~ vik ) ‘ eee o Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements La RE TE Financial Report for 1981 ’ Commission Report: General Meeting, "Ottawa, Canada, IEF August, 1982 . . Anolis Daudin, 1802 (Reptilia). C. W. Sabrosky; A. F. “Stimson & G. Underwood 5 : Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Araneae, Salticidae), B. Cutler P Gorgonia flabelliformis Eichwald, 1840 (Graptolithina), Ph. Legrand: D. Skevington : Opinion 1239. Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Opinion 1240, HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Opinion 1241. CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 and PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Mammalia) Opinion 1242. Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936 (Crustacea, Isopoda) Opinion 1243. Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 ne Insectivora) ; Opinion 1244. Stethaspis Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) _ Opinion 1245. Linyphia tenebricola Wider, 1834 (Arachnida) Pseudopontia Plotz y. piace tabi Felder (Insecta, Lepidoptera). C.F. Cowan Family-groups based on M yrmecia (Insecta) and My yrmecium (Arach- nida). J. Reiskind Family group names based on n Eurhin, Eurhinus and Eurhynchus (Coleoptera). E.C. Zimmerman; R.T. Thompson . . Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Aphidoidea). H. LG. Stroyan.. Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Crustacea, Copepoda). Ww. Vervoort & L.B. Holthuis F ANUROPODIDAE in Crustacea Isopoda and i in 1 Crustacea Tanaida- cea. M. Bacescu, J. Sieg & L.B. Holthuis Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis Walker, 1870 Insecta, Hemip- tera, Aphididae). F.W. Quednau : UROPLAT — as the stem of family-group names in Amphibia and Insecta (Coleoptera). H.M. Smith & U.N. Lanham Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Cimicidae). R.C. Froeschner, E.V. Coan & R.E. Ryckman Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements . LNT te Comment on Chuangia Walcott, 1911 and Shantungia ‘Walcott, 1905. C. Lochman Balk & C.J. Stubblefield : Comment on Aphytis mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870. A.D. Austin, B. Bolton, Z. Boucek, N.D.M. Ferguson, M.G. Fitton, L.D. Gauld, T. Huddleston, J.S. Noyes, J. Quinlan & B.R. Subba Rao Comment on Kinosternon alamose & K. oaxacae Pritchard. 1979. The Secretary 3 Ean Il Page 70 71 i Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Comments on Rasnitsyn’s proposal to regulate the names of taxa above the family group. D.J. Brothers Comments on Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916. L.B. Holthuis: i LaSalle & P. DeBach we. Opinion 1246. Herpetodryas margaritferus Schlegel, 1837 (Reptilia, Septentes) Opinion 1247. Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829) and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homoptera) } a, em Opinion 1248. Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Insecta, Hemiptera) Opinion 1249. Toxostoma crissale Baird, 1858 (Aves) Opinion 1250. Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819; Zantholinus Dejean, 1821; Othius Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ; Opinion 1251. Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (Bivalvia, Cucullaeidae) . Opinion 1252. Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840 (Aves) : Opinion 1253. Chromodoris californiensis Bergh, 10 May 1879 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) Specs bis ohh Ca oe Ghat oti Opinion 1254. Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 and Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea) . . Opinion 1255. Lespesia Robineau- Peta, 1863 (Diptera, Tachi- nidae) : Larentia capitata Herrich- Schiffer, 1839 and Phalaena ‘coracina Esper, 1805 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). K. Mikkola 5 Mya Rondani, 1850 and Somomya Bertolini, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera). A.C. Pont Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (Hymenoptera, Vespoidea, Eumeni- dae). J. van der Vecht Kassina Girard 1853 (Amphibia, Anura). A. ‘Dubois & ip F Morere and A.F. Stimson & B.T. Clarke Simia fascicularis Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Primates). PH. Napier & C.P. Groves pas Allygus Fieber, 1872 (Insecta, Homoptera). F. Ossiannilsson : Mactra_ sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). A.I. Kafanov : CAECILIIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera). 38 E. Moore, R.A. Nussbaum & E.L. Mockford : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements. Address by Professor T.R.E. Southwood, F R. Ss: ‘Vice- President, The Royal Society a , Financial Report for 1982 Nomenclature of Organisms considered by s¢ some to be animals and by others plants or bacteria (W.D.L. Ride) : Opinion 1256. Sorex dsinezumi Temminck, 1843 (Mammalia, Insec- tivora) ; Opinion 1257. Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1258. Ochthera exculpta Loew, 1862 (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1259. Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854 and Ogygites Tromelin & Lebesconte, 1876 (Trilobita) ; ee Opinion 1260. Orthunga Dohm, 1859 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Opinion 1261. Chuangia Walcott, 1911 and Shantungia Walcott, 1905 (Trilobita) eS ba eG, ae : 102 106 111 114 Le 119 122 124 129 130 133 137 140 147 149 151 153 157 160 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (Crustacea, Isopoda). B. Kensely : Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (Amphibia, Anura). H. M. Smith, K.T. Fitzgerald & L.J. Guillette, Jr. : Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Pisces, Siluriformes). R.M. Bailey & D. J. Stewart) Neadmete Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda). R.E. Petit Bek ; Calymene Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita). H.B. Whittington ; Panopea Ménard de la Groye, April 1807 (Mollusca, Pee The Secretary : Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 and Troodon wyom- ingensis Gilmore, 1931 (Reptilia, Dinosauria): proposed conser- vation. D. Baird. Donax hanleyanus Philippi, 1847 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). W. Narchi Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. D.G. Broadley Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zaolosy Special Announcements. Comment on Anolis Daudin, 1802. J. M. “Savage: A. F Stimson & G. te Underwood . . : Comment on TEIIDAE Gray, 1827. ‘A. iz Stimson; +. B. Holthuis Comment on Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865. L.B. Holthuis; A. Dubois Opinion 1262. Cancer vocans bird Herbst, 1782 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Opinion 1263. Prototomus v viverrinus ; Cope, 1874 (Mammalia) Caeparia Stal, 1877 (Insecta, Dictyoptera). L.M. Roth & A.B. Gurney Megilla Fabricius, 1805 and Macropis Klug, 1809 (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). C.D. Michener ; Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 a Serpentes). J. B. Rasmussen & A. FE. Stimson. Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 and Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Gastropoda, Opistho- Dranchia\aWe Da INUGinanWieeety, fal) ee. meee ws clean Rhinoclama Dall & Smith, 1886 (Mollusca, Septibranchia). D. Heppell : Chelydra osceola Stejneger, 1918 (Reptilia, Testudines). H. M. Smith, R.B. Smith & D. Chiszar 5 Bainella Rennie, 1930 (Arthropoda, Trilobita). M. R. Cooper cae Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 and Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). D.S. Fletcher & I.W.B. Nye NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 (Gastropoda). D. Heppell Tricelia variopedata Renier, [1807] (Polychaeta). The Secretary Euphraedra Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). C.F. Cowan Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). C.F. Cowan Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera). R.C. Marinoni. . Rallus tabuensis Gmelin, 1789 (Aves). N.D. Bruce, D.T. kone & J.-C. Thibault . . : Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Silfverbere Index to Authors : : ; List of Decisions in this volume p Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes. in Decisions published in volume 40 VI Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Index to Key Names IeatteC tla Sih 4 i kp wis ORR I ee aS 8 RINE Ber Particulars of dates of publication of the severai parts in which the present volume was published Ja + sourelt t Instructions to Binder 259 266 266 266 Mar pp. i h 1983 Volume 40 Part 1 — never k The Bullet of Zoological - Nomenclature The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum isteral ee Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD Price £10.00 (All rights reserved). THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Zoologist: Mr. A. PENROSE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). B. The Members of the Commission PURCHASED & (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Gy a 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 Cien- cias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echi- noidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzer- land) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crus- tacea 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, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut 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. COGGER (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 il 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 Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 S5BD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpeto- logy Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitét Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari Dr. SHUNICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1. Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) Entomology Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucumdan, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical Hymenoptera INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. Per Brink Prof. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. C.B. Cox Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. G.C. Gruchy Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. E-P:F2 Rose; 1D: 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) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 | BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 40, part 1 (pp. 1-66) 29 March 1983 i ee ee NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circumstances the Commission may start to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following appli- cations published in the present part of the Bulletin (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b): (1) Pseudopontia Plétz v. Gonophlebia Felder (Insecta, Lepi- doptera): settlement of case. Z.N.(S.) 1688. C.F. Cowan. (2) Request for a ruling to correct homonymy in names of the family-groups based on Myrmecia (Insecta) and Myrme- cium (Arachnida). Z.N.(S.) 2223. J. Reiskind. (3) On family group names based upon Eurhin, Eurhinus and Eurhynchus (Coleoptera). ZNAS.); 2269... E.C. Zimmerman; R.T. Thompson. *(4) Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Aphidoidea): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2389. H.L.G. Stroyan. (5) Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Crustacea, Copepoda): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 1517. W. Vervoort & L.B. Holthuis. (6) ANUROPODIDAE in Crustacea Isopoda and in Crusta- cea Tanaidacea: proposal to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2429. M. Bacescu, J. Sieg & L.B. Holthuis. (7) Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Aphididae): proposals to remove the confusion. Z.N.(S.) 2153. F.W. Quednau. (8) UROPLAT —as the stem of Family Group names in Amphibia and Insecta (Coleoptera): proposals to remove the Homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2373. H.M. Smith, U.N. Lanham & A. Loveridge. (9) Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Cimicidae): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2358. R.C. Froeschner, E.V. Coan & R.E. Ryckman. 2 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 39(4) on 7 December 1982 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b.): (1) Chelonia Brongniart, 1800 (Reptilia, Chelonii): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2428. R. Bour & A. Dubois. (2) ANUROPODIDAE in Isopoda and Tanaidacea (Crusta- cea): proposals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2429. A. Bacescu, J. Sieg & L.B. Holthuis. (3) Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia): pro- posed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2430. R.L. Cifelli & M.F. Soria. (4) Allygus Fieber, 1871 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2431. F. Ossdavilssu. (5) Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (Gastropoda): proposed con- servation and clarification. Z.N.(S.) 2432. W.B. Rudman. (6) Sphaeroma Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda): pro- posed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2433. K. Harrison. (7) Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Pisces): proposed designation of Semionotus bergeri as type species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2434. A.R. McCune. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUBLISHING THE BULLETIN As already announced in previous issues of the Bulletin, from 1 January 1983 the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham House, Farnham Royal, Slough, U.K. SL2, 3BN, have agreed to handle the printing and distribution of the Bulletin. Some subscribers may have already received notices from the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux including a request for payment in advance for volume 40 (1983). It is hoped that this change will cause no more than a temporary inconvenience. Unfortunately some invoices for volume 39 (1982) were sent out late. This was because Mr E. Leonard, the Trust’s Accountant and Publications Officer for many years, resigned for domestic and health reasons. This led inevitably to some dislocation. The arrival of late demands to pay for 1982 and early demands for 1983 is regretted but it is hoped subscribers will understand why this has happened. This Trust is confident that CAB, a large organisation handling Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 3 many periodical publications and with extensive international connex- ions, will provide an improved service and ultimately increase the circu- lation with economies in operation not available to the Commission or the Trust. FORMAT CHANGES IN THE BULLETIN Readers will notice that following the changes referred to above, the Bulletin has a new cover design. Also the table of contents is trans- ferred from an inside page to the back cover; this should help busy readers find items more speedily and is in line with the practice of many other scientific journals. The type face has been changed to ‘Times’ but in other respects format is unchanged. FINANCIAL SUPPORT We acknowledge with grateful thanks the following donations to- wards the Trust’s Appeal Fund received since the last list was published in volume 39 part 4, December 1982: The Lesley—David Trust (further donation), Dr and Mrs David Lewis (further donation), Dr F.J. Meggitt, The John Spedan Lewis Trust for the Advancement of the Natural Sciences, Dr K.M. Harris, Dr K.G.V. Smith, Lady M. Casson, Dr J.D. Holland, the National Science Museum of Japan, Lord Medway’s Charitable Trust, Mr R. d’Erlanger and the BP Group of Companies. Covenanted donations have been received from Dr R.W. Crosskey, Dr J.D. George, Mrs J.M. Pope, Dr E.F. Owen and Elmrace Holdings. The gross value of the Appeal Fund now stands at over £28,000 (not counting expenditures). It is encouraging to report increasing international interest in the Appeal. Apart from the donations already recorded from Australia, New Zealand and Japan, good progress is being made with the establishment of a charitable association in the U.S.A. and the possibilities of setting up a similar organisation in Canada. Three member countries of the European Science Foundation - Denmark, Ireland and Sweden — have expressed their willingness to contribute. Meanwhile, the arrangements for the future publication and dis- tribution of the Bulletin announced in September 1982 (Bull. vol. 39, pp. 154-155) are now in effect. While editorial policy and the supply of matter for publication will continue to be a responsibility of the Sec- retary to the Commission, all questions on distribution and sales should be addressed to the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham House, Farnham Royal, Slough SL2 3BN. