS WIEGMANN, 1834 (REPTILIA LACERTILIA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)1172 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The present application involves the correction of an item in Opinion 92 (Smiths. misc. Colls vol. 73 (4), pp. 339-340). Eremias Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetol. Mexic. (1) p.9, was one of nine reptile generic names then placed on the Official List. Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771, Reise Russland vol. 1, p. 457, was stated to be the type species of Eremias, but this was incorrect. In consequence, when preparations were made for the publication of the first instalment of the Official List of Generic Names in book form, entry no. 432 for Eremias was withdrawn, pending further enquiries. 2. Wiegmann established Eremias with two included species, L. velox Pallas, 1771, and L. variabilis Pallas, 1811, Zoographia vol. 3, p. 31. He designated neither as type species. The first valid subsequent designation was made by Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept., p. 21, and he chose L. variabilis. The genus is, however, currently treated as though L. velox was its type species (e.g. Smith, M. 1935, Fauna British India, Rept. Amph. vol. 2, 381), and in 1928 Lantz (Bull. Mus. Géorgie (4), p. 2 established a new subgenus Ommateremias with Lacerta arguta Pallas, 1773, Reise Russland vol. 2, p. 718 as type species. L. arguta is now considered the valid senior synonym of L. variabilis. 3. Stability of nomenclature would thus clearly be best served if the Commission were to use its plenary powers to designate L. velox as type species of Eremias. It is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Eremias Wiegmann, 1834, and having done so, to designate Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 as type species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (a) Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) oe Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 (Name No. 432); (b) Ommateremias Lantz, 1928 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Lacerta arguta Pallas, 1772; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in 284 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 Zoology: (a) velox Pallas, 1771, as published in the binomen Lacerta velox (specific name of type species of Eremias Wiegmann, 1834); (b) arguta Pallas, 1773, as published in the binomen Lacerta arguta (specific name of type species of Ommateremias Lantz, 1928). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL THAT CHROMIS CUVIER IN DESMAREST, 1814, AND GENERIC NAMES ENDING IN -CHROMIS BE RULED TO BE MASCULINE. Z.N.(S.)2329 (see vol. 37, pp. 247-255) By W.I. Follett and Lillian J. Dempster (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118 U.S.A.) We support the request of Bailey, Robins & Greenwood that Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814, and all generic names ending in —chromis be ruled to be masculine. We question, however, the necessity of exercising the plenary powers in order to effect the result requested. As pointed out by Nye (1980, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37(3), p. 188), ‘Under the Code, Article 30(a)i, the Commission can rule on the gender of a genus-group name without the use of the plenary powers’. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 285 TYPUS SELLARDS, 1909 (INSECTA, PROTODONATA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2359 By Frank M. Carpenter (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, U.S.A.) and Paul Whalley (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to conserve the unjustified emendation, Typus Sellards, 1909, of the generic name Tupus Sellards, 1906, and to place the emended name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the family name TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919, on the Official List of Family-Group names in zoology. 2. The name Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Amer. J. Sci. (4), vol. 22, p. 249), with the type-species 7. permianus by monotypy, was emended by Sellards in 1909 (Amer. J. Sci. (4) vol. 27 p. 151) to Typus. Since 1909, the name has consistently been spelled Typus in all zoological literature, with the single exception of a short article by E.B. Klots in 1944 (Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1260, p. 1), in which Tupus was used. 3. The name Typus is the basis for the family name TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919 (Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien., math. - nat. Klasse, vol. 96, p. 62) and has been cited in numerous textbooks and research papers, as an example of the extinct order Protodonata and as a representative of the possible ancestral stock of the Odonata. The genus is now known by species from the Upper Carboniferous and/or Permian of France, USSR, Kansas, Georgia, - and Oklahoma. The spelling Typus has been used in the following works among many others:- Martynov, A.B., 1938. Etudes sur l’histoire géologique et de phylogénie des ordres des insectes (Pterygota). Trav. Inst. Paléont.. USSR. vol. 7, pp. 1-150. Fraser, F.C., 1957. A reclassification of the order Odonata. Handbook 12, Royal Zool. Soc. New South Wales, pp. 1-133. Crowson, R.A., et al. 1967. In Harland, W.B., et al. The Fossil Record. London (Geol. Soc.), pp., 499-534. Asahina, S., 1970. Animal taxonomy from a phylogenetic approach: Insecta, part I. Systematic Zoology (Japan), pp. 203-343. Rohdendorf, B.B., Rasnitzyn, A.P., et al. 1980. Historical development of the Insecta. Trans. Paleont., Inst. USSR, vol. 100, pp. 1-268. Tillyard, R.J., 1928. Evolution of the Order Odonata. Rec. Indian Mus. vol. 30, pp. 151-172. Handlirsch, A., 1937. Neue Untersuchungen tiber die fossilen Insekten. Ann. Nat. Hist. Mus. Wien. Bd. 48, pp. 1-140. 286 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 Laurentiaux D., in Piveteau, 1953. Traité de Paléontologie vol. 3, pp. 397-526. Carpenter, F., 1960. Studies on North American Carboniferous Insects, 1. The Protodonata, Psyche, pp. 98-110. Rohdendorf, B.B., 1962. Fundamentals of Paleontology, Moscow pp. 1-560. Callahan, P., 1972. The Evolution of Insects, Holiday House NY, pp. 1-192. Tasch, P., 1973. Palaeobiology of the Invertebrata, Wiley, pp. 1-945. 4. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to conserve the unjustified emendation Typus Sellards, 1909 by the suppression of Tupus Sellards 1906 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 Generic Names in Zoology; the generic name Typus Sellards, 1909 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Tupus [sic] permianus Sellards, 1906. (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; the specific name permianus, 1906, as published in the binomen Tupus permianus (type- species of Typus Sellards, 1909). (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; the family name TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919 (type-genus Tupus Sellards, 1906). (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Tupus Sellards, 1906 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above). COMMENT ON PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF THE GENERIC NAME TYPUS SELLARDS, 1909 (INSECTA, PROTODONATA). Z.N.