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature March, 1983 Jd} IWIWIOD JUSWEseUR] Alina ‘qd dy} JO SIOQUIOI| Udy “Ad “UBO] JaJj JSOIOJUI UL Se PoAlada1 OOO'ZF Pure ISNIY, BY) JO spuny ay} Wo payeoo]|e QOO'LF “UONUOP dyroads B SB _PaAlade1 (0O'SF JO s1SISUOD ‘aINJBSUSWION [¥9130]00Z JO apod ;BUOHeUIAIU] 24} JO UONIPY pg 94) JO Buutid 10j apeul uoIsIAOId BY, *Z ‘panyeA usaq JOU sey suOT}ROI[GNd JO 4901S AY “| ‘SALON pO 8EF LOL‘ 7CF 000'r1 (Z SION) UoIstAoIg 9yloadg 000°Z1 pe0' re LOLOL LOT EI ‘ 1861 40J snjding Cr6 7 L9L‘OI 0861 “Jequiesed S| ¢ 1e GoURl|eY S78 L AAYsaSad JNNAATaY SGNN4A GaALVINNNOOV pe0' 8eF LOL‘ TCF egy S76OE Z juowysn{pe yseD pue yueg = € anq sexe] 194}0 pur swiosuy — LLY7 JOURAPY UI POAII90I SUOTIdIIOsqng 9LV'TZ 10L‘1 sIOyIpalD AIpung 6rr' | SAILIMIAVIT LNAdANO ile or 769°97 SS6 It 10¢°97 SPO EE ([ 9}0N) pueH Ul pue yuRg ye Yyse) 901°7Z — J]QuIOAOIIY Soxe |, JoyIO puke sWIOdUT LI 0168 saje§ WO anp sjJunNOWY BLIP SLASSV LNAYdNO GIG 16¢ BES uoneldoeidag palejnuinsoy -ssaT 008 309 1 [NAWdINOT FOAO SLASSV GaxI4 ; 861 1861 ‘WAGWsAOAC ISIE LV SV LHAYHS JONV IVE FUNLVIONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YOA LSNUL TVNOILVNUYALNI sJURJUNODSY poaisyeyD Z86I “J9QuII99q _ YIpPTZ ‘OO ¥ JAOOIMAVUD ‘AAUTUOW ‘HCE NIOM “uopuoy ‘MOY Psojpog ‘JOo1IG soules jBID ‘¢ “1861 9} 86 S}OY satuedWIOD 9343 YIM Ajdwoo Puke ajep Jey} UO papus 1e9A dy} JOJ snjding Buneisdo ay) Jo pue [gE] “JEquIds0q ISTE 94} 1e se sireye s AuedwoD sy) Jo a}e}s 94} JO MOIA Mey PUB aN} B 9AIS JUNODDY aINyIpuedxy pue sWOdUT paxouUe puke JooY4S soURTeEg dA0qge 3y} UOTUIdO INO UT SYOLIGNV AHL JO LUYOdAaY LOT EF 1861 ‘MAGNO S1€ GAGNA UYVAA AHL YOA LNNOODOV AYN.LIGNAdXA V ANOD LAAHS AONV TIVE a Se 0} poles YVAA AHL YON SNIdUNS Ch6 CF =] (Z 910N) NOISIAOUd “8527 000°L LOT EI 766 L70'r1 69971 67 jusuidinby s9yjJO Jo uoNeisaidaq ZE 107 suoreorqnd jo Z00'r uolNngiiysiq pue sunuig L6L'8 SE9°8 SCI. 994 pny 001 VOL | sasusdxy 294JO 61E 7 8969 SUOTINGIIUOD “TN Pue satieyes 9179 SASNAd Xd NOILVULSININGY “8897 p67'LZ 119°@ 6L8'I LSAYALNI LISOddAd ANVA pss'l 6l LNVNAAOD AO SCAG cae LEI Cl SNOILVNOG 019 O1 6ST El Lrr'ol Sv SYST [BISWJO — 4 suoruldO SI€ O8I'€l dINJRPOUSWON [Bd1d0]00Z Jo unjaT[ng 858'6 (43 apo [euoneusajuy PLZ SNOILVOITA&Nd AO ATVS — 6 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1981 In 1981, sales of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature brought in £13,180, an increase of £3,180 over 1980. This was not due to an increased number of subscribers but to an effort to collect payments more promptly. The balance sheet shows £8,910 owing from sales (£4,178 in 1980) but at the date of audit only £1,480 remained unpaid. The auditors confirm that there are few bad debts, only slow payers. Donations brought in £12,156 (£10,610 in 1980) which includes the final subvention of £5,000 from the Royal Society and $10,000 from IUBS. Salaries and other expenses were little changed at £8,798 (£8,635). Printing, distribution of publications and depreciation increased by 31% to £5,230 (£4,002 in 1980). The surplus for the year was £13,267 (£16,942 in 1980). These surpluses were essential if the Trust and the Commission were to survive through 1982 and 1983. In these years, our income will be £10,000 less than in 1980 and £5,000 less than in 1981 because subventions from the British Government via the Royal Society paid in 1978, 1979 and 1980 at £5,000 per annum and from IUBS in 1979, 1980, 1981 for a like amount will not be forthcoming. The costs of salaries, national health insurance and office services were contained in 1981 only by economies. These included no scientific assistance for Mr Melville, Secretary of the Commission, dispensing with the services of an accountant/publications officer, withdrawing stock of Bulletins and Opinions from warehouse storage, and other steps. The surpluses will tide us over the difficult years 1982 and 1983 while new sources of funds are sought. To secure the publication of the 3rd edition of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature when the script becomes available, a fund of £14,000 has been set aside made up as follows:- Donations from the Curry Trust £5.000 Provision from ITZN reserves in 1982 7,000 Repayable interest-free loan from the Chairman of the Trust 2,000 £14,000 F.G.W. JONES Managing Director and Secretary, International Trust for Zoological 12 January, 1983 Nomenclature Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 7 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE GENERAL MEETING, CARLETON UNIVERSITY, OTTAWA, CANADA, 23-27 AUGUST 1982 (N.B. These minutes follow the order of business set out in the Agenda, not that in which the items were dealt with. R.V.M.) Present: C. W. Sabrosky (President) in the chair: Bayer, Bernardi, Corliss, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Ride, Welch and the Sec- retary. 1. Apologies for absence had been received from Brinck, Cogger, Hahn, Halvorsen, Mroczkowski and Nye. 2. The minutes of the previous general meeting (Helsinki, 1979) had been published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 203-208. 3. (At a preliminary meeting, Mr Heppell distributed his report on the Special Interest symposium on zoological nomenclature held at the ICSEB II Congress at Vancouver in 1980, see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 206-207); the Secretary outlined a report on the financial future of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on the agree- ment between the Trust and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux for the publication of the Bulletin, and on progress with the appeal for finan- cial support; and the President reported progress towards the organisa- tion of a U.S. non-profit, tax-exempt body to solicit funds for the support of the work of the Commission. General procedures for later working sessions were outlined. 4. The Secretary presented the report on the last three years’ work that he had prepared for IUBS. 5. The Commission considered candidates for nomination to the Section on Zoological Nomenclature for election to the Commission. Five vacancies arose from the expiry of the terms of service of Habe, Heppell, Nye, Tortonese and Willink (among them Habe and Nye did not wish to be considered) and a sixth by the resignation of Vokes. The Council had agreed that Heppell, Tortonese and Willink were eligible for re-nomination; 13 other nominations had been received. It was agreed not to nominate or renominate any candidate over the age of 60. In the course of a lengthy discussion, the drawbacks of the pro- cedure used at Helsinki were recognised. Under that procedure, each retiring member was paired against another candidate and the Com- mission’s preference indicated (Bylaw 3c). On the present occasion it was found that the 16 candidates comprised eight entomologists and eight non-entomologists, and it was agreed to present three pairs of nomi- nations from each set (with preferences indicated). At that point it was agreed to amend Bylaw 3c (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 177) by deleting the words ‘in each case’ in line 3, by replacing the word ‘between’ in line 4 by the words ‘from the’ and by deleting the last four 8 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 words ‘for a given vacancy’. Later, however, it was agreed to revert to the former procedure. The following slate was accordingly drawn up for presentation to the Section on Zoological Nomenclature: Name Country ‘Speciality Name Country Speciality Cocks U.K. Brachiopoda Nielsen Denmark Marine Biology *Heppell U.K. Mollusca Skarlato U.S.S.R. Mollusca Savage U.S.A. Reptilia Nelson Canada Ichthyology Schuster Austria Limnology Saether Norway Limnology Ueno Japan Entomology Odhiambo Kenya Entomology *Willink Argentina Hymenoptera Brothers’ S. Africa Hymenoptera The candidates preferred by the Commission are given in the left- hand column: retiring Commissioners are indicated by an asterisk. 6. Under Bylaw 16, Bayer and Lehtinen were appointed to join the Council to nominate two candidates for President. It was agreed that the election of the President should be completed by 1 July 1983. 7. The Secretary reported the agreement between the Trust and the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Under this agreement the Bureaux would be the publishers and distributors of the Bulletin and would be responsible for the associated administrative work. They would retain the subscription income and would pay £10,000 a year to the Trust. This agreement would run for two years and would be re- negotiable annually thereafter. Dr David Hawksworth, Secretary to the Bureaux, was invited to outline the structure and activities of the CAB to show how the publi- cation of the Bulletin would fit in to these. He showed how the publish- ing facilities of CAB would benefit the Commission. Arrangements for supplying authors’ reprints would continue as before. In reply to a question from Dr Ride, Dr Hawksworth said that the CAB was equipped for computerised typesetting of the Bulletin. Dr Ride asked whether a two-tiered price structure for subscriptions to the Bulletin could be considered and some discussion followed. Dr Hawksworth asked if editorial policy would allow reviews and articles of general interest to be included so as to increase the appeal (and hence the saleability) of the Bulletin. The Secretary explained that priority must be given to applications to the Commission, at least until the backlog of cases had been materially reduced. The effect of the intro- duction of general articles in Taxon on the publication of nomenclatural matter was cited by the President as a cautionary example. 8. The report of a working party on a proposal to re-draft Article 3a of the Constitution, determining the term of service of Com- missioners and already published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 38, pp. 163-165, was then discussed. This had been examined by Dr Ride, who proposed transferring most of this matter to the Bylaws. This reduced the amendment to the Constitution to a short clause replacing the exist- ing provision by one providing for the division of members into classes Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 9 according to the dates of their election or most recent re-election. The report was adopted by eight votes to one. 9. Various matters affecting the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature were discussed at length in the intervals of other business. They are dealt with in an appendix to these minutes. 10. Format and content of the Bulletin. See item 7. 11. Any other business. (a) Dr Ride put a motion designed to ensure the continuing func- tioning of the Commission in the new framework of IUBS that followed the adoption of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of Review. This envisaged the Commission becoming an interdisciplinary commission within the Union, reporting directly to the General Assembly; the re- moval of the Section on Nomenclature from the structure of IUBS; and the assumption by the Commission of responsibility for ensuring that the functions of the Section in (i) electing members to the Commission, (ii) amending the Code and (iii) amending the Constitution, would be carried out and reported to the General Assembly. This motion was adopted with some modifications of the text. (The consequential steps required of the General Assembly were duly embodied in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Admissions and Structures to the final plenary session of the Assembly.) (b) Dr Ride proposed a Declaration to clarify the status of sup- pressed and rejected works. This would show that no name or nomencla- tural act could be accepted from a work rejected because of not conforming to the provisions of the Code, or suppressed by the Com- mission, but that information in such works could be used for the pur- poses of Articles 12 and 13. Mr Heppell asked what was the status of type-designations for taxa described in rejected works. Dr Ride thought that even if general questions were covered by a Declaration, certain cases might need to be dealt with by Directions. He asked Mr Heppell to prepare a paper showing whether the problem could be solved by amending the Code. (c) The President wished to see the majority of cases of misidenti- fied type species dealt with by some automatic procedure. The Secretary pointed out that most cases of this kind involved violation of Articles 67b(ii) and 69a(i), and that such action ought to be controlled by the plenary powers. (d) Mr Heppell questioned the way in which abstentions in vot- ing were counted. The Secretary explained that an abstention merely reduced the total of votes validly cast and hence the number of votes needed to obtain a two-thirds majority. However, although an absten- tion could not be counted as a vote, it would not be reckoned against the abstainer’s voting record so long as the voting paper was returned. Mr Heppell still considered that the procedure should be clarified. (e) Dr Lehtinen launched a general discussion on the role of nomenclature in zoology today. Young zoologists were better educated 10 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 and had access to higher technology (including computers) than previous generations. They were impatient with the numerous doubtful taxa described in the early European literature and thus were unwilling to embark on much-needed revisions. They found the Code too complex and subject to too frequent changes; it was too conservative in its con- cepts — modern zoology recognises five kingdoms, not two. Action by the Commission was too slow and there was a need for specialist com- mittees in certain groups. A strong Commission that could react quickly to the needs of young taxonomists was needed. Dr Corliss agreed, and pointed out that among the five kingdoms of animals, plants, fungi, protists and ‘Monera’, the protist kingdom alone now contained 36 phyla. He outlined three alternative long-term objectives: a single Code for all living things; or separate codes for each kingdom; or modifications of existing codes to deal with problem groups such as the dinoflagellates. (f) Mr Heppell asked why the substantive proposal for the treat- ment of -i and -ii terminations of specific names as permissible alterna- tives had never been put to a separate vote. He would not accept the decisive rejection of the proposal by the Commission at its Stensoffa meeting in 1979 and insisted that the matter must be voted on. It was eventually agreed to incorporate a separate vote on this in the voting paper on the Code. However, even if the original proposal was adopted, it could not be incorporated in the third edition of the Code without imposing an intolerable delay. (g) Dr Ride briefly presented two reports that he had prepared for the General Assembly on two resolutions adopted by IUBS at Helsinki. One concerned the differences between the zoological and botanical approaches to nomenclature and the consequences for admin- istration and finance. The other concerned the nomenclature of taxa considered by some to be animals and by others to be plants. APPENDIX Agenda Item 9. Matters concerning the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (a) Publication. Discussion of this topic centred mainly on the status of works produced by xerography, with particular reference to theses. Dr Ride stressed the importance of evidence of intent to publish and cited the requirement of the Botanical Code for a Latin diagnosis in that connection. After prolonged discussion, Dr Welch indicated several points on which a measure of agreement had been reached: (1) the importance of liaison with the authorities in botanical nomenclature with a view to developing a common ap- proach to this problem; (2) the difficulty of determining the status of theses produced on Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 11 demand by electrostatic photocopying methods from single copies of typescript; (3) the fact that economic and technological pressures are making resort to xerography increasingly common; (4) the difficulty of determining the date of publication of such products except, in some cases, indirectly from published catalogues of titles or abstracts; (5) the variation in editorial policy of standard journals in accepting or refusing re-publication of matter from theses already issued by xerography, and the need for higher stan- dards of refereeing and editing; (6) the need for some demonstration of intent to publish in works produced by other than conventional methods of printing. The President then called for an expression of the opinion of the meeting on four questions: (a) should works containing a disclaimer of intent to publish be considered not published? (5 affirmative, 3 negative); (b) should works produced by unconventional means be required to include evidence of intent to publish? (3 affirmative, 5 negative); (c) (i) should works containing a disclaimer of intent to publish be considered not published even if Article 8 was satisfied; (ii) should works produced by unconventional methods be required to include evidence of intent to publish in addition to satisfying Article 8; (iii) in the absence of either a dis- claimer or evidence of intent to publish, should the pro- visions of the Code be applied? (8 affirmative, 0 negative); (d) should xerography be accepted retroactively as an accept- able method of publication? (5 affirmative, 3 negative). It was generally accepted that xerography could not be excluded on pragmatic grounds and that, whatever was decided about theses, the status of reputable periodicals produced by xerography should be pro- tected. The President suggested that the subject should be discussed in the Section on Zoological Nomenclature, and then considered again by the Commission. Consideration was accordingly resumed after the Commission had heard the strongly expressed views of the Section on Nomenclature (see pp. 13-14). The President asked for an expression