(S.) 2359 By D.L.F. Sealy (Dept. of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History), London) I wish to oppose the proposed conservation (Bull. zool. Nom. 37(4), p. 194) of the genus-group name Typus Sellards 1909 on two grounds, one commonplace and one possibly unique. Neither is strictly entomological. 1. The name Typus should not be conserved because Tupus Sellards, 1906 has priority, was validly proposed, is not preoccupied and is objectively synonymous. There is no evidence in the original 1906 publication of Sellards of a typographical error as the name is used a number of times in the paper. A validly proposed genus-group name cannot be changed, even by its original author, on grounds of ‘inappropriateness’ or other second thoughts, unless preoccupied (nt. Code Art. 18a, 19). The name Tupus is a transliteration into Latin of the Greek word tustoc, presumably meaning, in this case, an outline or impression. While the Code (Appendix B) recommends upsilon be transliterated as y, this letter was not used in classical Latin until the 1st Century BC. Can one argue that Typus is a more Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 287 appropriate transliteration? That this subsequent emendation should have been widely used, I believe in error, by many authors since 1909 is beside the point. Whalley (1980) has now demonstrated the error, at my instigation, and Sellards’ original spelling Tupus should, I submit, be allowed to stand. 2. Even if otherwise allowable, however, I believe the name Typus to be objectionable on other, possibly unique, grounds, in that the word is a technical term in zoological nomenclature. In German and other languages typus means a type specimen (or species). Every effort should, in my view, be made to avoid ‘homonymy’ between technical terms in zoological taxonomy and genus-group names. Although there is no ruling on the subject, I wonder what the Commission’s attitude would be if someone were so ill-advised as to propose Genus as a genus- group name in Zoology. It would not be long, I suspect, before its suppression as undesirable was achieved! I submit that Typus is in the same category, and the opportunity to reject it, which would not require application of the plenary powers, should now be taken. It is significant, perhaps, that Appendix D, para. 8 of the Code recommends that the words typus and typicus should not be used as new names, as they are liable to cause confusion. I therefore request the Commission to place the genus-group name Typus Sellards, 1909 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, and to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group names in Zoology the name TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919. REFERENCE WHALLEY, P.E.S., 1980. Bull. Br. Mus. (nat. Hist.), (Geol.), vol. 34 (4), pp. 285-287. 288 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 CAPSUS ATER JAKOVLEV, 1889 AND LYGAEUS QUADRIPUNCTATUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, HETEROPTERA): PROPOSED NOMENCLATURAL VALIDATION. Z.N.(S.) 2148 By I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, USSR) Introduction Under Article 59b(i) of the Code, a junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961 cannot be used as a valid name (except under certain conditions and with the Commission’s approval). However, some cases occur in which the replacement name itself cannot be used as a valid name. Two such cases are discussed below. In each of these, because the species concerned are now placed in different genera, I think that nomenclatural validation of the junior secondary homonyms provides the best solution: in each case, that is the oldest available name for the species in question. Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 2. Deraeocoris ater (Jakovlev, 1889), originally described as Capsus ater (Horae Soc. entomol. Rossicae, vol. 24, p. 344; type locality, Irkutsk, Siberia), is a junior secondary homonym of Capsus ater (Linnaeus, 1758), originally described as Cimex ater (Syst. Nat. ed. 10, p. 447). Cimex ater was designated as type species of Capsus Fabricius, 1803, by the use of the plenary powers in Opinion 298 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nom. vol. 8, pp. 199-208, 1954). __ 3. Two varieties, D. ater var. limbicollis Reuter, 1901 (Ofvers. finsk. vet. Soc. Férhandl. vol. 43, p. 167) from ‘Amurland’, and D. ater var. amplus Horvath, 1905, Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. vol. 3, p. 420) from Tokyo, Japan, were described before Kiritshenko (1914, Russ. entomol. Obozr., vol. 13, p. 483) noticed the secondary homonymy and proposed the replacement name Deraeocoris sibiricus for the junior secondary homonym. 4. Subsequent authors have not followed a consistent usage. The name D. ater Jakovlev was used by Matsumura, 1930, Esaki, 1932, 1952, Lindberg, 1934, Miyamoto, 1957, 1961, Kulik, 1965a, 1965b, and Capsus ater by Matsumura, 1931. The name D. sibiricus Kiritshenko was used by Hsiao, 1942, Stichel, 1956-1958, Tsherepanov & Kiritshenko, 1962 and Josifov & Kerzhner, 1972. In the world catalogue of MIRIDAE (Carvalho, 1957) the species wrongly appeared under two names — D. ater Jakovlev, and D. sibiricus Kiritshenko (= ater Jak.). The Japanese population is named D. amplus Horvath by Miyamoto, 1965, who considers it a Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 289 distinct species, though in my opinion the possibility that it is a subspecies cannot be excluded. 5. Under the Code, (1) the specific name ater Jakovlev, 1889 cannot be used because a new replacement name _ sibiricus Kiritshenko, 1914, was proposed before 1961 and used by some zoologists; (2) this replacement name cannot be used as the valid name, because two older available names exist (Article 45e(i)): limbicollis Reuter, 1901, and amplus Horvath, 1905. Of these, the former has never been used as a valid name since its publication and may indeed denote an infrasubspecific form (a colour-variant); the latter may represent either a subspecies or a distinct species; because the latter possibility exists, amplus ought not to be adopted in place of ater. 6. The plenary powers must therefore be used to give nomenclatural validity either to ater Jakovlev or to sibiricus Kiritshenko. The latter is less preferable because it would oblige those who believe that amplus Horvath denotes a subspecies to give the junior name sibiricus precedence over it. The fact that ater Jakovlev is the oldest of all the names involved means that its validation would combine the simplest nomenclatural solution (priority) with the highest degree of freedom for different taxonomic views. It is therefore recommended here. Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 7. Wagner, 1938, 1943, has shown that Adelphocoris annulicornis (R. Sahlberg, 1848) is conspecific with A. quadripunctatus (Fabricius, 1794). Later, he regarded this species as polytypic (‘Rassenkreis’), with four subspecies in Europe, two of which are widely distributed — A. q. quadripunctatus in central Europe and A. gq. annulicornis in northern Europe, and two are local central European forms. The taxonomy of this difficult complex needs further work, but the following names are involved in the discussion of nomenclature below. 8. Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794, Entomol. Syst. vol. 4, p. 172 (described from ‘Germania’, type locality not subsequently restricted) was known from 1861 to 1896 in the combination Calocoris quadripunctatus. Its name was then a junior secondary homonym of Cimex quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, Linn. Entomol. p. 535, which was transferred to the genus Calocoris in 1888, is a junior primary homonym of Cimex quadripunctatus Miller, 1766 and is now considered a junior synonym of Calocoris striatellus (Fabricius, 1794) (see Wagner, 1958, Carvalho, 1959 and Kerzhner, 1970 for details). 9. Capsus annulicornis R. Sahlberg, 1848, Monogr. Geocor. Fenn., p. 100 (type locality Ylane, Finland), is a junior primary 290 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 homonym of Capsus annulicornis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1835, Nomenclator Entomol. vol. 1, p. 51. This latter name is generally considered a nomen dubium, but in my opinion it is very probably a junior synonym of Orthops campestris (Linnaeus,1758), new synonymy. 10. Adelphocoris annulicornis R. Sahlberg var. confluens Reuter, 1896, Hem. Gymn. Eur. vol. 5, pp. 225, 379 was described without data on distribution. In the same work the distribution of A. annulicornis was given as Finland, Sweden and Siberia, so that the syntypes of var. confluens may have come from any of these countries. 11. Adelphocoris quadripunctatus var. innotata Reuter, 1906, Annuar. Mus. Zool. Acad. Sci. St. Petersburg, vol. 10, p. 20, was described from ‘Austria’ and several localities in S.E. China (Szechuan). No lectotype has yet been designated. 12. Adelphocoris quadripunctatus annulatus Carvalho, 1959, Arg. Mus. nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 48, p. 18, is a new replacement name for A. annulicornis (R. Sahlberg). 13. Wagner, 1958, treated quadripunctatus (Fabricius) as an invalid junior secondary homonym and used annulicornis as the valid name. He overlooked the fact that the latter is a junior primary homonym. At the same time, for A. quadripunctatus quadripunctatus (Fabricius) he accepted A. annulicornis innotatus Reuter, and this was followed by most authors. 14. Carvalho, 1959, noted that annulicornis (R. Sahlberg) was a junior primary homonym, but in spite of a previously published available replacement name (confluens Reuter), proposed a new replacement name annulatus. However, this was overlooked by all later authors. 15. The situation with the name of this species is therefore as follows: (a) The name quadripunctatus (Fabricius) cannot be used as its valid name because it is a junior secondary homonym for which a replacement name — annulicornis (R. Sahlberg) — was introduced before 1961; (b) that replacement name cannot be used because it is a junior primary homonym; (c) the oldest nomenclaturally valid name, confluens Reuter, has been rarely used, and _ with infrasubspecific rank for a colour-variety; (d) the next name, innotatus Reuter, is a junior synonym of confluens used (as a subspecific name) only in recent years and by a few authors. 16. The following references give proof of the use of Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 291. quadripunctatus after Wagner’s 1958 publication: Josifov & Kerzhner, 1972, Ann. zool. Warszawa, vol. 29, p. 166; Miyamoto, 1974, Rostria, vol. 23, p. 121; Kershner, 1978, Trudy biol.-pochv. Inst. Vladivostok, vol. 50, p. 42; Vinokurov, 1979, Heteroptera of Yakutia (in Russian), p. 183. This is not an exhaustive list. Many could be added from the ’60s. 17. The International Commission on _ Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the following specific names are nomenclaturally valid: (a) ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the bino- men Capsus ater; (b) quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Lygaeus quadripunctatus; (2) toplace the above-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CARVALHO, J.C.M. 1957. Arg. Mus. nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 44, pp. 1-158. ——1959. Arg. Mus. nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 48, pp. 1-384. ESAKI, T. 1932. [Heteroptera] in Esaki et al., Jconogr. Ins. Japon., ed. 1 (in Japanese). ——1952. [Heteroptera] in Esaki et al., Jconogr. Ins. Japon., ed. 2. HSIAO, T.Y. 1942. Iowa State Coll. J. Sci., vol. 16(2), pp. 241-269. JOSIFOV, M. & KERZHNER, I.M. 1972. Ann. Zool. Warszawa, vol. 29(6), pp. 147-180. KERZHNER, I.M. 1970. Acta entomol. Mus. nat. Pragae, vol. 38, pp. 141-145. KULIK, S.A. 1965a. Acta entomol. faun. Mus. nat. Pragae, vol. 11(98), pp. 39-70 (in Russian with German summary). ——1965b. Izv. Irkutsk. sel’skokhoz. Inst., vol. 25, pp. 157-188 (in Russian) LINDBERG, H. 1934. Notulae entomol. Helsinki, vol. 14, pp. 1-23, pl. 1. MATSUMURA, S. 1930. The illustrated thousand insects of Japan, vol. 1, Rhynchota, Tokyo (in Japanese and English). ——1931. 6000 illustrated insects of Japan-Empire, Tokyo (in Japanese and English). MIYAMOTO, S. 1957. Sieboldia, Fukuoka, vol. 2(1), pp. 69-82. —— 1961. Sieboldia, Fukuoka, vol. 2(4), pp. 197-259, pls. 20-49. —— 1965. Iconogr. Ins. Japon. Col. nat. edita, vol. 3, Tokyo, pp. 75-84, 89-108, pls. 38-44, 45-54. STICHEL, W. 1956-1958. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabelle der Wanzen, II, Europa, vol. 2, Berlin-Hermsdorf, pp. 190-907. TSHEREPANOV, A.I. & KIRITSHENKO, A.N. 1962. Trudy biol. Inst. sibir. otd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Novosibirsk, vol. 8, pp. 5—32 (in Russian). WAGNER, E. 1938. Verhandl. Ver. naturw. Heimatforsch. Hamburg, vol. 26, pp. 16-20. ——1943. in Gulde, J., Die Wanzen Mitteleuropas, 1X Teil, Frankfurt, pp. 1-160. —— 1958. Deutsche entomol. Zeitschr., N.F. vol. 5(1-2), pp. 86-90. 292 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 BYRRHUS SEMISTRIATUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA, BYRRHIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 2317 By Maciej Mroczkowski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, Poland) 1. A.G. Olivier, 1790, no. 13, p. 9, described from the surroundings of Paris a species called Byrrhus picipes. Since the description the name picipes has been used in systematic works only by J.F. Stephens, 1830, p. 140, and by G. Steffahny, 1843, p. 37. W.F. Erichson, 1847, p. 494, placed Byrrhus picipes Oliv. in the synonymy of Simplocaria semistriata (Fabr., 1794). 2. J.G. Kugelann, 1792, p. 485, described from Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad) a species called Byrrhus rufipes. Since the description the name rufipes has not been used in systematic works. J.C. Fabricius, 1794, p. 437, described from ‘Germania’ a species called Byrrhus semistriatus. The name semistriatus (in the combination Simplocaria semistriata) has been used by a number of authors in many systematic works and in all works issued after Erichson’s monograph (1847). Simplocaria semistriata (Fabr.) is a common species, distributed in North and Central Europe. The nominal species semistriata is the type species of the genus Simplocaria Stephens, 1829, p. 9, by subsequent designation by Jacquelin du Val, 1859, p. 267. 