of views on the date on which any regulations concerning unconventional methods of publication should come into effect. Dr Ride said that the Commission as a whole should be asked whether it was their wish that the decision at Helsinki to remove the ‘ink on paper’ requirement for publication had 12 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 been intended to be retroactive or not. Those members present expressed a preference for a fixed date in the future. They thought that zoologists should be given plenty of notice of any new regulations, which should come into force on | January 1986. (b) Status of names on Official Lists. Mr Heppell presented the report of a working group established at Helsinki on this point. He wished to know whether such names had (i) enhanced status over other available names, or (ii) enhanced status only if placed on the Lists as ‘validated names’, or (iii) no enhanced status. If the last was true, the Lists would be a single register of names considered by the Commission. Dr Kraus thought that zoologists expected the Lists to contain correct names that must be used, and that only exceptionally should such names be reconsidered. Otherwise the credibility of the Commis- sion would be undermined. In the President’s opinion, names on the Lists were not sacred but could always be re-examined. Mr Heppell drew attention to a conflict between Articles 78f and 84 arising out of the fact that the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) decisions giving absolute protection to all names on the Lists had not been incorporated into the 1961 Code. Such names were described as ‘validated’ in the Introduction to the first published instalment of the Lists. Moreover, the Secretariat had continued to use the term ‘vali- dated’ for names placed on the Lists up to 1974. Had the term the same force in that period as it had had prior to 1961? It seemed to him that the status of names on the Lists was not uniform but varied according to the date when they were placed there. The Secretary thought that it was of the utmost importance that the status of names in the Lists should be uniform, and that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure this. He moved that the report be referred back to the working group with instructions to reach con- clusions and make recommendations. This was accepted. (c) Paranomenclature. Dr Welch presented his report on names for collective groups and summarised the history of their use in helmin- thology. He pointed out that while taxonomists can readily procure adult worms for identification, ecologists and other field workers are often forced to work with immature stages. Thus, even though many species first described in collective groups have been allocated to adult genera, many have still not been allocated. The Commission concluded that the provisions dealing with collective groups should be retained in the Code. (d) The term ‘onomatophore’. The Secretary presented the case for using this term in the Code for name-bearing types at all levels. The Commission decided not to do so. (e) Types and nominal taxa. (f) Problems of family-group names. Lack of time prevented constructive discussion of these items. (g) Proposed changes to third edition of Code. (i) A proposal to introduce provisions to cover unintended originai spellings (see Bull. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 13 zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 242) was rejected. (ii) A proposal to delete Article 51d, d(i) from the Code was rejected. The presence of parentheses around the name of an author of a specific name in a changed continu- ation was felt not only to be useful as an indication of the history of the name, but also to be important in situations of secondary homonymy. Unconfirmed minutes of the meeting of the Section on Nomenclature of the Division of Zoology of IUBS, Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, on 26 August 1982 1. Dr Sabrosky, Chairman of the Section, took the chair. Eleven members of the Commission and more than 30 zoologists from the Ottawa region were present. 2. The Commission presented its slate of nominees for election as follows: Cocks Nielsen *Heppell Skarlato Savage Nelson Schuster Saether Ueno Odhiambo *Willink Brothers The candidates in the left-hand column were preferred by the Com- mission (retiring Commissioners are marked by an asterisk). The Secretary explained the constraints under which the Commission had to work in preparing its nominations. The Section duly elected the candidates preferred by the Commission. 3. Dr Ride presented a motion, already adopted by the Com- mission, designed to ensure the continued functioning of the Com- mission within the new framework of IUBS resulting from the adoption of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of Review. He proposed, and Dr Bayer seconded, that this motion be adopted by the Section. The motion was approved. 4. Dr Ride briefly presented his reports to the General Assembly on (a) differences in approach between the botanical and the zoological systems of nomenclatural regulation, and (b) on the nomenclature of organisms considered by some to be animals and by others to be plants. 5. There being no other formal business, the Section discussed problems of publication, at the request of the Ottawa zoologists. In a lively and instructive discussion the following points were made: (a) many theses deposited with publishers who produce photo- copies on demand have never seen the light of day by that means. To accept them now would cause chaos, especially if backdated; 14 Wh Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 (b) publication of theses by xerography by such firms takes no account of the criteria of the Code; (c) the quality of the scientific work is not taken into account in publishing theses by those methods; (d) most North American zoologists do not accept such prod- ucts as publications; (e) the point that backdated acceptance of such works would cause chaos was reiterated; (f) on the other hand, many thought that quality of scientific work was more important than the technique of production and wished to see more stringent controls on this type of publication; (g) the question was asked whether a statement of the author’s intent to publish or to proclaim publication was of crucial importance; (h) it was reported that the botanists see two issues here: the technique of mechanical production and the question of ‘effectiveness’ of publication (i.e., are numerous identical copies simultaneously available?). The meeting was asked to vote on the following questions: Affirmative Votes Should theses published by xerography never be accepted as publications? 20 Should such productions be accepted from some future date? 11 Should the acceptance of such productions be backdated? 0 The meeting then closed. It was followed by a reception given by Dr Gruchy, Acting Director of the Museum of Natural Sciences, during which informal discussions continued. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 15 ANOLIS DAUDIN, 1802 (REPTILIA): REQUEST FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1603 [Note by the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. This was the subject of an application by H. M. Smith (then of Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, U.S.A.) and E. E. Williams & J. D. Lazell (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, U.S.A.) published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 20, pp. 438-439, 1963. Only one comment was received. Members were invited to vote on Voting Paper (65)34 under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in that appli- cation. At the close of the voting period on 3 January 1966, 20 Commis- sioners had voted for it, and one, Dr C. W. Sabrosky, against it. In his comments Dr Sabrosky cited several errors and oddities in the appli- cation and he urged that it should be redrafted and resubmitted. The matter was therefore re-opened and a number of comments were received. We now publish (1) the comments by Dr Sabrosky on the origi- nal application, and (2) a counter proposal to the original application by Dr A. F. Stimson and Dr G. Underwood. R.V.M.] (1) COMMENT ON THE TYPE SPECIES OF ANOLIS DAUDIN, 1802 by Dr C. W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) The application dealing with this case contains so many errors and pecu- liar situations that I believe it should be resubmitted to the Commission with the following comments: The oddity of a hyphenated type citation by able nomenclaturist Stej- neger caused me to examine the original literature, and the following errors came to light: Paragraph 2, lines 9-10: Lacerta bullaris rests on Catesby’s plate 66 (and accompanying brief description), not on plate 55, which is the corn snake [the error is in quoting Brown, 1908, who had the plate number correct]. Paragraph 3, line 3: The ‘devious notation’ ‘type: bullaris—carolinensis’ is a prejudicial expression that is not borne out in the Stejneger and Barbour Check Lists. It actually appears in all editions as “TYPE: bullaris =carolinen- sis.” Significantly they used the sign of equality, not a hyphen, and italicised the first name (bullaris), but not the second. Examination of their format shows that the non-italicised name was that adopted as valid, and the italicised name was a synonym. Obviously, since bullaris is a much older name than carolinen- sis, Stejneger and Barbour could only have meant bullaris of Daudin, at least in part. Incidentally, from pencilled notes by Stejneger in the Smithsonian Insti- tution’s copy of Boulenger’s catalogue of lizards (1885, p. 43), it is obvious that they were following Boulenger in interpreting bu/laris of Daudin as partly caroli- 16 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 nensis and partly chlorocyanus. Paragraph 6: It is hard to say that bullaris Linnaeus is a ‘forgotten’ name when it was used repeatedly in the type citations, even though as bullaris sensu Daudin. Paragraph 2: The 1961 Code does not state in so many words that the first selection takes precedence over any other, but it does state the following very clearly in Article 61, lines 8-10: ‘The type of any taxon, once fixed in con- formity with the provisions of the Code, is not subject to change except by exer- cise of the plenary powers. . . .” If Stejneger (1904) did fix the type of Anolis, then it was not subject to change by Brown (1908). Discussion Regardless of errors, and of the citations, devious or otherwise, in the Stejneger and Barbour Check Lists, the base rests ultimately on Daudin, 1802, the original publication of Anolis, and Stejneger, 1904. Daudin presumed to recognise bullaris Linnaeus, but his conception was a broad one and included both forms figured by Catesby, no. 66 for bullaris Linnaeus and no. 65 for what was later (Voigt, 1832) named carolinensis. Stejneger’s designation of bullaris in 1904 picked an originally included species, and fixed the type as bullaris Linnaeus. Daudin’s bullaris was not a misidentification but a mixture of true bullar- is and other forms now known to be distinct species. It cannot then be inter- preted as a misidentified type species situation, and the Stejneger and Barbour Check Lists were wrong in so doing. The Smith and Taylor Check List of Mexican lizards (1950) not only continued this error but in addition cited the type as Anolis bullaris Daudin (correctly bullaris Linnaeus sensu Daudin). Obviously, the identity of bullaris Linnaeus is a critical facet of the prob- lem. I examined Catesby’s figure 66, together with Dr James A. Peters, herpeto- logist at the U.S. National Museum, and it is clearly a specimen of Anolis. Even if it could not be recognised to species, it might remain as the type species of the genus, without difficulty; this has been done in other genera! But it is possible to recognise the species with present detailed knowledge of the fauna, even if it were not possible in past times. Underwood & Williams (1959, Bull. Inst. Jamaica, Sci. Ser. 9, 48 pp.) have an excellent review of ‘The anoline lizards of Jamaica’. Catesby’s good coloured figure and description of ‘Lacerta viridis jamaicensis’ as a common green Jamaican lizard with reddish throat fan is iden- tifiable as more than ‘an act of faith’. Incidentally, I found to my astonishment that there was no mention in this bulletin of bullaris Linnaeus, which was orig- inally described from Jamaica; indeed the authors state that the first Jamaican anoline lizard to be described was Xiphocerus valencienni by Dumeéril & Bibron in 1837! I understand also that there is a possibility that the genus Anolis may be divided, on zoological grounds. Current revisers of the genus should certainly be consulted, lest a type fixation at this point fix the name Anolis on the smallest or least important section of the genus. At present, I am unconvinced by the arguments, and believe that the rules could be applied strictly to the present case. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 17 (2) COMMENTS ON THE TYPE SPECIES OF ANOLIS DAUDIN, 1802. Z.N.(S.) 1603 By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD) and Garth L. Underwood (Department of Biological Sciences, City of London Polytechnic, 117 Houndsditch, London, EC3) (see vol. 20, pp. 438-439) The type species of Anolis Daudin, 1802, p. 50, is Lacerta bullaris Lin- naeus, 1758, p. 208 by subsequent designation of Stejneger, 1904, p. 625. Smith, Williams & Lazell, 1963, petitioned the Commission to set aside Stejneger’s designation and to designate Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832, p. 71 the type species of Anolis. These authors’ main reasons for wishing to reject bul- laris as the type species were (a) that the name was a nomen oblitum and (b) that it was of uncertain identity. We feel that both reasons are arguable. It is true that bullaris was a nomen oblitum in the sense of the 1961 Code inasmuch as it had been unused as a senior synonym for more than SO years. That the name was unused as a senior synonym was simply because some authors considered it unidentifiable while others, quite erroneously, considered it a junior synonym of Anolis carolinensis. The name was certainly not ‘forgotten’ in any real sense. Indeed, its enigmatic nature has been the subject of some discussion (Brown, 1908, p. 116; Stuart, 1963, p. 59). Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus was based on Lacertus viridis jamaicensis Catesby (1743, plate 66). In an attempt to throw some light on its identity we examined this plate. The figure of a green lizard spreading a large orange throat fan is clearly a male anole. There are three such anoles in Jamaica: Anolis garmani Stejneger, 1899, p. 601; A. grahami grahami Gray, 1845, p. 274; and A. grahami aquarum Underwood & Williams, 1959, p. 28. The text in English and in French accompanying Catesby’s plate gives further information. Lacertus viridis jamaicensis was a ‘shining grass green col- our’ (‘vert vif’? in French), ‘usually six inches long’ and ‘common in Jamaica frequenting hedges and trees but are not seen in houses’. ‘Vert vif’ fits A. garmani and A. grahami aquarum better than A. grahami grahami. Over most of the island the latter has a bluish green head with more yellowish green on the back and sides; in some parts of the island there is mot- tling, especially on the head. The base of the tail is, in most of the island, purple (this is the basis of Gosse’s iodurus), more distally the tail is dark. A. grahami aquarum normally has blue on the base of the tail. Catesby’s figure shows uniform green coloration. The orange throat fan shown by Catesby could belong to any of the three forms. ‘Usually six inches long’ is rather obscure since we do not know how Catesby estimated his lengths. If he intended to indicate snout-vent length then six inches is too long for all three forms. If he intended total length then six inches is too short for all three forms. However, we do have a clue. The text to Catesby’s plate 65 describes Lacertus viridis carolinensis (= Anolis carolinen- sis) as being five inches long (it actually has a total length of about six inches). Assuming Catesby’s estimates were consistent, Lacertus viridis jamaicensis would have been about 20% longer than Anolis carolinensis. This would fit Ano- lis grahami grahami and A. grahami aquarum but not a full grown adult male of the larger A. garmani whose total length is about ten inches. ‘Not seen in houses’ is characteristic of Anolis garmani. A. grahami gra- 18 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 hami is commonly found in houses. We are not familiar with the habits of A. grahami aquarum but guess they would be similar to those of A. grahami grahami. Thus it would seem that no one species fits all the facts as given by Catesby. Anolis grahami aquarum is restricted to the east end of the island, an area sparsely populated even today. We think it unlikely that Catesby would have stayed there in the early part of the eighteenth century. Of the other two forms we feel that A. garmani better fits the facts. It is bright green and does not enter houses, whereas A. grahami grahami is not bright green and commonly enters houses. Only the estimated length suggests A. grahami grahami and this could easily be the result of Catesby’s inconsistency in assessing the lengths of two lizards seen at different times and in different places. We therefore consider Anolis garmani Stejneger, 1899, a junior synonym of Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus, 1758. The name garmani has appeared in the pri- mary zoological literature only about twenty times since it was first published and we do not believe that its replacement would cause much confusion. Etheridge, 1967, p. 717, split the genus Anoiis into two groups on the basis of the structure of their caudal vertebrae. He made no formal taxonomic division, referring to the two groups simply as alpka anoles and beta anoles. Anolis carolinensis is an alpha anole, does not occur in Jamaica and was not one of the species originally included in the genus Anolis Daudin, 1802. We do not therefore consider it an appropriate choice for fixation of the type species. It so happens that Anolis bullaris, (i.e. A. garmani Auct.) A. grahami and indeed all Jamaican anoles are beta anoles. It therefore seems logical that the type species should be a beta anole. Leaving Lacerta bullaris as the type species would achieve this. We therefore request the Commission: (1) to place the generic name Anolis Daudin, 1802, (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Stejneger, 1904, Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zo- ology; (2) to place the specific name bullaris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lacerta bullaris (specific name of type species of Anolis Daudin, 1802) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BROWN, A. E., 1908. Generic types of nearctic Reptilia and Amphibia. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia vol. 60, pp. 112-127. CATESBY, M., 1743. The natural history of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands: ... vol. 2, 100 plates + Appendix, 20 plates. DAUDIN, F. M., 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des reptiles Paris. vol. 4. 397 pp. ETHERIDGE, R., 1967. Lizard caudal vertebrae. Copeia 1967, pp. 699-721. GRAY, J. E., 1845. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum. London. xxvili+289 pp. LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema naturae. 10th edition. Stockholm. vol. 1. 823 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 19 SMITH, H. M., WILLIAMS, E. E. & LAZELL, J. D., 1963. Anolis Daudin, 1803, (Reptilia, Lacertilia): Request for the designation of a type species under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 20, pp. 438-439. STEJNEGER, L., 1899. A new name for the great crested Anolis of Jamaica. Am. Nat. vol. 33, pp. 601-602. —— 1904. The herpetology of Porto Rico. Rep. U.S. natn. Mus. vol. 129, pp. 549-724. STUART, L. C., 1963. A checklist of the herpetofauna of Guatemala. Misc. Publs. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. vol. 122, pp. 1-150. UNDERWOOD, G. L. & WILLIAMS, E. E., 1959. The anoline lizards of Jamaica. Bull. Inst. Jamaica Sci. Ser. vol. 9, pp. 1-48. VOIGT, F. S., 1832. in CUVIER, G. L. C. F. D. Das Thierreich .... vol. 2, XVI+ 539 pp. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF ATTUS OTIOSUS HENTZ, 1846 (ARANEAE, SALTICIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2355 By Bruce Cutler (1747 Eustis Street, St Paul, Minnesota 55113, U.S.A.) (see vol. 39, pp. 64-66) I wish to support Dr G. B. Edwards in his proposal that the name Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 be conserved. By overwhelming usage this name should be retained over Attus pulcher. Dr Edwards is the leading authority on the genus Phidippus, and his research for the past few years has concentrated on this genus, particularly on the taxonomy. Although it is not technically a reason for sup- pressing the name Aftus pulcher Walckenaer, 1837, the possibility exists for con- fusion with the legitimate name Phidippus pulcherrimus Keyserling, 1884. While P. pulcherrimus is a very different species in the same genus as the nomina in question, it does occur in the same geographic area. GORGONIA FLABELLIFORMIS EICHWALD, 1840 (GRAPTOLITHINA): COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION FOR A NEOTYPE DESIGNATION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)1776 {Introductory note by the Secretary. In 1967, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, pp. 49-52, the late Professor O. M. B. Bulman applied for the use of the plenary powers to set aside the original material of the nominal species Gorgonia flabelli- formis Eichwald, 1840, so that a neotype could be designated in such a way as to maintain stability of both zoological and stratigraphical nomenclature. Bulman sought, in effect, to set aside a lectotype designation for the species made by Obut, 1953, Trudy Vnigri vol. 78, pp. 26-57. He was supported by Dr F. F. Osborne (Laval University, Quebec), Sir James Stubblefield, FRS (35 Kent Avenue, Ealing, London W.13), Dr H. W. Ball (British Museum (Natural His- tory), London) and Professor G. Henningsmoen (Paleontologisk Museum, Oslo, Norway). He was opposed by Professor A. M. Obut (Jnstitute of Geology and 20 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 Geophysics, Novosibirsk, USSR) whose comment was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 104, p. 74. Professor Bulman unfortunately died before he had a chance to reply to Dr Obut and the case lapsed at that point. It is now possible to publish two further comments on it. R.V.M.] (1) by Ph. Legrand (Compagnie Francaise des Pétroles, Laboratoires Exploitation groupe TOTAL, 218-228 Avenue du Haut Leveque, 33605 Pessac Cedex, France.) L’espéce-type du genre Dictyonema Hall, 1851 est Gorgonia retiformis Hall, 1843. Elle a été désignée par S.A. Miller en 1889. Ce choix est absolument catastrophique ainsi que le soulignait déja R. Ruedemann, 1947, Mem. geol. Soc. America No. 19, p. 186. En effet cette espece est rare et bon nombre de détails morphologiques sont inconnus: ainsi, on ne sait rien sur les premiers stades de croissance (présence d’une nema, taille de la sicula, nombre de branches primaires), ni sur la structure des stipes (nombre d’autotheques et car- actéres éventuels de leur ouverture, présence, taille et forme des bithéques). La définition actuelle du genre (Bulman, 1955 et 1970, in Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology, ed. R. C. Moore, Part V, lére et 2e éditions) repose en fait beau- coup plus sur des observations faites a partir d’autres especes et en particulier de Dictyonema flabelliforme sensu lato, que sur l’espéce-type. Aussi, toute ten- tative de subdivision du genre est théoriquement impossible faute de pouvoir préciser les differences (‘diagnose’ au sens étymologique du mot) par rapport a une référence qui n’existe pas. 2. Pour ce qui est du groupe de Dictyonema flabelliforme lui-méme, une discussion s’est élevée au sujet du taxon qu’il convenait de considérer comme Dictyonema flabelliforme au sens strict. (a) Eichwald, 1840, créait l’espéce Gorgonia flabelliformis a partir de specimens d’Esthonie et plus précisément de _ Baltischport (=Paldiski), Odinsholm (=Osmusaar) et Zarskoje. La premiére figuration ne date que de 1842 ainsi d’ailleurs que la premiére description convenable, l’origine des échantillons étant seulement indiquée comme Esthland et Ostgothland. En 1861, l’appartenance au genre Dictyonema Hall, 1851 fut montrée par F. Schmidt. Peu apres, Kjerulf, 1865, créait deux espéces, Dictyonema graptolithi- num et D. norvegicum. A partir de Brogger, 1882, il fut considéré que Dictyonema graptolithinum était synonyme de D. flabelliforme forma typica et que D. norvegicum constituait une espéce ou une sous-espéce séparée. Pendant plus de 70 ans c’est sur cette base que se développa |’étude du groupe dont peu a peu des représentants furent retrouvés dans le monde entier. (b) En 1953, Obut signalait que les spécimens originaux d’Eichwald avaient été retrouvés a l'Institut d’Histoire Géologique de Len- ingrad. Ces spécimens étaient accompagnés d’étiquettes de le main d’Eichwald: la localité d’origine était indiquée comme Reval (=Tallinn). Leur examen faisait apparaitre que la forme originelle de Dictyonema flabelliforme était celle appelée Dictyonema flabel- liforme norvegicum ou Dictyonema norvegicum qui n’était donc qu’un synonyme alors que par contre Dictyonema graptolithinum constituait un taxon différent de rang spécifique ou subspécifique Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 21 correspondant a ce que |’usage avait conduit a appeler Dictyonema flabelliforme au sens strict, ou D. flabelliforme flabelliforme. Obut désignait un lectotype (spécimen 1/28 a2) parmi les spécimens retrouvés. En fait, la certitude que ce soient bien les spécimens originaux d’Eichwald n’est pas absolue. Les localités ne correspondent pas, mais la ressemblance des figu- rations et des spécimens est troublante. En tout état de cause, cela ne change pas le fond du probleme: on est conduit a inverser l’utilisation des noms par rapport aux objets auxquels ils se rapportent comme le montre le tableau ci-joint (Tableau 1). (c) Cette inversion, aprés une si longue période d’usage, n’est pas sans soulever de nombreux problémes: — Le regroupement des différents taxons en tant que sous—espéces apparait plus difficile en prenant comme espéce centrale Dictyo- nema flabelliforme au sens d’Eichwald et d’Obut qu’au sens de Brogger et de Bulman, dont les spécimens constituent bien plus une forme moyenne; — pour Obut, ce probleme ne se pose pas, chaque taxon devant étre considéré comme une espéce séparée, ce qui est peut-étre exact dans certains cas, mais aurait besoin d’étre démontré; — en suivant cette vole, on arrive a de curieuses situations: ainsi D. flabelliforme norvegicum Kjerulf n’ayant pu étre trouvé de facon certaine dans les Iles Britanniques (seule une forme D. flabelliforme cf. norvegicum est citée par Bulman, 1927), on est conduit a dire que D. flabelliforme n’existe pas dans les Iles Britanniques alors que c’est la que le groupe a fait l’objet du plus grand nombre d’études! — Il est bien évident que pour les non spécialistes, et en particulier pour les stratigraphes, ce changement entraine une grande con- fusion. L’esotérisme de la paléontologie qui lui fait déja tant de mal atteint ici son point extréme. C’est pourquoi Bulman (1967) a demandé une suspension des regles du Code et a proposé de désigner un néotype provenant de la région de Pakerort, au nord de Paldiski en Esthonie, qui correspond a la définition admise couramment jusqu’en 1953 pour D. flabelliforme flabelliforme, tandis qu’un lectotype de D. norvegicum Kjerulf serait désigné sur un matériel de la région de Toyen prés d’Oslo. 3. Pour la forme type du groupe de D. flabelliforme il faut de toute évidence éviter de prendre une sous-espéce dont les principaux caracteres ne seraient pas connus. De ce point de vue, la sous-espéce retenue par Bulman présente de bien plus sérieuses garanties que si l’on revenait a D. flabelliforme norvegicum comme espéce type de ce groupe. Dans |’état actuel des choses, nous ne connaissons pas pour le matériel dans la localité-type ni la forme du rhabdo- some, ni la présence, et a fortiori la taille des bithéques, nous ne possédons aucune indication sur le développement (sicula, nombre de branches primaires), et la position de cette sous—espéce dans une coupe stratigraphique réguliérement levée fait également défaut. 4. Si l’on admet la position d’Obut en application de la loi d’antériorité Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 22 wna18aasou ausofijaqvyf “QQ auofijaqoyf aumsofyjaqvyf ‘G L96I-SZ61 “UeWNg amsofyjaqoyf °d wnuiyjyojdvss °C I OVA TEV L pid} eulIoy smsofipjaqnyf ‘C XNAeI} SomjNe 19 ZRI ‘J93d80I1g WUNI1BIAAOU “G uinu1yj10jdvi3 ‘q simsofiyjaqvyf ‘D Zp8l ‘PIeEMYONA Sot JINsofy Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 23 et si l’on fait abstraction de la confusion que ce choix risque d’entrainer, il reste: — qu'il faudrait avoir le plus de détails possibles sur la morphologie, la structure de ce taxon qui deviendrait le taxon central du groupe; — qu'il faudrait connaitre sa position stratigraphique précise. C’est ce que j’avais déja suggéré dans mon papier pour le groupe de travail sur la limite Cambrien-Ordovicien. 5. La premiére source de matériel qui pourrait étre utilisée serait les coupes types ou les carottes de forages d’Esthonie ot ce taxon a été cité a plu- sieurs reprises (Kaljo, D. & Kivimagi, E., 1970). Cependant, il semble: — qu'il n’y a pas de vraies coupes types mais des terrains affleurant en falaise et que l’on récolte les fossiles 4 partir de blocs éboulés; de toute facgon le matériel doit étre assez altéré; — qu'il n’est pas possible d’avoir accés aux carottes des forages faits dans un but de prospection miniére. 6. La deuxieme source de matériel pourrait étre les carottes de forages en Pologne (Szymansky, B., 1966, 1973), dont j’ai pu examiner les spécimens en 1977 a Varsovie, mais ce matériel n’existe qu’en petite quantité. 7. L’absence de progrés depuis de nombreuses années, dans la connais- sance de ce taxon, constitue 4 mon avis une raison scientifique sérieuse pour se demander si la loi d’antériorité doit bien jouer en |’occurrence. REFERENCES KALJO, D. & KIVIMAGI, E. 1970. On the distribution of graptolites in the Dictyonema shale of Estonia and on the uncontemporaneity of its differ- ent facies. Eesti NSV Tead. Akad. Toim. (Khim. geol. Ser.), vol. 19, pp. 334-341 SZYMANSKI, B. 1966. Lupki dictyonemawe warstw Kryzankischw rejonic Bialowiezy. Kwartalnik geologiczny, vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 44-62, tab., pls 1-6 — 1973. Osadry tremadoku i arenigu na obsanze Bialowiezy. Prace Inst. Geol. vol. 69, 92 pp., 19 pls. (2) By David Skevington (Britoil plc., 150 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow G2 5LJ). A lectotype for D. flabelliforme (Eichwald) has been selected by Obut, 1953, and the specimen is presently housed in Leningrad. However, it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that this specimen was one of Eichwald’s original (1840) syntypes of flabelliforme and for this reason the validity of the lectotype is questionable. 2. If, however, Obut’s lectotype is validly established and given formal recognition, then: (i) D. flabelliforme flabelliforme auctorum becomes a senior synonym of D. flabelliforme norvegicum; the former name denotes the only subspecies (to date) of D. flabelliforme and the latter name disap- pears from the literature. All other subspecies hitherto referred to D. flabelliforme by Bulman and others (anglicum, bryograptoides, desmograptoides, etc.) must henceforth be included in D. graptolithinum. Effectively, therefore, an unnatural classification 24 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 will result, since flabelliforme flabelliforme (hitherto flabelliforme norvegicum) will be ‘siphoned off at the species level from sub- species (graptolithinum anglicum, g. bryograptoides, etc.) with which it is undoubtedly closely and intimately related. Further- more, confusion will be introduced into early Tremadoc graptolite zonal stratigraphy, for the zone hitherto named after D. norvegi- cum, will become the D. flabelliforme zone (or subzone), while the zone known for over a century as the D. flabelliforme zone will be given an unfamiliar name. (ii) For Obut, the taxonomic confusion does not arise because he treats the subspecies mentioned above as species; but even for him the change in stratigraphical nomenclature, and the shift of a name from a zone for which it has so long been used to one for which it has never been used would be confusing. 3. Iam therefore convinced that, for the stability of both zoological and stratigraphical nomenclature, the Commission should proceed as proposed by Bulman in 1967. His proposals should be the more easily accepted since the validity of the lectotype is at least open to question. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 25 OPINION 1239 ATTELABUS LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED RULING.—{1) Under the plenary powers, the designation of Attelabus curculionoides Linnaeus, 1767 as type species of the nominal genus Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758 by Latreille, 1810, is hereby confirmed. (2) The generic name Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: mascu- line), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Attelabus curculionoides Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2177. (3) The specific name nitens Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Curculio nitens (the valid name at the date of this ruling of the type species of Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2837. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2209 An application for the designation of a type species for Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758 was first received from Dr H. Silfverberg on 13 December 1976. It was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and pub- lished on 1 November 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 189-190. 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 periodi- cals, to eight general and seven specialised periodicals. Dr R. T. Thompson (British Museum (Natural History), London) supported the application but pointed out that Attelabus curculionoides had been first designated as type species of Attelabus not by Schénherr, 1823, as stated in the application, but by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins., p. 430. No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 189-190. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Cogger, Bayer, Brinck, Welch, Sabrosky, Nye, Hahn, Heppell, Kraus Negative Vote — Lehtinen. Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. 26 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 The following comments were sent in by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘| wonder why the usual formula is not used, viz. sup- pression of all previous designations of type species and then designation of the species desired. Why is A. curculionoides made the type species, and not the one bearing the senior synonym, C. nitens?’ [These com- ments were relayed to Dr Silfverberg, who accepted the first (embodied in the ruling) but not the second. R.V.M.]. Hahn: ‘As I understand this case, Dr Silfverberg asks only for the designation of a type species for Attelabus. He does not expressly ask for the junior synonym Curculionoides to be given precedence over the senior synonym nitens. It would have been better if this latter species had been designated as type species, since it is cited as such in, e.g., Grzimek’s Tierleben’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 387 nitens, Curculio, Scopoli, 1763, Entomol. Carniolica, p. 25. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (82)10 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. 1239. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 September 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 27 OPINION 1240 HESPERIIDAE LATREILLE, 1809 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) ADDED TO OFFICIAL LIST RULING. — (1) The generic name Hesperia Fabricius, 1793 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Dalman, 1816, Papilio comma Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2178. (2) The specific name comma Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Papilio comma (specific name of type species of Hesperia Fabricius, 1793) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2838. (3) The family name HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 (as ‘Hesperides’) (type genus, Hesperia Fabricius, 1793) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 548. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2213 An application from Lieutenant-Colonel C. F. Cowan for the placing of HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 on the Official List was first received on 1 February 1977. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 July 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 55-57. No usage of the plenary powers was involved. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (82)11 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 56: At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Cogger, Bayer, Welch, Brinck, Nye, Sabrosky, Hahn, Lehtinen, Heppell Negative Vote — Kraus. Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. Kraus commented: ‘The fact that a name has been used as an example in the Code does not automatically justify its addition to the Official List. No other reason is put forward by the applicant.’ 28 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: comma, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 484 Hesperia Fabricius, 1793, Entomol. Syst., vol. 3, part 1, p. 258 HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 (as ‘Hesperides’), Genera Crust. Ins. vol. 4, pp. 187, 207. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)11 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. 1240. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 September 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 29 OPINION 1241 CAENOLESTIDAE TROUESSART, 1898 AND PALAEOTHENTIDAE SINCLAIR, 1906 (MAMMALIA): CONSERVED RULING .— (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group names ABDERITIDAE Ameghino, 1889, GARZO- NIIDAE Ameghino, 1891, and DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893 are not to be given priority over the family-group names CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 and PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, 1906. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Caenolestes Thomas, 1895 (gender: masculine), type species, through Hyracodon Tomes 1863, non Leidy, 1856, Hyracodon fuliginosus Tomes, 1863 (Name Number 2179): (b) Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Clemens & Marshall, 1976, Palaeothentes aratae Ameghino, 1887, (Name Number 2180); (c) Abderites Ameghino, 1887 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Abderites meridionalis Ameghino, 1887 (Name Number 2181); (d) Garzonia Ameghino, 1891 (gender: feminine), type species, under Article 68b, Garzonia typica Ameghino, 1891 (cur- rently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Stilotherium Ameghino, 1887) (Name Number 2182): (e) Decastis Ameghino, 1891 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Decastis columnaris Ameghino, 1891 (currently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Dipilus Ameghino, 1890) (Name Number 21 83). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Of- ficial List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci- fied: (a) fuliginosus Tomes, 1863, as published in the binomen Hyr- acodon fuliginosus (specific name of type species of Caeno- lestes Thomas, 1895) (Name Number 2839): (b) aratae Ameghino, 1887, as published in the binomen Palaeothentes aratae (specific name of type species of Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887) (Name Number 2840); (c) meridionalis Ameghino, 1887, as published in the binomen Abderites meridionalis (specific name of type species of Abderites Ameghino, 1887) (Name Number 2841); (d) typica Ameghino, 1891, as published in the binomen Garzo- nia typica (specific name of type species of Garzonia Ameg- hino, 1891) (Name Number 2842): (e) columnaris Ameghino, 1891, as published in the binomen 30 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 Decastis columnaris (specific name of type species of Decas- tis Ameghino, 1891) (Name Number 2843). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 (type genus Caeno- lestes Thomas, 1895) to be given nomenclatural precedence over ABDERITIDAE Ameghino, 1889, GARZONIIDAE Ameghino, 1891 and DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893 (Name Number 549); (b) PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, 1906 (type genus Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887) to be given nomenclatural precedence over ABDERTIDAE Ameghino, 1889, GAR- ZONIIDAE Ameghino, 1891 and DECASTIDAE Ameg- hino, 1893 (Name Number 550); (c) ABDERITINAE Ameghino, 1889 (type genus Abderites Ameghino, 1887), not to be given priority over CAENO- LESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 or PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Name Number 551); (d) GARZONIIDAE Ameghino, 1891 (type genus, Garzonia Ameghino, 1891), not to be given priority over CAENO- LESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 or PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Name Number 552); (e) DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893 (type genus Decastis Ameghino, 1891), not to be given priority over CAENO- LESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 or PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Name Number 553). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2214 An application concerning a number of family-group names of South American mammals was first received from Dr Larry G. Marshall (Princeten University, U.S.A.) in his own name and that of Dr Richard H. Tedford (American Museum of Natural History, New York) on 2 February 1977. After an exchange of correspondence a revised appli- cation was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 July 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 58-64. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given to the statu- tory journals, to seven general periodicals and two specialist periodicals. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)12 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 61-63. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 31 was as follows: Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Bayer, Welch, Brinck, Nye, Hahn, Kraus Negative Votes—four (4): Holthuis, Sabrosky, Heppell, Lehtinen. Cogger abstained. Corliss sent in a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. The following comments were sent in by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘Evidently the classification of the group is not settled. Also usage seems not to be uniform (para 4). A strict application of the Law of Priority might be best in such a case. Is not the correct spelling of DECASTIDAE DECASTIDIDAE?”. [To this last point the honorary classical adviser, Mr C. W. Wright, replied: ‘I can find no evidence that Decastis is a Latin or Greek word (like you I suspect that it was formed from a personal name) so its stem must be decided by analogy. The majority of Latin nouns ending in -is have a grammatical stem in -i; in the present instance the grammatical stem would be decasti- and the genitive singular decast-is. The family name would thus be DECASTI- DAE. Similar instances are avis and collis in Table 2 of Appendix D to the Code. Common Latin nouns ending in -stis that would give the same result are hostis, fustis, postis. Only rather few Latin nouns ending in -is have a stem ending in -d like /apis, lapidis, would give LAPIDI- DAE. I have no hesitation in advising that Decastis produced the family name DECASTIDAE’] Cogger: ‘I abstain from voting on this proposal: there are insuf- ficient data in the application.’ Sabrosky: ‘Sinclair, 1906, erred several times in using the youn- gest name over several senior synonyms and | cannot agree to approve that. From the facts submitted, it appears that EPANORTHIDAE has the best claim for retention (Thomas, 1895; Osborn, 1910; Winge, 1923; Scott, 1937). Epanorthis and EPANORTHIDAE have nomenclatural status of their own, even though the former was an unnecessary replace- ment name.’ Heppell: ‘The statement by the applicants that “... EPA- NORTHIDAE is invalid because it is based on Epanorthus, an invalid replacement name”’ does not seem to be supported by Article 40. I might support an alternative solution to the applicants’ problems, if one less nomenclaturally cumbersome could be devised, but I suspect there are too many “‘taxonomic concepts that are quite unacceptable” offered here in the guise of nomenclature. I would have preferred to leave this and other such cases until after the discussion of general problems of family- group names at the Commission’s meeting in Ottawa.’ [Owing to press- ure of time, this subject was not discussed at Ottawa. R.V.M.]. a2 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Abderites Ameghino, 1887, Bol. Mus. de la Plata, vol. 1, p. 5 ABDERITIDAE Ameghino, 1889, Actas Acad. Cienc. Cordoba, vol. 6, pp. 268, 269 aratae, Palaeothentes, Ameghino, 1887, Bol. Mus. de la Plata, vol. 1, pS Caenolestes Thomas, 1895, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1895, p. 875 CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898, Catalogus Mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium, new ed., Berlin, p. 1205 columnaris, Decastis, Ameghino, 1891, Rev. arg. Hist. nat., vol. 1, p. 305 Decastis Ameghino, 1891, Rev. arg. Hist. nat., vol. 1, p. 19 DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893, Rev. gen. Sci. (Paris), vol. 4, p. 79 fuliginosus, Hyracodon, Tomes, 1863, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1863, pl. 8, p. 51 Garzonia Ameghino, 1891, Rev. arg. Hist. nat., vol. 1, p. 21 GARZONIIDAE Ameghino, 1891, Rev. arg. Hist. nat., vol. 1, pp. 304, 307 meridionalis, Abderites, Ameghino, 1887, Bol. Mus. de la Plata, vol. 1, p. Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887, Bol. Mus. de la Plata, vol. 1, p. 5 PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906, Rep. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patagonia, vol. 4, p. 417 typica, Garzonia, Ameghino, 1891, Rev. arg. Hist. nat., vol. 1, p. 307 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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 No- menclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1241. R. ¥Y. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 September 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 33 OPINION 1242 CATAPHRYXUS SHIINO, 1936 (CRUSTACEA, ISOPODA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Epiphryxus Shiino, 1934, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Epiphrixus Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Epiphrixus adriati- cus Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932 (Name Number 2184); (b) Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936 (gender: masculine), type species, through Epiphryxus Shiino, 1934, Epiphryxus primus Shiino, 1934 (Name Number 2185). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names with the Name Numbers specified: (a) adriaticus Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932, as pub- lished in the binomen Epiphrixus adriaticus (specific name of type species of Epiphrixus Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932) (Name Number 2844); (b) primus Shiino, 1934, as published in the binomen Epiph- ryxus primus (specific name of type species of Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936) (Name Number 2845). (4) The generic name Epiphryxus Shiino, 1934, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names with the Name Number 2132: HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.G.)2217 An application for the conservation of Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936 was first received from Dr John C. Markham (Bermuda Biological Station) on 24 February 1977. It was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 1 November 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 191-192. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin, to seven general periodicals and to one specialist periodical. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)13 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 192. 34 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20): Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Brinck, Bayer, Welch, Nye, Sabrosky, Hahn, Lehtinen, Heppell, Kraus Negative Votes — none (0). Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder, Cogger and Dupuis. 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: adriaticus, Epiphrixus, Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932, Zool. Anz., vol. 101, p. 99 Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936, Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto imp. Univ. (B), vol. 11, pp. 172-173 Epiphrixus Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932, Zool. Anz., vol. 101, p. 99 Epiphryxus Shiino, 1934, Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto imp. Univ., (B), vol. 9, p. 281 primus, Epiphryxus, Shiino, 1934, Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoyo imp. Univ. (B), vol. 9, pp. 281-283. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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. 1242. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28 September 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 35 OPINION 1243 ERINACEUS DAUURICUS SUNDEVALL, 1842 (MAMMALIA, INSECTIVORA) CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name Erinaceus sibiricus Erxleben, 1777 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 Name Numbers specified: (a) sibiricus Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Eri- naceus sibiricus, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2846); (b) dauuricus Sundevall, 1842, as published in the binomen Erinaceus dauuricus, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Erinaceus sibiricus Erxleben, 1777 whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2847). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2222 An application from Dr G. B. Corbet for the conservation of Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 was first received on 18 May 1977. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 October 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 125-126. 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 periodicals, to eight general periodicals and two specialised periodicals. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1982)14 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 124. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Vokes, Halvorsen, Habe, Cogger, Brinck, Bayer, Welch, Nye, Lehtinen, Hahn, Kraus Negative Votes — two (2): Sabrosky, Heppell. Ride was on leave of absence. Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. 36 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 Heppell commented: ‘Since Erxleben’s E. sibiricus description was accompanied by six other references apart from those to Seba (who has two figures not explicitly of the same specimen) it seems somewhat tendentious to regard the single specimen which was in Mus. Seba, now in the British Museum (Natural History), as the holotype of Erxleben’s species, even though it may be probable that all the subsequent refer- ences are derived from Seba’s original. I could accept the addition of E. sibiricus to the Official List (if necessary with acceptance of Seba’s specimen as the type) as the valid name for E. dauuricus, or to the Official Index in order to protect the latter name, but not the present inelegant arrangement.