4. The World Catalogue (Dalla Torre, 1911, p. 14), as well as previous European catalogues, listed both picipes Oliv. and rufipes Kugel. as synonyms of semistriata. As the name semistriata (in the combination Simplocaria semistriata) has been in continuous use since 1847, the application of the Law of Priority would disrupt stability and cause confusion. Therefore the Commission is requested to take the following actions: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Byrrhus semistriatus, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over both the specific names picipes Olivier, 1790, as published in the binomen Byrrhus picipes, and rufipes Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus rufipes, by anyone who considers that these three names, or any two of them, denote the same taxon; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Simplocaria Stephens, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species, by Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 293 subsequent designation by Jacquelin du Val, 1859, Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Byrrhus_ semistriatus, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over both Byrrhus picipes Olivier, 1790, and Byrrhus_rufipes Kugelann, 1792, by anyone who considers that all three names, or any two of them, apply to the same taxon; (b) picipes Olivier, 1790, as published in the binomen Byrrhus picipes, with an endorsement that it is not to be given nomenclatural precedence over Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, by anyone who considers that both names apply to the same taxon; (c) rufipes Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus rufipes, with an endorsement that it is not to be given nomenclatural precedence over Byrrhus _ semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, by anyone who considers that both names apply to the same taxon. REFERENCES DALLA TORRE, K.W. von, 1911. Nosodendridae, Byrrhidae, Dermestidae. In: ‘Coleopterorum Catalogus’, pars 33. Berlin, 96pp. ERICHSON, W.F., 1847. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands. Coleoptera, . 3, 1, 3. Berlin, pp. 481-800. FABRICIUS, J. Ch., 1794. Entomologia systematica, vol. 4. Hafniae, VIII + 478pp. JACQUELIN DU VAL, P.N.C., 1859. Genera des Coléoptéres d’ Europe (etc.), vol. 2, (4), pp. 169-288 + Catal. 109-124, pls. 43-67. Paris. KUGELANN, J.G., 1792. Verzeichniss der in einigen Gegenden Preussens bis jetzt entdeckten Kafer-Arten nebst kurzen Nachrichten von denselben. Neuestes Mag. Liebhaber Entomol, vol. 1, (2-4), pp. 252-306, 477-512. OLIVIER, A.G., 1790. Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes (etc.), Coléoptéres. Vol. 2, Nos. 9-34. Paris. STEFFAHNY, G., 1843. Tentamen monographiae generis Byrrhi. Z. Entomol. (German), Leipzig, vol. 4, pp. 1-42. STEPHENS, J.F., 1829. The nomenclature of British Insects. [V + 68pp. London. — 1830. Illustrations of British Entomology (etc.). Mandibulata, vol. 3, 379 pp., pls. 16-19. London. 294 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 AEOLIDIELLA BERGH, 1867 (GASTROPODA, OPISTHOBRANCHIA): PROPOSALS TO CLARIFY THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS. Z.N.(S.) 1986 By Gregory H. Brown (Zoology Department, University of Bristol, U.K.) The purpose of the present application is to clarify the type species of the genus Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Vidensk. Meddr. Dansk Naturh. Foren., p.99) by the suppression under the plenary powers of the nomen dubium Eolida soemmerringii F.S. Leuckart, 1828 (Breves Anim., p. 16) and the designation of a new type species for the genus. 2. In Opinion 780, the generic name Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 was placed on the Official List as name number 1720, and its type species Eolida soemmerringii F.S. Leuckart, 1828, selected by Suter, 1913 (Man. N.Z. Moll., p. 581) was entered on the Official List of Specific Names as name number 2152. However, Leuckart’s specimens are lost and doubts have been expressed about the true identity of E. soemmerringii Leuckart. Bergh in 1864 (Anatomiske Bidrag til Kundskaben om Aeolidierne, p.203) described the anatomy of a specimen from the type locality, Cette (Sete) in France, which he identified as Aeolida soemmeringii Leuckart (an incorrect spelling used consistently by Bergh and some subsequent authors). Bergh in 1867 created the genus Aeolidiella to accommodate the animal he had investigated in 1864 but in 1882 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 1882, p. 8) he decided that it was in fact a new species and that Leuckart’s species Eolida soemmerringii, was a synonym of Amphorina caerulea (Montagu). This latter species was originally described under the binomen Doris caerulea Montagu, 1804 (Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. 7, p. 78) and, in Opinion 777 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 23, pp. 95-97, 1966), was placed on the Official List of Specific Names as name number 2146 and as the type species of Trinchesia Ihering, 1879 (Zool. Anz., vol. 2, p. 137). Thus Bergh in 1882, believing that his new genus Aeolidiella had been founded on a misidentified specimen, created what he thought would be acceptable as a new specific name: Aeolidiella soemmeringii Bergh (non Leuckart). 4. In practice A. soemmeringii Bergh, 1882 non Leuckart has been ignored by virtually all subsequent authors, while Eolida soemmerringii F.S. Leuckart, 1828 has been consistently quoted as the type species of the genus. Because Leuckart’s specimens are lost and Bergh’s specimen was totally destroyed during dissection, it is impossible to ascertain: (i) whether Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart is a synonym of Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 295 Doris caerulea Montagu, or (ii) whether either Leuckart’s or Bergh’s specimens are referable to any of the present recognised species of Aeolidiella. The only certainty is that Bergh’s anatomical description indicates that his specimen belonged to the genus Aeolidiella as generally employed by authors in recent years throughout the world. It is therefore desirable to suppress both nominal species E. soemmerringii Leuckart and A. soemmeringii Bergh while designating a new type species for the genus. 5. In 1969, Tardy (Bull. Inst. Oceanog. Monaco, vol. 68, p. 34) suggested that A. soemmeringii ‘Leuckart’ Bergh, 1864 non Leuckart, 1828 may be asynonym of Aeolidiella alderi (Cocks, 1852, Naturalist, vol. 2, p. 1) and Lemche (pers. comm.) was convinced that such a synonymy was justified. Therefore, a relevant solution would involve the designation of A. alderi (Cocks, 1852) as a new type species for the genus. 6. Cocks (1852) based his type description of A. alderi on several specimens collected near Falmouth, England, but only one of Cocks’ specimens sent to Alder has been preserved, and this is in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History). There is no reason to assume that this animal is the holotype or even a syntype, and it is badly damaged, the radula and some of the visceral organs having been removed. I therefore propose to select an intact specimen, 29 mm in length alive and collected by Mr. D.R. Seaward at Portland, Dorset on 2nd March, 1980 to be designated as the neotype of Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852. This specimen is deposited in the British Museum (Natural History), No. 198093. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867, made prior to the ruling here requested, and having done so, to designate Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852 to be the type species of that genus; (b) to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen Eolida soemmerringit; (ii) soemmeringii Bergh, 1882, as published in the binomen Aeolidiella soemmeringii; 296 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 (2) (3) (4) (5) to amend entry no. 1720 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology to read: ‘Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers, Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852; to place the specific name alderi Cocks, 1852, as published in the binomen Eolis alderi (specific name of type species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to delete entry no. 2152 from the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen Eolida soemmerringii, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b)(i) above; (b) soemmeringii Bergh, 1882, as published in the binomen Aeolidiella soemmeringii, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b)(i1) above. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 297 ALPHEUS LOTTINI GUERIN, 1829 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2370 By Albert R. & Dora M. Banner (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96744, U.S.A.) In 1979 Holthuis, pp. 7-10, proposed the substitution of the name Alpheus sublucanus (Forskal, 1775) for the currently used Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829. In his publication Holthuis gives a thorough and excellent discussion of the various names used for this species, here given in rapid review in chronological order of general usage: Alpheus laevis Randall, 1839. This was the most commonly used name for the species in the 19th century. Alpheus ventrosus Milne Edwards, 1837. While Coutiére in 1897, p. 195, pointed out that this species was the same as A. Jaevis, he continued to use Randall’s name until 1905 (p. 882), when he stated he had re-examined the ‘types’ of Milne Edwards and had no doubt that the two nominal species were identical. Only a few workers used Randall’s name after Coutiére’s 1905 publication became available, although it persisted in the literature until 1921 (Urita, vol. 33. p.216). Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829. (The date given is of the publication of the plates — see Holthuis 1961, p. 168 — while the description was published in 1838). Kingsley, 1882, p. 113, after the examination of the types of A. Jottini and A. laevis stated that only one species was involved and that A. /ottini was the senior synonym. Only Sharp in 1893, p. 113, followed Kingsley’s lead until Holthuis cited him in 1958 (p. 22). However, Stebbing in South Africa did revive A. Jottini, ~ apparently independently, in 1915, p. 82, and 1919, p. 123, and he was followed by Barnard, 1950, p. 748 and Macnae & Kalk (first ed., 1958, not seen; second ed., 1969, p. 37 ff.) also from South Africa. Banner, 1958, p. 166 (published in April) suggested that the name A. lottini be suppressed as a nomen oblitum. Holthuis, 1958, p. 22 (published in September) reviewed the history of the names used for the species and firmly supported the use of Guérin’s name. Banner & Banner, 1964, p. 89, conceded that the ‘fifty-year rule’ (Article 23b of the 1961 code) precluded the retention of the name A. ventrosus. Subsequently, A. Jottini was used more and more extensively (see listings, paragraphs 6 and 7). Alpheus sublucanus (Forskal, 1775). Forskal’s name, published posthumously, was almost entirely ignored by all carcinologists for two centuries. Holthuis (1979, loc. cit.) has suggested that the name was not used by those working with the 298 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 Indo-Pacific fauna as it was based almost entirely upon color notes taken in the field and that by the time specimens were returned to Europe in preservative, the distinctive coloration would have faded (Guérin reported that his type for A. lottini was of ‘jaune verdatre dans l’alkool’). There is no indication that any type specimens were ever brought back by the ill-fated expedition to ‘Arabia Felix’. Holthuis, however, while collecting in 1962 in the southern portion of the Red Sea with Forskal’s colour description before him, found that the species then known as A. /ottini agreed with Forskal’s terse description. He therefore raised Forskal’s name as the senior synonym to replace A. lottini (loc. cit.). Dr. Holthuis has kindly listed for us all the uses of sublucanus that he knows of in the literature: HERBST, 1792. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse (Berlin and Stralsund), vol. 2 (2), pp. 66-67. FISHELSON, 1971. Mar. Biol., vol. 10(2), p. 121 ff. (coral reef ecology). MERGNER & SCHUHMACHER, 1974 (publ. Dec., 1974). Helgolinder wiss. Meeresunters, vol. 26(34), pp. 238-356, tab. 6, 13 (coral reef ecology). HOLTHUIS, 1980. FAO Fish. Synop. (125) Vol. 1, pp. 122-123 (distribution, listing of synonyms, etc., together with remarks on the use of the name as a senior synonym). The use by Fishelson of Forskal’s name was in violation of the ‘fifty-year rule’ then in force. The Mergner & Schuhmacher article was published after the revision of Article 23 had appeared (in August, 1974) so it was not in violation; however, that article merely carried Forskal’s name in two extensive faunal lists without comment on the change. Dr. Holthuis has stated that he applied the names used by Dr. Fishelson (personal communication) while Mergner & Schuhmacher specifically acknowledge his help. Thus, while the name A. sublucanus has appeared four other times in the literature since 1970, all uses were those of Dr. Holthuis and he did not explain the synonymy of A. sublucanus until late 1979. 2. The species has also been placed under two different generic names and been given three different trivial names. These are recorded and accepted synonyms and do not affect this discussion. 3. Forskal, as a student of Linnaeus, used the linnaean genus Cancer for this species, but he did state that the animal was ‘macrourus’. Beyond that he gave almost no morphological details that would separate this species from other genera and families of shrimp-like decapods. He did mention ‘antice spina oculis longiore’ but made no mention of the characteristic orbital hoods that are found in all species of the genus Alpheus; he also mentioned that the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 299 left chela was larger — a type of asymmetry that is also found in unrelated shrimps, as in the PONTONIINAE. 4. The identification by Holthuis therefore rests largely upon the colours described by Forskal. Forskal stated that the shrimp was “incarnatus [usually translated as flesh-coloured or pink], dorso nigro”; he also specified “Antennae nigrae...Chelae...dorso nigrae, lateribus fuscopunctatae...” In the literally hundreds of specimens of this species that we have collected through the breadth of the Indo- Pacific we have found the colour to be quite variable. The ground colour is usually an orange-red of various degrees of intensity and the lateral portions of the body and the chelae usually bear spots of deeper red to red-brown. In some geographical areas individuals may bear a mid-dorsal longitudinal stripe of the colour of the mottling or even darker, at times with the red-brown approaching blackness. We are currently publishing in a paper on the alpheids of the Red Sea some colour notes on A. sublucanus—lottini made by Dr. Holthuis on a specimen he collected from the coral Stylophora in the Dahlak Archipelago in which he states the general colour was ‘orange-brown...