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: dauuricus, Erinaceus, Sundevall, 1842, K. svenska Vetenskaps Akad. Hanadl. for 1841, p. 237 sibiricus, Erinaceus, Erxleben, 1777, Syst. regn. anim. p. 172. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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. 1243. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28 September 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 37 OPINION 1244 STETHASPIS HOPE, 1837 (COLEOPTERA, SCARABAEIDAE): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. — (1) The nominal species Melolontha suturalis Fabricius, 1775, is hereby designated as type species of the nominal genus Stethaspis Hope, 1837. (2) The generic name Stethaspis Hope, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species, under the ruling given in (1) above, Melolontha suturalis Fabricius, 1775, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2133. (3) The specific name suturalis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Melolontha suturalis (specific name of type species of Stethaspis Hope, 1837) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2848. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2130 An application for the resolution of confusion between the generic names Costleya and Costelytra (for genera within the same sub- family of Coleoptera) was first received from Dr J. C. Watt (Mt Albert Research Centre, Auckland, New Zealand) on 10 July 1975. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 29 March 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 85-87. Although the plenary powers were not invoked by the applicant, one of the possible solutions to the problem would have entailed their use. Public notice of this possibility was therefore given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory periodicals, and to seven general and seven entomological periodicals. The application was supported by Dr R. D. Pope (British Museum (Natural History), London). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)16 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 87. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Bayer, Brinck, Welch, Sabrosky, Nye, Lehtinen, Heppell, Kraus Negative Votes — Hahn. Ride was on leave of absence. Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder, Cogger and Dupuis. 38 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their votes: Sabrosky: ‘The application seems unnecessarily complex. Para- graphs 5 and 7 (on Poecilodiscus and Neostethaspis) are irrelevant to the main issue. In paragraph 10, the applicant’s first possibility, that Xylonychus eucalypti might be designated as type species of Stethaspis would in fact require the use of the plenary powers. However, I do not disagree with the purpose of the application and vote to confirm M. suturalis as type species of Stethaspis.’ Hahn:‘Costelytra and Costleya are not very similar names. If the Commission follows Dr Watt’s proposal, many other names might also be changed.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Stethaspis Hope, 1837, Coleopt. Man., p. 105 suturalis, Melolontha, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Entomol. p. 34. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)16 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. 1244. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28 September 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 39 OPINION 1245 LINYPHIA TENEBRICOLA WIDER, 1834 (ARACHNIDA) TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE SENSE OF KULCZYNSKI, 1887 RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, the type material of Linyphia tenebricola Wider, 1834, is hereby set aside and the neotype proposed by Locket, Millidge & van Helsdingen, 1978, is hereby accepted. (2) The specific name tenebricola Wider, 1834, as published in the binomen Linyphia tenebricola, and as interpreted by reference to the neotype accepted under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2849. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2143 An application for the stabilisation of the specific name Linyphia tenebricola Wider, 1834, in the sense of Kulczynski, 1887 was first received on 18 August 1975 from Dr P. J. van Helsdingen, on behalf of himself, Mr Locket and Mr Millidge. The application was stated to be the result of an opinion poll among arachnologists expected to have an opinion, from which it appeared that most were in favour of the sol- ution proposed. After an exchange of correspondence, the application was sent to the printer on 12 September 1977 and published on 31 January 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 44-46. 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 general serials. The application was supported by Professor Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. 02138, U.S.A.). No adverse comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)5 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 45-46. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Tortonese, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Brinck, Welch, Nye, Sabrosky, Bayer, Hahn, Lehtinen, Heppell, Kraus Negative Votes — none (0). Ride was on leave of absence. Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder, Cogger and Dupuis. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: 40 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 Hahn: ‘If the Commission follows the proposals, not only L. tene- bricola but also L. mengei will be preserved in the sense of Kulczynski, 1887. Why, then, should only the first and not the second specific name be placed on the Official List?’ Lehtinen: ‘I support the proposals but find them incomplete. Lepthyphantes mengei Kulczynski, 1887 also needs an unambiguous type specimen, if we reject the type material of Wider, 1834. If we want to stabilise the nomenclature of either of these species we should do so for both.’ These comments were passed on to Mr Locket, who consulted his colleagues. It was found impossible to make contact with the zool- ogists in charge of the Kulczynski collection in Warsaw. In consequence, Mr Locket wrote to me on 3 November 1982 to urge that the L. tenebri- cola case be concluded and that the case of L. mengei be considered separately when the type material of that species could be examined. The present Opinion has therefore been prepared without further delay. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: tenebricola, Linyphia Wider, 1834, Mus. Senckenberg (Abh. Gebiete beschr. Naturges. von Mitgl. senck. naturk. Ges. in Frankfurt- am- Main), vol. 1, pp. 260-261, pl. 18, figs. 2a, 2b. Lepthyphantes tenebricola (Wider), (Kulczynski, 1887), Rozpr. Spraw. Wydz. mat.-przyrod. Akad. Umiej. vol. 16, pp. 321-322, pl. 7, figs. 34-36. The following is the original proposal of a neotype for Linyphia tenebricola Wider, 1834: a female from O. Taunus: bei Ebersgons (Kr. Wetzlar) (O. & M. Kraus, XI, 1960), Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt. See Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, p. 45. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)5 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1245. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 November 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 41 PSEUDOPONTIA PLOTZ vy. GONOPHLEBIA FELDER (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): SETTLEMENT OF CASE. Z.N.(S.)1688 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 22, page 104) By C. F. Cowan, (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over- Sands, Cumbria, LAI1 7DR, England) This problem has settled itself. Briefly, and with some minor additions in clarification, the trouble was that two authors, indepen- dently and almost simultaneously, proposed new generic and specific names for a very interesting insect from West Africa. They were: Globiceps paradoxa C. & R. Felder, 15 Oct. 1869. Petites Nouy. Ent. vol. 1(8), pp. [30-31], and Pseudopontia calabarica Pl6tz, 1870. Ent. Ztg. Stettin, vol. 31(7-9), p. 348, plate 2, figs. la-f. 2. The former publication was a monthly or occasionally fort- nightly journal whose pages were not numbered until vol. 1(14), p. 49. In the number for 15 November 1869, vol. 1(10), [p. 37], it was correctly pointed out that Globiceps was a preoccupied name, and on 15 June 1870, vol. 1(24), p. 95, R. Felder introduced a replacement generic name in the form Gonophlebia (Globiceps) paradoxa, under a figure and adding some comments. 3. The second publication was a nominal quarterly (more fami- liarly known as Stettiner ent. Ztg.), and it was logical to infer that the Plotz name dated from September, 1870, especially since the title page of Part (7-9) also bears the dates (Jul.—Sept. 1870), and was junior by 2 or 3 months to Gonophlebia Felder. Yet the insect has always been, and still universally is, known as Pseudopontia paradoxa (Felder). Hence the application, drafted by Hemming before his death in Febru- ary 1964 and published fifteen months after it. 4. Aurivillius (1899), p. 386 (K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl, vol. 31(5), a work better known as Rhopalocera Aethiopica and always misdated by its title date ‘1898’ whereas publication is shown on its last page (p. 561) to have been after ‘Ende April 1899’) firmly gave Pseudo- pontia Pl6tz, (April) 1870 priority over Gonophlebia Felder, June 1870. Expecting that ‘April’ was the date of submission of Plétz’s Paper, a check was made. Aurivillius proved correct. His paper was not dated and his plate, a shared one, was ‘Lith. von Prittwitz 1868’; nine other Papers were dated, all between Oct. 1869 and Feb. 1870. Finally, on the last page—p. 360 of Number (7-9) (July-Sept. 1870)—is the publi- cation date ‘Ausgegeben Mitte April’. The two previous numbers, vol. 31 (1-3) and (4-6) were similarly published early; respectively at ‘Anfang Nov. 1869’ and ‘Mitte Feb. 1870’ (p. 128 and p. 264). Perhaps the Editor, Dr Dohrn, cleared those issues early so that he could work on the 8 years’ summary and index of 64 pages which concluded volume 42 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 31. In any case, the general and prevalent usage of the name Pseudopon- tia shows that the situation was well understood in those days. The well documented reports of the monthly meetings of the Entomological Society of London published in Proc. Entomol. Soc. London 1869, 1870 fully confirm the relevant dates: Entomol. Ztg. Stettin Received in see Proc. Entomol. Soc. London Lond. between mists snare 15 Nov.-1 Dec. 1869: xxvii, para 2 line 4 31(4-6) 7 Mar.—21 Mar. 1870: xii, last 2 lines 31(7-9) 2 May-6 June 1870: xxiii, para 2 line 6 31(°9’-12) 6 July-7 Nov. 1870: xxxii, line 8 5. I would like to thank Mrs Brenda G. Leonard, Librarian of the Royal Entomological Society of London, for her patient and able help in answering tiresome questions on this and related problems. 6. The interlocking synonymy of the taxa is: Pseudopontia Plétz, (April) 1870. Entomol. Ztg. Stettin, vol. 31(7-9), p. 348. Type species by monotypy P. calabarica P\étz, 1870. ibid., p. 348, pl. 2, fig. 1 (a junior subjective synonym of G. paradoxa Felder, q.v. infra) = Globiceps Felder, 1869 (invalid homonym; vide infra) = Gonophlebia Felder, June 1870. Petites Nouv. Ent. vol. 1(24), p. 95. Globiceps paradoxa C. & R. Felder, Oct. 1869. Petites Nouv. Ent. vol. 1(8), [pp. 30-31]. 7. No action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested, beyond publication of the present note for general information and record. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 43 REQUEST FOR A RULING TO CORRECT HOMONYMY IN NAMES OF THE FAMILY-GROUPS BASED ON M YRMECIA (INSECTA) AND MYRMECIUM (ARACHNIDA). Z.N.(S.)2223 By Jonathan Reiskind (Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.) When homonymy exists between family-group names based on similar but not identical names of type genera, the case is to be referred to the International Commission (1964, International Code of Zoologi- cal Nomenclature, Art. 55a). A case of homonymy involves the family- group name MYRMECIINAE, in use both in Insecta (Hymenoptera) and Arachnida (Araneae). 2. Myrmecia Fabricius, 1804, is the type genus of the family MYRMECIIDAE Emery, 1877. This taxon (the name is in current use as a subfamily, MYRMECIINAB), the ‘bulldog’ ants of Australia and New Caledonia, consists of two genera and 66 described species (Brown & Taylor, 1970). 3. Myrmecium Latreille, 1824, is the type genus of the family- group taxon first named as MYRMECIDES C. L. Koch, 1851. Keyserling (1891) first used the name with the proper Latin termination as the subfamily MYRMECIINAE. Despite the fact that since 1897 MYRMECIINAE has been a senior subjective synonym of MICARII- NAE Simon, 1897, it has never replaced the latter name which has been in wide use until recently when the type genus of the subfamily, Micaria Westring, 1851, Was transferred to the family GNAPHOSIDAE leaving at least 15 genera belonging to this subfamily of the CLUBIONIDAE (Reiskind, 1969). The only family-group name among these remaining genera was MYRMECIINAE C. L. Koch, 1851, a senior homonym of MYRMECIINAE Emery, 1877. The prevalent application of this family name to the Australian ant taxon prompted the reviser (Reiskind, 1969, p. 179) to propose a new family-group name, CASTIANEIRI- NAE, for this subfamily as a substitute. Yet this name is a junior subjective synonym of MYRMECIINAE C. L. Koch and hence not valid. Since this family-group name is well established for the ant subfamily it is proposed here that the name MYRMECIINAE C. L. Koch be modified to MYRMECIUMINAE. This would have to be done under the plenary powers. While this is not a grammatically proper solution the new name is sufficiently distinct to avoid confusion and stabilise the nomenclature. 4. For the above reasons the International Commission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic name Myrmecium Latreille, 1824 for the purposes of Article 29 is MYRMECIUM-: 44 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Myrmecia Fabricius, 1804 (gender: feminine), type species by designation of Wheeler, 1911 (p. 168), For- mica gulosa Fabricius, 1775; (b) Myrmecium Latreille, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Myrmecium rufum Latreille, 1824; (3) to place the following species names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) gulosa Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Formica gulosa (specific name of type species of Myrmecia Fabricius, 1804); (b) rufum Latreille, 1824, as published in the binomen Myrmecium rufum (specific name of type species of Myrmecium Latreille, 1824); (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) MYRMECIIDAE Emery, 1877 (type genus Myrmecia (Fabricius, 1804); (b) MYRMECIUMIDAE (emend. under the plenary powers of MYRMECIIDAE) C. L. Koch, 1851 (type genus Myrmecium Latreille, 1824). REFERENCES BROWN, W. L., Jr & TAYLOR, W. R. 1970. Superfamily FORMICOIDEA in Insects of Australia (Melbourne University Press), pp. 951-959. EMERY, C. 1877. Boll. Soc. ent. Italiana, vol. 9, p. 73. FABRICIUS, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae, p. 395. —4 1804. Syst. Piez. (1804), p. 423. KEYSERLING, E. 1891. Die Spinnen Amerikas. Brasilianischen Spinnen, vol. 37 p18: KOCH, C. L. 1851. Uebersicht des Arachnidensystems, vol. 5, p. 41. LATREILLE, P. A. 1824. Ann. Sci. nat. (Zool.), vol. 3, pp. 26, 27. REISKIND, J. 1969. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 138(5), pp. 163-325. SIMON, E. 1897. Hist. nat. Araignées, vol. 2, p. 153. WESTRING, N. 1851. Géteborgs Kongl. Vetenskaps Handl., vol. 2, p. 47. WHEELER, W. M. 1911. Ann. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 21, pp. 157-175. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 45 ON FAMILY GROUP NAMES BASED UPON EURHIN, EURHINUS AND EURH YNCHUS (COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.)2269 (1) By E. C. Zimmerman (Division of Entomology, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) Difficult problems arise concerning the formation of family- group names based upon Eurhin, Eurhinus and Eurhynchus. It appears to have escaped general notice that there are now in curculionid litera- ture homonymous family-group names based upon Eurhinus. Casey, 1922, vol. 10, p. 417, used EURHININI as a tribal name in the BARIDINAE, and Kissinger, 1968, p. 10 used EURHININI as a tribal name in the APIONINAE. 2. The facts are as follows: In the APIONIDAE (or APIONINAE) there is the following: EURHYNUS Kirby, 1819 (1818), vol. 12, p. 427, as a spelling error in the body of the original description; Eurhynchus Kirby & Spence, 1828, vol. 3, p. 324, an unjustified emen- dation for Eurhinus and a junior homonym of Eurhynchus Berth- old, 1827 (Aves); Eurhynchus Schoenherr, 1833, vol. 1(1), p. 247, an unjustified replace- ment name for Eurhinus Kirby and a junior homonym of Eurhynchus Berthold and Eurhynchus Kirby & Spence. Eurrhinus, as a misspelling by Marshall, 1952, p. 268. 