[with sere dark brown longitudinal band... The sides of the body are a much paler brown with an orange tinge. The tailfan is dark brown... The antennular and antennal peduncles are brown... The fingers of the large chela are reddish brown, the palm is lighter reddish brown beneath; the upper half... shows dark (blackish) spots...’ While Dr. Holthuis is describing a darker specimen than we usually have seen, and a lighter specimen than that which Forskal was attempting to describe, we concede his description is close enough to that of Forskal to support his contention that Forskal was indeed describing the species now known as A. Jottini. 5. However, the question is not whether the specimen seen: and named by Forskal was the species now known as Alpheus loittini, but whether the revival of Forskal’s name to replace that of Guérin follows the present interpretation of the Law of Priority as stated in Article 23, section (a—b) of the present rules. Holthuis contends that the use of A. sublucanus ‘might even do away with the controversy of ventrosus-lottin’. We contend that the controversy is now over and that the name A. J/ottini is now stabilized. 6. Holthuis states that A. ventrosus was ‘seriously challenged by A. Jottini after 1955’. Our bibliography indicates that the serious challenge occurred only with the publication of Holthuis’ paper in September, 1958, and we find only five authors using the name A. ventrosus after that date: BANNER, 1959. Pacific Sci., vol. 13, p. 141 (distribution and colour notes; paper in press when Holthuis’ 1958 paper was received). AL-KHOLY, 1961. Publ. mar. biol. Sta. Al-Ghardagqa, no. 11, pp. 71-86 (not seen). 300 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 JOHNSON, 1962. Bull. natn. Mus. St. Singapore, vol. 30, p. 51 (distribution). PATTON, 1966. Crustaceana, vol. 10, p. 282 (commensalism). McNEILL, 1968. Sci. Repts. G. Barrier Reef Exped., vol. 7, p. 15 (distribution). 7. Holthuis further states that ‘between 1955 and 1975 I counted 17 uses of A. /ottini and 10 of A. ventrosus’. We, using the 1958 date of his publication, find 18 authors in 26 separate publications have used A. lottini: FOURMANOIR, 1958. Nat. Malgache, vol. 10, p. 119 (distribution). CHACE, 1962. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 113, p. 608 (distribution). TIWARI, 1963, Ann. Fac. Sci., Saigon, 1963, p. 285 (distribution). BANNER & BANNER, 1964. Pacif. Sci., vol. 18, p. 38 (acceptance of name change and distribution). 1966. Siam Soc. Monogr., no.. 3, p. 91 (redescription and distribution). ——1967. Bishop Mus. Occ. Pap. vol. 23, p. 267 (distribution). —— 1968. Micronesica, vol. 4, p. 281 (distribution). MACNAE & KALK, 1969. A natural history of Inhaca Island, Mogambique (2nd ed.,), pp. 37 ff. (distribution). KENSLEY, 1970. Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. 57, p. 105 (distribution). BANNER, 1970. Hawaii Institute Geophysics 70-23 160 (distribution). CASTRO, 1971. Pacif. Sci., vol. 25, p. 400 (commensalism). GARTH, 1974. J. mar. biol. Ass. India, vol. 15, p. 198 ff. (distribution). BRUCE, 1975. Endeavour, vol. 4(121), p. 25 (colour notes). ABELE, 1974. Smithson, Contrib. Zool., no. 176, p. 72 (vol. for 1975) (distribution). ——& PATTON, 1976. Journ. Biogeogr., vol. 3, p. 37 (distribution). BRUCE, 1976. Micronesica, vol. 12, p. 92 (commensalism). GLYNN, 1976. Ecolog. Monogr. vol. 46, p. 443 (ecology). LASSIG, 1977. Proc. 3rd Intern. Coral Reef Symp. vol. 1, p. 569 (commensalism). —— 1977. Mar. Biol., vol. 42, p. 86 ff. (commensalism). BANNER & BANNER, 1977. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), vol. 31, p. 282 (on the identity of A. thetis White, a nomen nudum). ——1978. Micronesica, vol. 14, p. 224 (distribution). ——1980. Pacif. Sci., vol. 33, p. 26 (distribution). ——1981. Rec. Aust. Mus. [In press] (redescription and distribution). PEYROT-CLAUSADE, 1977. Faune cavitaire mobile des _platiers... (Madagascar). Thése Université d’Aix-Marseille 2 pour ... Docteur des Sciences Naturelles (distribution and coral reef ecology). RIBES, 1978. La Macrofaune vagile associée a la partie vivante des scléractiniares...(Océan Indien). Thése de Doctorat du 3™ cycle en Océanologie, Université Aix-Marseille 2 (distribution and coral reef ecology). THOMASSIN, 1978. Peuplements des sédiments coralliens dans la région de Tuléar (S.O. Madagascar)... dans le contexte cotiére Indo-Pacifique. Thése Dr. Sciences Université d’Aix-Marseille 2 Archiv. Original CNRS (distribution and coral reef ecology). (We do not believe these French theses constitute publications under Articles 7, 8 and 9 under the International Code; they are offered only as examples of the current usage of the binomen Alpheus lottini.). Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 301 8. This species is not a rare and insignificant species known only to the specialists in the identification of macrurous decapod crustaceans. It is one of the larger of the alpheid shrimps, conspicuously coloured, abundant in living heads of coral of certain species of the family POCILLOPORIDAE wherever they are found in the coral reef environment. It not only reaches across the entire breadth of the Indo-Pacific faunal realm from the Red Sea to eastern Polynesia, but it has also jumped the ‘eastern Pacific barrier’, being reported from the Gulf of California to the Galapagos Islands. To give some idea of the abundance and collectability of this species, we are reporting on 118 specimens made in 57 collections from Australia, found in all Australian museums that have collections from the tropics (Banner & Banner, 1981, in press). The annotations on the bibliography above attest that the investigators of commensal relationships and those making broad studies on coral reef ecology have published upon this species. As is shown in paragraph 6, even those specializing in the nomenclature of the decapod crustaceans may lag behind in accepted changes in nomenclature by ten years. Those who are not specialists but are interested in other aspects of the coral reef problem will undoubtedly lag even more. The change from the presently accepted name will produce a decade or more of unnecessary confusion in the literature. 9. As an example of the use of the plenary powers by the Commission within the family ALPHEIDAE, may we cite Opinion 334, 1955, wherein the name Crangon Weber, 1795 was suppressed and the junior synonym Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This was despite the clear priority of Weber’s publication and despite the utilization of Weber’s name by almost all American and Australian carcinologists following M.J. Rathbun’s revival of the senior synonym in 1904 (p. 170). Although we then protested the change on the basis of priority (1951, p. 74), we now commend this action for promoting stability and universality. 10. We therefore request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) use its plenary power vested in Article 79 to suppress the specific name sublucanus as published under Forskal’s authorship in 1775 as Cancer sublucanus, a specific name virtually unused from its time of publication until 1979, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name /ottini Guérin, 1829, as published in the binomen Alpheus lottini; 302 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name sublucanus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer sublucanus. REFERENCES (Excluding those in chronological lists in paragraphs 1, 6 and 7) BANNER, A.H., 1951. On Dr. L.B. Holthuis’ proposals relating to the generic names “Crangon” Weber, 1795, and “Crangon” Fabricius, 1798. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 2(3), pp. 74-75. — 1958. Contributions to the knowledge of the alpheid shrimps of the Pacific Ocean. Part III. On a small collection from Onotoa, Gilbert Islands. Pacif. Sci., vol. 12(2), pp. 157-169, 4 figs. ——1959. Contributions to the knowledge of the alpheid shrimps of the Pacific Ocean. Part IV. Various small collections from the central Pacific area, including supplementary notes on alpheids from Hawaii. Pacif. Sci., vol. 13(2), pp. 130-155, 13 figs. ——& D.M. BANNER, 1964. Contributions to the knowledge of the alpheid shrimps of the Pacific Ocean. Part IX. Collections from the Phoenix and Line Islands. Pacif. Sci., vol. 18(1), pp. 83-100, 5 figs. & 1981. The alpheid shrimps of Australia. Part III. The remaining alpheids, principally the genus Alpheus, and the family Ogyrididae. Rec. Aust. Mus. [In press, scheduled for issue in June, 1981]. BARNARD, K.H., 1950. Descriptive catalogue of South African decapod Crustacea (crabs and shrimps). Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. 38, pp. 1-837, 154 figs. COUTIERE, H., 1897. Note sur quelques espéces du genre Alpheus du Musée de Leyde. Notes Leyden Mus., vol. 19(23), pp. 195-207. —— 1905. Les Alpheidae. In: J.S. Gardiner (ed.), The fauna and geography of the Maldive and Laccadive Archipelagoes. Vol. 2(4), p-p. 852-921, pls 70-87, text-figs 127-139. University Press, Cambridge, England [Vol. dated 1906]. FORSKAL, P., 1775. Descriptiones animalium, avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium; quae in itinere orientali observavit. Haunia: Heineck et Faber. pp.1—19, i-xxxii, 1-164 pp. [Not seen]. GUERIN-MENEVILLE, F.E., 1829-44. Iconographie du régne animal de G. Cuvier, ou représentation d’apres nature de l’une des espéces les plus remarquables et souvent non encore figurées, de chaque genre d’animaux. Avec un texte descriptif mis au courant de la science. Ouvrage pour servir d'atlas a tous les traités de zoologie. Vol. 2, Planches des animaux invertébrés, pls. 1-104; Vol. 3 [?], Crustacés, J.B. Bailliére, Paris, London. HOLTHUIS, L.B., 1958. Contributions to the knowledge of the Red Sea. No. 8. Crustacea Decapoda from the northern Red Sea (Gulf of Aqaba and Sinai Peninsula). I. Macrura. Bull. Sea Fish. Res. Stn., Israel No. 17, pp. 1-40, 15 figs. ——1961. On the dates of publication of the crustacean plates in Duperry’s “Voyage autour du monde...sur...La Coquille”. Crustaceana, vol. 3(2), pp. 168-169. ——1979. A small collection of decapod Crustacea from Galapagos Islands. Jn: Galapagos, studi e ricerche — Spedizione L. Mares — G.R. S.T.S., part ?, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 303 pp. 1-11. [Preprint, issued 15 December 1979 of an article in a book to be published by the Museo Zoologico del’ Universita di Firenze, for the Gruppo Ricerche Scientifiche e Tecniche Subacquee (G.R.S.T.S.), Florence, Italy]. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 1955. [Francis Hemming, ed.]. Opinions and declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinion 334. Validation under plenary powers, of the generic names Crangon Fabricius 1798 and Alpheus Fabricius 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), vol. 10(1), pp. 1-44. KINGSLEY, J.S., 1882. Carcinological notes: Number V. Bull. Essex Inst., vol. 14, 105-132, pls. 1, 2. MACNAE, W. & M. KALK, 1969. A natural history of Inhaca Island, Mocambique (2nd Ed.), 162 pp, 30 figs., 11 pls. Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg. [1st Ed. of 1958 not seen]. MILNE-EDWARDS, H., 1837. Histoire naturelle des crustacés, comprenant l'anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux, vol. 2, pp. 1-532. Atlas pt. 2. Roret, Paris. RANDALL, J.W., 1839. Catalogue of the Crustacea brought by Thomas Nuttall and J.K. Townsend, from the west coast of North America and the Sandwich Islands, with descriptions of such species as are apparently new, among which are included several species of different localities, previously existing in the collection of the Academy. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad., vol. 8(1), pp. 106-147, pls. 3-7. RATHBUN, M.J., 1904. Some changes in crustacean nomenclature. Proc. biol. Soc. Wash., vol. 17, pp. 169-172. SHARP, B., 1893. Catalogue of the crustaceans in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. pp. 104-127. STEBBING, T.R., 1915. South African Crustacea (Part VIII). Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. 15, pp. 57-104, pls. 8-25 [of vol. 15, and pl. 77-89 of Crustacea]. STEBBING, T.R., 1919. Some Crustacea of Natal. Ann. Durban Mus., vol. 2(3), pp. 119-125, pls. 18-20. URITA, T., 1921. Species and distribution of Natantia found in Kagoshima Bay. Zool. Mag., Tokyo, vol. 33, pp. 216-217. Comment on the above Application By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The identity of Cancer sublucanus Forskal, 1775.— The species was first published in P. Forskal’s Descriptiones Animalium, 1775, a well-known early publication on Red Sea animals. Petrus Forskal (1732-1763) took part as a zoologist in the 1761-1767 Danish expedition to Arabia and died on 11 July 1763 in the Yemen. His notes were taken to Denmark by Carsten Niebuhr, the leader and sole survivor of the expedition, and it was he who saw to it that the Descriptiones Animalium were published. Because Forskal had not had the time to work out his notes himself, the descriptions of the new species give relatively little morphological information and relatively many details on the colour of the live animals. Many of the species described by Forskal (especially in fishes, crustaceans and other invertebrates) can be recognised from his descriptions, and for those his names are widely used. As Crustacea lose their colour when preserved (one of the 304 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 reasons why Forskal gave so much attention to it in his notes), several of Forskal’s descriptions could not be correctly interpreted by reference to discoloured museum specimens. For this reason, when taking part in the 1962 to 1965 Israeli southern Red Sea expeditions, I took with me copies of Forskal’s descriptions of those of his species of Crustacea whose identity was still doubtful. I made special efforts to identify his dubious species (among which was Cancer sublucanus) by comparing his descriptions with living animals. In many instances this method proved successful and I was often amazed at the accuracy of Forskal’s colour descriptions. The description of Cancer sublucanus, both in its morphological part (size 1.5 inches, body compressed, chelae ovate-oblong, compressed and asymmetrical, ocular spines present), and in the part dealing with the colour (body reddish, dorsally blackish brown, chelae spotted with brown) is such that there can be no doubt that Cancer sublucanus is the species also known as Alpheus lottini Guérin. 2. The nomenclature of the species.— During the last century and a half there has never been a period when the nomenclature of the species was stable. From 1840 to about 1910 it was, as already pointed out by Dr. and Mrs. Banner, most commonly called Alpheus laevis Randall, 1840, from about 1910 to 1958 Alpheus ventrosus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, and after 1958 A. lottini Guérin, 1829. But in none of these periods was the usage of one name universal. I know of no use of A. ventrosus after 1975, but in 1971 A. sublucanus started to be used. I have counted six uses of sublucanus, 23 of lottini, 34 of laevis and 44 of ventrosus. Thus by conserving /ottini, one would save the least used of the three most widely used synonyms of sublucanus. The fact that ventrosus was used up to 1975 (though much less frequently than /ottini towards the end of that period) shows that the latter name has never gone unchallenged, and that although it has been the name most frequently used for the species in the last 25 years, the reintroduction of sublucanus in no way upsets a stable situation. A. sublucanus has been used at least four times in the modern literature, twice in non-systematic papers dealing with reef ecology. I can set at: rest the Banners’ doubts about the identity of Fishelson’s animals, as I examined his material myself. The great advantage of the name sublucanus is its age. Published in 1775, it is one of the two oldest names for Alpheid shrimps (the other is Astacus malabaricus Fabricius, 1775) and the chance of its being replaced by a still older synonym is very small. Its use will therefore finally give stability to the nomenclature of the species, which has suffered so much in this respect in the last century and a half. In this case, it seems best to adhere to priority and adopt Forskal’s name for the species. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 305 INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Page Banner;(AURo (ude cobs: 297 Mathis sWEN:. seuometiiet.c 201 Nearer, Ey Wi) nih: 2 he 297 Melville, R.V. (Secretary) 7,10 Barskoyo-E:8 2c oisatibin (eet 92 16,30,74,93,163, 166,168,221 238,283 Brown, Gl? 2h Paling es 294 Milter! Dia Ao. are Be. 82 Mount? TADion 120 Ae). AD 9 Carpenters Pies Pee eh i | 285 Mroczkowski, M .................. 292 Cernohorsky, W.O. .............. 237 Cornelitise BFS, eave 208 Pesentko VA! murinmickenics 225 Mowan, CoP Ue Set 228 Pettibone MH. 4k. 76 Preseh gat?) Ss eteaees, 2) 194 pans, ELM eA 79,147 Bempster, LJ. eee 284 Robertson LP: Leb. sew. .54 125 Domning{ DP. te ON)/ 130 Savagee chiar oniemsizeh:...00 0 8 Follett,.W. Beko Na 284 Schremp) EAA SLA. 9 Scaly/D.LLE. WiteeaReh 286 Gay, FAA? Ai aE D) heeled 142 Swathi LM. 30: rem eth. 236 Spatielen Patt LaF... 157 Fiahn, Go. {208 eee) Peay 6,93 Starobogatov, Y.1. .......0........ 158 Heppell Dt ©. iuciemalt eu, 163 StunsonAKhe ..20h..ach oo! 236 Holthuis, L.B., 2... 236,237,303 Huddleston, R.W. ................ 161 Thompsons FG, oe 2die. £0 7 Jansson, AMVs ets (ho eet 197 Waren Atal siieureties | 134 Watson, eA doles. 208 53 142 Kerzhner, I.M. ........ 6,79, 138,147 WhalleyeP: Wrttincsmed:..... 285 205,225,288 Willams) Rebs“). 2. new. ...°. 156 Kozur, RV vik,..... cones. 83,90 EMIPCY ARTS hdd 159 Zicpler, We) hannvemebaly.:.:.... 86 Pane, HR eatrateh 2 86 306 Opinion 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 Bull. zool. Nom. , vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Schizoneura meunieri Heie, 1969 (Insecta: Hemiptera): conserved under the plenary powers ..................cceceeeeeeeeeees Conus moluccensis (Mollusca: Gastropoda) is available as from the work Of KUustée mM Sages... 2 RE tet penitty | eee eee Refusal of request to suppress Calomicrus taeniatus Wollaston, Lo67 (inscem Coleapterayt 0. 22 AR AAA Scytale niger Daudin, 1803 (Reptilia, Serpentes): suppressed .... Liparthrum Wollaston, 1854 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): CORSERVER EEK, Sete SABES a 7s et Ne, eee Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): COUSELVE Rd Cee, Eee Re Ya! Cacatua ducorpsii Pucheran, 1853 (Aves): conserved .............. Cataphractus punctatus Bloch, 1794 (Pisces): lectotype dEsipnationlapproved seyret lis..cties ieee Cath cte tees sot sek nce aenow SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1837 (Lepidoptera) placed on OficiahEsGs HASSE Cee EE BAO ESI EE The stem of the generic name Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 (Pisces) is Petioeiymanes ae. ..28 OU, 25 BOS. 25. MERA Ascidia intestinalis Linnaeus, 1767 (Tunicata) conserved .......... The type species of Hiltermannicythere Bassiouni, 1970 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) is Cythereis turbida Miller, 1894 ......... The type species of Atractocera Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) is Tipula regelationisWsinnacus; 1758) ¥o.ei8e. Ea Ne I Monstrilla intermedia Kriczagin, 1877 (Copepoda) suppressed .. Echis colorata [sic] Guenther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes) given nomenclatural precedence over Echis froenata [sic] Duméril, Bibron'é& Dusieril Soave. 5. he Ba MOR en SIN Cossmmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) desipnation of type Speeiesyns.c0; PORES. ie. ied Seo Megasternum Mulsant, 1844, and Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera): type species determined ............... Polydrusus Germar, 1817 and Phyllobius Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved in accordance with current usage ........ Thamnophilus amazonicus Sclater, 1858 (Aves) conserved ....... Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) designation ORAMVPE SPECIES rast. secacoe raat noes 0 mcttad cs cacesaeate ees epedueesoaes TETHYIDAE in Mollusca, Porifera and Tunicata: removal of PNG MGRION YOY 2 oreo -bc goncace vata ass tesbanenoonsteseaes s 254 chilensis, Pyura, Molina, 1782 (Opinion 1182) .................0eeeeeeeeeeeee es 174 Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 (Opinion 1184) ...................eeeeeeee 182 Chromis CuvieriinsDesmarest, 1814"... 52255. 5 0 dgiess-coeencceset$ ceeded one 284 CIMICIDAE Latreilles [1802] (Direction. 109) pros. -cienniniaene td an aendanonie 276 312 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 cinerea, Nepa, Lannacuss MDB pA a) Na od CL d. Seve by aedeteen es cinereiceps, Thamnophilus, Pelzeln, 1868 (Opinion 1180) .................. Ciana Bieminey|S22(Opinion 1172) ....+< 2easdepcczeecdenesvpndgunndolteedesa ss sacs Circe: Schumacher, 1817 (Opinion: 1189), » x vep 4... abions sein ehemermegantides Tes LOT -sabarece yeaa Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 (Opinion 1177) ................0.c0ec0e0ee colorata, Echis [sic] Guenther, 1878 (Opinion 1176) .............0..0..00000- Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (Opinion 1178) ................ccceeceeceeeeeeee CYCLADIDAE Rahinesque, 1820) csc s:9. 92: .d Ve deeSet