3. Any family-group name based upon this genus should be formed upon Eurhinus. The homonyms Eurhynchus Kirby & Spence and Eurhynchus Schoenherr were both ‘stillborn’ and cannot be used in the formation of family-group names. 4. In 1863, p. 380, p. 527, Lacordaire proposed the family group name ‘Eurhynchides’ based upon the homonym Eurhynchus Schoenherr. For the reasons of homonymy noted above, ‘Eurhynchides’ is an invalid form. The name should have been ‘Eurhinides’, based upon the valid Eurhinus Kirby. Kissinger, 1968, p. 10, noting the homonymy of Eurhynchus, used ‘Tribe EURHININI Kissinger, new name’. In doing so, Kissinger created a homonym of EURHININI Casey, 1922, in the Baridinae, as noted below. 5. In the BARIDINAE there is the following: Eurhin Illiger, 1807a, vol. 6, p. 309; Eurhin Mlliger, 1807b, vol. 6, p. 326; Eurhinus Schoenherr, 1826, p. 312, as an emendation of Eurhin and a homonym of Eurhinus Kirby, 1819; Macrorhine [vernacular] Latreille, 1825, p. 395. Synonymy by Lacordaire, 1866, vol. 7, p. 221, footnote 1, as Macrorhinus. 46 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 6. In 1866, vol. 7, p. 217, p. 220, Lacordaire proposed the family-group name ‘Eurhinides’, in the BARIDINAE, based upon the homonym Eurhinus Schoenherr instead of Eurhin Illiger. Because Eurhinus and Eurhin both have the same stem, eurhin-, each would give the form ‘Eurhinides’. Hence, ‘Eurhinides’, EURHININA and EURHININI are valid names only in the BARIDINAE. Pierce, 1916, p. 472, proposed the subfamily name EURHININAE. Casey, 1922, p. 417, used the tribal name EURHININI. Hustache, 1938, p. 24 used the subtribal name EURHININA. 7. The acceptance of the family-group name EURHININI in the BARIDINAE renders the ‘Eurhinini’ presently in the APIONIDAE without a valid name. It is necessary, therefore, to circumvent the fact that the stem of both Eurhin and Eurhinus is the same, and the stem eurhin— cannot be used outside of the Baridinae where it has priority. 8. Because an impossible situation arises if the normal rules of compounding names are followed, an arbitrary decision appears to be required. Hence, it is suggested that the entire name Eurhinus Kirby be used as a stem to form Eurhinusina, Eurhinusini, Eurhinusinae and Eurhinusidae. Such action would agree with the example given in the Code under Article 55 where ‘Merope (Insecta) and Merops (Aves) each formed the basis of a family name MEROPIDAE. To overcome the homonymy, the Commission ruled that Merope should form the family name MEROPEIDAE (Opinion 140)’. 9. The Commission is requested to give a binding decision regarding the problem of family-group names based upon Eurhin and Eurhinus, by accepting Eurhinus- as the stem for the four taxa cited in the paragraph above. REFERENCES CASEY, T. L. 1922. Memoirs on the Coleoptera, vol. 10, pp. 1-520. HUSTACHE, A. 1938. Curculionidae: Barinae. In: W. Junk’s Coleopterorum Catalogus, Pars 163, pp. 1-219. ILLIGER, J. C. W. 1807a. Nachlese zu den Bermerkungen, Berichtigungen und Zusatzen zu Fabricii Systema Eleutheratorum. Magazin ftir Insekten- kunde, vol. 6, pp. 296-317. — 1807b. Vorschlag zur Aufnahme im Fabricischen Systeme fehlender Kafergattungen. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, vol. 6, pp. 318-349. KIRBY, W. F. 1819 [1818]. A Century of Insects, including several new Genera described from his Cabinet. Trans. Linn. Soc. London, vol. 12, pp. 375-453, col. pls. 21-22. — & SPENCE, W. 1928. An Introduction to Entomology, Ed. 5, vol. 3, pp. 1-731. KISSINGER, D. 1968. Curculionidae, Subfamily Apioninae of North and Cen- tral America. i-vii, pp. 1-559, figs. 1-221. LACORDAIRE, J. T. 1863. Curculionides. In: Histoire Naturelle des Insectes- — Genera des Coléopteéres, vol. 6, pp. 1-637. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 47 — 1866. Ibid. vol. 7, pp. 1-620, col. pls. 61-80. LATREILLE, P. A. 1825. Familles naturelles du Régne Animal, pp. 1-570. MARSHALL, G. 1952. Taxonomic Notes on Curculionidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (xii) vol. 5, pp. 261-270. PIERCE, W. 1916. Studies of Weevils (Rhynchophora) with Descriptions of New Genera and Species. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. 51, pp. 461-473, figs. 1-2. SCHOENHERKR, C. J. 1826. Curculionidum Dispositio Methodica —, pp. i-x, pp. 1-338. — 1833. Genera et Species Curculionidum—, vol. 1(1), pp. i-xv, pp. 1-381. (2) By R. T. Thompson (British Museum (Natural History), London) The name Eurhinus has been used for each of two distantly related genera of weevils (Curculionoidea) and homonymous family- group names have been based on this name in the two groups concerned. One of the two genera belongs to the CURCULIONIDAE-BARIDINAE and is usually known by the name Eurhinus Schonherr. It comprises some 23 species (P. Vaurie, pers. comm.) which are widely distributed in Central and South America. Several species are notable for their bril- liant metallic colours. The larvae produce galls on the stems of Vitaceae (Cissus spp.) (Bondar, 1948, p. 21; Costa Lima, 1956, p. 231). The other genus is generally regarded as belonging to the APIONIDAE and was, until recently, known by the name Eurhynchus Schonherr. It comprises some ten Australian species whose habits are mostly unknown, though one species has been reported tunnelling in the stem of Persoonia lanceolata (Proteaceae) (Froggatt, 1895, p. 328). Neither Eurhinus Schonherr nor Eurhynchus Schonherr is the original name for the genus concerned. 2. The earliest name for the barid genus is Eurhin Illiger, 1807; that for the apionid genus is Eurhinus Kirby, 1819. Germar, 1824, p. 216, used Eurhinus as an alternative form of Eurhin and pointed out that the former name had already been used by Kirby. Schonherr, 1825, p. 586, apparently unaware of the works of Kirby and Germar, created absolute homonymy by emending Illiger’s name to Eurhinus. Several attempts to remove this homonymy have been made. (a) Latreille, 1825, p. 395, proposed ‘Macrorhine’ as a replace- ment name for ‘ewrin Germ.’ (having cited ‘Eurhine’ [Kirby] on p. 388). This vernacular name is not available but Berthold, in a German edition of Latreille, 1825 (1827, p. 390) gave ‘Macrorhinus (Eurin oder Eurhinus, Germ.)’. This name is available as a replacement name for Eurhinus Sch6nherr. It is cited as a synonym of the latter by Schonherr, 1836, p. 812; Guérin-Méneville, 1857, p. 209; Lacordaire, 1866, p. 221, note 1; Gemminger & Harold, 48 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 1871, p. 2619; Casey, 1922, p. 417; Hustache, 1938, p. 25; and Blackwelder, 1947, p. 891, all of whom attribute the name to Latreille, not Berthold. This name was probably not adopted because Eurhynchus Schonherr, 1833 (see (d) below) made it unnecessary. (b) Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828, p. 324, proposed Eurhyn- chus expressly as a replacement name for Eurhinus Kirby, nec Eurhin Illiger. This name is buried in the text and was long overlooked (see (e) below). Latreille, in Cuvier, 1829, p. 86, proposed Camptorhynchus as a further replacement name for Eurhinus Schonherr nec Kirby and it is used as the valid name in subsequent editions of Régne animal. This name is available as a replace- ment name (Camptorhynchus Fischer de Waldheim, 1808 is a nomen nudum) but is a senior homonym of Camptorhynchus Bonaparte, 1838 (Aves). (d) Schonherr, 1833, pp. 5, 247, proposed Eurhynchus expressly as a replacement name for Eurhinus Kirby nec Illiger. This name was accepted and remained in use until 1952. Unfortunately, however, it is a junior homonym both of a Latreille avian name (1825, p. 76), which was made available by Berthold, 1827, p. 74 (cf. (a) above), and of Eurhynchus Kirby, 1828 ((b) above). However, since Eurhinus Kirby would not now be regarded as a homonym of Eurhin Illiger, the former does not need to be replaced. Marshall, 1952, p. 268, observed that ‘Eurrhinus Kirby’ is valid because Eurhynchus Kirby is a junior homonym and was, in any case, proposed ‘without any justification’. Presumably he meant by this that Eurhinus Kirby is not homonymous with Eurhin Illiger (as stated by Kirby) and so the latter is the valid name for the barid genus. There is, however, no evidence, published or otherwise, to confirm this. On the contrary, whereas Marshall annotated his working copy of the Junk catalogue to show the validity of Eurhinus Kirby (Wagner, 1910, p. 3), he did not so annotate the entry for Eurhin Illiger (Hustache, 1938, p. 25) and specimens of the latter which he received in May 1953 were determined as ‘Eurrhinus festivus F.’ and ‘Eurrhinus sp.’ (CIE list No. 909 (America), issued 19th May 1955). Although Eurrhinus Marshall is available as a replacement name for Eurhinus Kirby, it is clear that Marshall did not intend it as such; he invariably used the -rrh- spelling in preference to -rh- in compound names. 3. Family-group names were proposed by Lacordaire: Eurhyn- chides (1863, pp. 380, 527) and Eurhinides (1866, pp. 217, 220). These names, suitably emended, remained in use for a hundred years, although — (c (e — Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 49 both are invalid under Art. 39 of the present Code (their type-genera are junior homonyms). Then Kissinger, in a synoptic work on world APIONIDAE, followed Marshall in using Eurhinus Kirby as the valid name of the apionid genus and proposed EURHININI as a new family- group name, correctly based on Eurhinus Kirby (Kissinger, 1968, p. 10). He, in turn, was followed by Morimoto, 1976, p. 469. Unfortunately, EURHININI Kissinger is a junior homonym of EURHININI Lacor- daire, so there is at present no valid name for either family-group taxon. The situation, and the proposals for its solution which follow, can best be appreciated by reference to Table I. Table I. Names involved in the Eurhinus problem. Names in use before 1968 in bold type; other available names in ordinary type; unavailable names in italics. CURCULIONIDAE APIONIDAE Eurhin Illiger, 1807 Eurhinus Kirby, 1819 '\Eurhynus Kirby, 1819 2Eurhinus Germar, 1824 Eurhinus Schonherr, 1825 Macrorhinus Berthold, 1827 {Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827 (Aves)] Eurhynchus Kirby, 1828 Camptorhynchus Latreille, 1829 Eurhynchus Schonherr, 1833 EURHYNCHIDES Lacordaire, 1863 EURHINIDES Lacordaire, 1866 2EURYNCHIDES Lea, 1909 Eurrhinus Marshall, 1952 EURHININI Kissinger, 1968 ‘Incorrect original spelling Incorrect subsequent spelling 4. Under the provisions of the present Code, Eurhinus Kirby is clearly the valid name for the apionid genus and the long-disused, un- latinised Eurhin Illiger is valid for the barid genus. For the family-group taxa, entirely new, non-homonymous names would be needed. These could be based upon the valid generic names by artificially changing their stems, or upon names chosen from among the various available replacement names and other synonyms. These changes would destroy the stability of nomenclature which existed from 1866 to 1952 and the transfer of Eurhinus, as the valid name, from one group of weevils to another would inevitably cause confusion. These many and undesirable changes can be avoided, stability of nomenclature restored, and homo- nymy removed, by (1) ruling that Schonherr’s emendation of Eurhin to Eurhinus is justified, so the name then dates from 1807 with Illiger as 50 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 author and becomes a senior homonym of Eurhinus Kirby, and (2) sup- pressing Eurhynchus Berthold, thus validating Eurhynchus Kirby, a now necessary replacement name for Eurhinus Kirby nec Illiger. Lacordaire’s family-group names are also thereby validated, being now based on valid generic names. Eurhynchus Berthold is a junior objective synonym of Probosciger Kuhl (Aves, Psittacidae) and has not been used as a senior synonym since its original publication (D. W. Snow, pers. comm.). 5. Other generic names derived from the same Greek root are: (a) Eurina Meigen, 1830, p. 3, a valid name in Insecta (Diptera, CHLOROPIDAE); (b) Eurhina Fitzinger, 1843, p. 32, proposed as a subgenus of Bufo L. and not subsequently used as a senior synonym (E. N. Arnold, pers. comm.); (c) Eurhina Agassiz, 1846, p. 150, an unjustified emendation of Eurina Meigen and junior homonym of Eurhina Fitzinger. These generic names are not homonymous with those in the present case and no family-group names have been based upon them, but any that are so based will compete in homonymy with EURHININI Lacordaire, 1866. 6. In order to implement the proposals made in paragraph (4) above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to rule that Eurhinus Schénherr, 1825 is a justified emendation of Eurhin Illiger, 1807; (b) to suppress the generic name Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827 for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Eurhinus Illiger, 1807 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Eurhin cupratus Illiger, 1807 (as emended by Schonherr, 1825 and ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be a justified emendation); (b) Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Schonherr, 1833, Eurhinus scabrior Kirby, 1819; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cupratus Illiger, 1807, as published in the binomen Eurhin cupratus (specific name of type species of Eurhinus Illiger, 1807); (b) scabrior Kirby, 1819, as published in the binomen Eurhinus scabrior (specific name of type species of Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828); (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 51 List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) EURHYNCHINAE (correction of EJRHYNCHIDES) Lacordaire, 1863 (type genus Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Stephen, 1828); (b) EURHININI (correction of EURHINIDES) Lacordaire, 1866 (type genus Eurhinus Illiger, 1807); (5) to place the generic name Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. In addition to those persons whose assistance is acknowledged in the text, I wish to thank Dr R. B. Madge (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) for his help in resolving this problem and the Director and staff of the CIE for granting me access to their archives. This application is supported by Dr G. Kuschel (Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand), Dr D. R. Whitehead (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Washington, DC), Professor C. W. O’Brien (Florida A & M University, Tallahassee, Fla., U.S.A.) and by Dr D. G. Kissinger (Loma Linda University, California, U.S.A.). Shortly before her death in March, 1982, Mrs P. Vaurie submitted for publication a revision of the barid genus for which the name Eurhinus Illiger is here requested. In this revision she uses Eurhin Illiger as the valid name, having been correctly advised to do so by several other specialists, including (at first) the author of the present application. It is known, however, (P. Vaurie, pers. comm.) that she would have preferred to use the name Eurhinus Illiger in anticipation of the success of this application. REFERENCES AGASSIZ, L. J. R. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis. Solothurn. vili+393 pp. BERTHOLD, A. A. 1827. Latreille’s natiirliche Familien des Thierreichs aus dem Franzosischen. Weimar. x +604 pp. BLACKWELDER, R. E. 1947. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, the South America. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. vol. 185, pp. i-iv, pp. 765-925. : BONDAR, G. 1948. Notas Entomoldgicas de Baia XX. Revta Ent., Rio de J. vol. 19, pp. 1-54. CASEY, T. L. 1922. Studies in the Rhynchophorous subfamily Barinae of the Brazilian fauna. Memoirs on the Coleoptera X. Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 520 pp. COSTA LIMA, A. da 1956. Coieopteros Part 4. Jnsetos do Brasil, vol. 10, Rio de Janeiro. 373 pp. — 1968. Quarto catdlogo dos insetos que vivem nas plantas do Brasil, vol. 2(1), Rio de Janeiro, 622 pp. 52 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 CUVIER, G. L. C. F. D. 1829. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisa- tion. Nouvelle édition, vol. 5. Paris. xxiv+556 pp. FITZINGER, L. J. F. J. 1843. Systema reptilium. Amblyglossae. Vienna. 106 pp. FROGGATT, W. W. 1895. Life-histories of Australian Coleoptera. Part III. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 10, pp. 325-336. GEMMINGER, M. & HAROLD, E. VON 1871. Catalogus Coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 8. Munich, pp. 2181-2668. GERMAR, E. F. 1824. Insectorum species, vol. 1. Coleoptera. Halle. xxiv+ 624 pp. GUERIN-MENEVILLE, F E. 1857. Animaux articulés a pieds articulés. In SAGRA, R. DE LA, Histoire physique, politique et naturelle de lle de Cuba. Paris. Ixxxvii+ 868 pp. HUSTACHE, A. 1938. Curculionidae: Barinae. Coleopt. Cat., part 163, *s-Gravenhage. 219 pp. — 1949. Nouveaux Barinae Sud-Américains. Premiére Partie. Bolm. Mus. nac. Rio de J. (Zoologia) No. 95,.pp. 1-55. {[ILLIGER, J. C. W.] 1807. Nachlese zu den Bemerkungen, Berichtigungen und Zusatzen zu Fabricii Systema Eleutheratorum. Magazin Insektenk. (Illiger), vol. 6, pp. 296-317. KIRBY, W. 1819 (dated 1818). A century of insects, including several new genera described from his cabinet. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. 12, pp. 375-453. —& SPENCE, W. 1828. An introduction to entomology. Ed. 5, vol. 3, London. viii+ 732 pp. KISSINGER, D. G. 1968. Curculionidae, subfamily Apioninae of North and Central America with reviews of the world genera of Apioninae and world subgenera of Apion Herbst (Coleoptera). South Lancaster, vii+ 559 pp. LACORDAIRE, T. 1863. Curculionides. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres, vol. 6. Paris. iv+637 pp. 1866. Curculionides. Bruchides. Ibid., vol. 7, iv+ 620 pp. LATREILLE, P. A. 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal. Paris. [vi]+ 570 pp. LEA, A. M. 1909. Belinae d’Océanie. Jn LEA, A. M. & BOVIE, A., Coleoptera, fam. Curculionidae, subfam. Belinae. Genera Insect. Fasc. 91, pp 1-13. MARSHALL, SIR GUY A. K. 1952. Taxonomic notes on Curculionidae (Col.). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) vol. 5, pp. 261-270. MEIGEN, J. W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten, vol. 6, Hamm. xi+401 pp. MORIMOTO, K. 1976. Notes on the family characters of Apionidae and Bren- tidae (Coleoptera), with key to the related families. Kontyii, vol. 44, __ pp. 469-476. SCHONHERR, C. J. 1825 [Curculionides]. Continuatio tabulae synopticae familiae Curculionidum. Jsis, Jena, vol. 9, cols. 581-588. — 1833. Genera et species Curculionidum, vol. 1, Paris. xv +681 pp. — 1836. Ibid. vol. 3. Paris and Leipzig. iv+858 pp. WAGNER, H. 1910. Curculionidae: Apioninae. Coleopt. Cat. vol. 6, Berlin. 81 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 53 MYZUS FESTUCAE THEOBALD, 1917 (INSECTA, APHIDOIDEA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S)2389 By H. L. G. Stroyan (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Harpenden Laboratory, Harpenden, Herts.) F. V. Theobald (1916, Entomologist, vol. 49, pp. 49-50) de- scribed a new aphid species Macrosiphum myrmecophilum from one adult and two immature specimens taken in an ant nest in Somerset. He also ascribed an earlier specimen from an ant nest in Ireland to this species, but it was too damaged to be used for the description. 2. The same author (1917, ibid., vol. 50, pp. 80-81) described a new aphid species Myzus festucae from Festuca rubra in Kent. A number of type and topotype slides remain in Theobald’s collection now housed in the British Museum (Natural History). 3. The same author (1926, The Plant Lice or Aphididae of Great Britain, vol. 1, pp. 335-336 and 352-354) repeated his accounts of the above two species, both of which he now placed in the genus Myzus Passerini. He added some further locality records for M. festucae but not for M. myrmecophilum. 4. D. Hille Ris Lambers (1933, Stylops, vol. 2, p. 175) considered that both Myzus festucae and M. myrmecophilum were synonyms of Metopolophium dirhodum (Walker, 1848). 5. The same author later (1947, Temminckia, vol. 7, pp. 282, 287-290) maintained the synonymy of myrmecophilum with dirhodum, but now treated /festucae as a distinct species of Metopolophium Mordvilko. 6. Since 1947 the name Metopolophium festucae (Theobald) has become well established in the literature both of aphid taxonomy and applied entomology, as the name of an aphid species causing damage to grass and cereal crops in Europe. A list of published references follows below: (1) Hille Ris Lambers, D., 1947. Temminckia, vol. 7, pp. 287-290. (2) Borner, C., 1952. Mitt. thiiring. bot. Ges., Beiheft 3, 1. Lieferung, p. 157. (3) Stroyan, H. L. G., 1952. Pl. Pathol., vol. 1, pp. 46-47. (4) Gair, R., 1953. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 121. (5) Edwards, C. A. & Heath, G. W., 1964. The Principles of Agricultural Entomology, pp. 182, 191, 194. (6) Jones, F.G. W. & Jones, M. G., 1964. Pests of Field Crops, p. 317 (and 1974, 2nd edition, pp. 65, 68). (7) Hille Ris Lambers, D., 1966. Mitt. schweiz. entomol. Ges., vol. 39, p. 110. 54 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 (8) Miller, F. P., 1968. Z. agnew. Entomol. vol. 61, pp. 131-141. (9) Stroyan, H. L. G., 1969. Trans. Soc. Brit. Entomol. vol. 18, p. 229. (10) Eastop, V. F., 1971. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Ento- mology, vol. 26, pp. 19, 24, 77-78 (as Acyrthosiphon (Metopolophium) festucae). (11) Hill, A. R., 1971. Ann. appl. Biol., vol. 67, pp. 289-295. (12) Dean, G. J. W., 1973. J. appl. Ecol., vol. 10, pp. 447-462. (13) Dean, G. J. W. & Wilding, N., 1973. Ann. appl. Biol. vol. 74, pp. 133-38. (14) Plumb, R. T., 1974. Ibid., vol. 77, pp. 87-91. (15) Prior, R. N. B. & Morrison, J. R., 1974. Key for the field identification of apterous and alate cereal aphids with photographic illustrations, plate 4. (16) Breniaux, D., Lescar, L. & Moreau, J. P., 1976. Phytoma, vol. 28, pp. 7-14. (17) Eastop, V. F. & Hille Ris Lambers, D., 1976. Survey of the World’s Aphids, p. 279. (18) Prior, R. N. B., 1976. Syst. Entomol., vol. 1, pp. 271-279. (19) Stroyan, H. L. G., 1977. Glasgow Nat., vol. 19, p. 245. 7. During the same period the name myrmecophilum Theobald has not been used as the valid name of an aphid taxon, except for a listing in reference (17) above unsupported by any details of its status; and no further material has been recorded from any locality since the original find in 1915. 8. Re-examination of the holotype of Macrosiphum myrmeco- philum Theobald has led to the conclusion that it is the same species as Myzus festucae Theobald, which by the application of the Law of Priority becomes its junior subjective synonym. The evidence for this new synonymy is presented in a separate paper (Stroyan, H. L. G., Revisionary notes on the genus Metopolophium Mordvilko, 1914, with keys to European species and descriptions of two new taxa. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. London, vol. 75, pp. 91-140). 9. In view of the wide use in literature of the name Metopolo- phium festucae (Theobald) for an aphid of considerable importance as a crop pest, and of the failure of any author after Theobald to recog- nise Macrosiphum myrmecophilum Theobald, based on a unique adult specimen (the earlier damaged specimen has not type status and is apparently of a different species), as its senior synonym over a period of more than 60 years, I believe that the interests of stability in nomenclature would be best served by the conservation of the name festucae by exercise of the plenary powers. 10. Since both specific epithets are attributable to Theobald, no ethical question seems to arise from the preference of either name to the other. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 55 11. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name (2 (3 — ~ festucae Theobald, 1917, as published in the binomen Myzus festucae, is to be given precedence over the specific name myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the binomen Macrosiphum myrmecophilum, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms; to place the specific name festucae Theobald, 1917, as published in the binomen Myzus festucae, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the bino- men Macrosiphum myrmecophilum, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms; and to place the specific name myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the binomen Macrosiphum myrmecophilum, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name festucae Theobald, 1917, as published in the binomen Myzus festucae, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms. 56 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 DACTYLOPUSIA NORMAN, 1903 (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)1517 By W. Vervoort and L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) In 1963 one of us (W.V.) applied to the Commission for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Copepoda, THALESTRIDAE) (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 20, pp. 145-147). The species proposed as type species was Dactylopu- sia vulgaris G. O. Sars, 1905. Brinck, 1964 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 21, p. 193) proposed that Dactylopus tisboides Claus, 1863 should be the type species. The original proposals, when put to a vote of the Commission later in 1964, failed to receive a two-thirds majority vote. The history of the names involved is as follows. 2. Dactylopus Claus, 1863, Die freilebenden Copepoden, p. 126, was proposed for a large number of species without any fixation of the type species. The first species mentioned was Cyclops stroemii Baird, 1837, Mag. Zool. Bot., vol. 1, p. 330. 3. Norman, 1903, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 11, p. 368, recog- nised that Dactylopus Claus, 1863 was a junior homonym of Dactylopus Gill, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia for 1859, p. 130, the name given to a genus of fishes. Norman thereupon proposed the new replace- ment name Dactylopusia for Dactylopus Claus non Gill and designated Cyclops stroemii Baird, 1837 as type species. 4. It is clear that Norman, when designating Cyclops stroemii as the type species of Dactylopusia, intended the thalestrid species ident- ified by Claus as such. Unfortunately, the true Cyclops stroemii Baird, 1837 is a laophontid and is the type species, by original designation, of Heterolaophonte Lang, 1948, Monographie der Harpacticiden, p. 1364. If Norman’s designation is accepted, therefore, Dactylopusia must be transferred from the THALESTRIDAE to the LAOPHONTIDAE where it will displace Heterolaophonte. This would gravely disturb the stability of nomenclature in the THALESTRIDAE, for Dactylopusia is a widely used name. 5. Lang, 1944, Monographie der Harpacticiden, Vorl\. Mitteil., p. 12 ‘rebaptised’ Dactylopusia as Dactylopodia. The latter name is an unjustified emendation and a junior objective synonym of Dactylopusia. 6. It is clear that Claus not only misidentified Cyclops stroemii Baird but included material of more than one species in it. Part of that material belongs to Dactylopusia vulgaris G. O. Sars, 1905, Account of the Crustacea of Norway, p. 128, and part to Amonardia normani (Brady, 1872), and further species may be represented. In the earlier application to the Commission it was suggested that D. vulgaris be designated as type species of Dactylopusia. However, Lang, 1944, p. 13, suggested that D. tisboides Claus, 1863, p. 127, should be taken as the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 57 type species and we are happy to recommend this to the Commission. It appears that D. vulgaris Sars itself may be a composite species and this makes it less suitable as a type species of the genus. It is not our purpose, nor is it the business of the Commission, to examine the taxo- nomic problems affecting C. stroemii or D. vulgaris. 7. There are two subfamily names involved in the present case: DACTYLOPODIINAE Lang, 1936, Further zool. results of the Swedish Antarctic Exped., vol. 3(3), pp. 22, 29; and DACTYLOPUSIINAE Ver- voort, 1963, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 20, p. 146. DACTYLOPODIINAE was proposed by Lang for ‘Dactylopusia, Dactylopusioides, Eudactylop- sis, Diarthrodes,?Pelthestris’; the generic name Dactylopodia was not proposed until 1944. DACTYLOPODIINAE is therefore best treated as an incorrect original spelling of DACTYLOPUSIINAE which, though first used by Vervoort in 1963, should be treated as the correct original spelling and attributed to Lang, 1936. 8. We therefore now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of type species hitherto made for Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 and to designate Dactylopus tisboides Claus, 1863 as type species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dactylopus tisboides Claus, 1863; (b) Heterolaophonte Lang, 1948 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Cyclops stroemii Baird, 1837; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) tisboides Claus, 1863, as published in the binomen Dactylopus tisboides (specific name of type species of Dactylopusia Norman, 1903); (b) stroemii Baird, 1837, as published in the binomen Cyclops stroemii (specific name of type species of Heterolaophonte Lang, 1948); (4) to place the subfamily name DACTYLOPUSIINAE Lang, 1936 (corrected by Vervoort, 1963 from ‘DACTYLOPO- DIINAE‘) (type genus Dactylopusia Norman, 1903) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the subfamily name DACTYLOPODIINAE Lang, 1936 (an incorrect original spelling of DACTYLOPUSI- INAE) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. 58 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 ANUROPODIDAE IN CRUSTACEA ISOPODA AND IN CRUSTACEA TANAIDACEA: PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.)2429 By M. Bacescu (Musée d'Histoire Naturelle ‘Grigore Antipa’, 1 Chaussée Kisselef, Bucuresti 79744, Romania), J. Sieg (Universitat Osnabruck, Abt. Vechta (Biol.), 2848 Vechta, Fed. Rep. Germany), & L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands). Following the instructions laid down in Art. 55a of the Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked to use its plenary powers to prevent a homonymy of family names, which is not a true homonymy (as the names of the respective type genera of these families are different, although rather similar in spelling), but is caused by the rules of grammar. 2. In 1886 Beddard (Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1886, p. 112) described a new genus of deep-sea Isopoda, Anuropus, type species, by monotypy, Anuropus branchiatus Beddard, 1886. Seven years later Stebbing (1893, History of Crustacea, p. 345) erected ‘a distinct family, ANUROPIDAE’ for Beddard’s genus. The spelling ANUROPIDAE was later corrected to the grammatically correct ANUROPODIDAE, first by Calman (1907, Lankester’s Treatise on Zoology, vol. 7, p. 210) who considered the taxon of only subfamily rank and consequently used the name ANUROPODINAE, and again by Sivertsen & Holthuis (1980, Gunneria, vol. 35, p. 28). However, notwithstanding the correction, the spelling ANUROPIDAE or ANUROPINAE was regularly used (e.g. by Nierstrasz, 1931, Siboga Exped., Mon., 32 (c), p. 162; Hale, 1952 Rep. B.A.N.Z. antarctic Res. Exped., (B)6(2), p. 29; Menzies & Dow, 1958, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (13), vol. 1, p. 2). In the recently published (1982) vol. 1 of The Biology of Crustacea (ed. D. E. Bliss), Bowman & Abele in their chapter ‘Classification of the Recent Crustacea’ (p. 18) use the correct spelling ANUROPODIDAE. Only one other genus has been assigned to the family, viz., Branchuropus Moore, 1902. In all, six species have been described in the family, all of these rather rare and known only from very few records. 3. In 1980 Bacescu (Trav. Mus. Hist. nat. Bucuresti, vol. 22, p. 381) described a new genus of Tanaidacean Crustacea, Anuropoda (type species, by monotypy, Anuropoda francispori Bacescu, 1980). At the same time as describing the new genus and new species, Bacescu (1980, p. 384) erected for it the new family ANUROPODIDAE. This family name is also used by Bowman & Abele (1982, in Bliss, Biology Crustacea, vol. 1, p. 21), who noted the homonymy with ANUROPO- DIDAE Stebbing, 1893. Bacescu’s family ANUROPODIDAE contains Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 59 a single species known only from the original record. 4. Although the name ANUROPODIDAE Stebbing is the older of the two family names, and even its emendation by Calman (1907) antedates the establishment of ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu by 75 years, it seems wisest to ask the Commission to change the spelling of the name of the older taxon. The incorrect spelling ANUROPIDAE has been used for the Isopod family more frequently than has the correct spelling and to ask for the legalisation of this incorrect spelling would not only end the state of homonymy, but also favour the usage of the more common spelling. The entire question of which name should be changed is of extremely little importance as both taxa are known almost exclusively to systematists. 5. The concrete proposal that we now submit, is the request that the Commission: (1) make use of its plenary powers to rule that the stem of ANUROPUS Beddard, 1886, for the purposes of Article 29 is ANUROP-; (2) place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Anuropoda Bacescu, 1980, (gender: feminine) type species, by monotypy, Anuropoda francispori Bacescu, 1980; (b) Anuropus Beddard, 1886, (gender: masculine) type species, by monotypy, Anuropus branchiatus Beddard, 1886; (3) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) francispori Bacescu, 1980, as published in the combi- nation Anuropoda francispori (specific name of type species of Anuropoda Bacescu, 1980). (b) branchiatus Beddard, 1886, as published in the combi- nation Anuropus branchiatus (specific name of type species of Anuropus Beddard, 1886). (4) place the following names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology: (a) ANUROPIDAE Stebbing, 1893, type genus Anuropus Beddard, 1886, spelling legalised under the plenary powers under (1) above; (b) ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980, type genus Anuro- poda Bacescu, 1980; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Names in Zoology the name ANUROPODINAE (correc- tion by Calman, 1907 of ANUROPIDAE) Stebbing, 1893 as an incorrect spelling in consequence of the ruling given under the plenary powers in (1) above. 60 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 CALAPHIS WALSH, 1862, AND CALLAPHTS WALKER, 1870 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, APHIDIDAE): PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE CONFUSION. Z.N.(S.)2153 by F. W. Quednau (Laurentian Forest Research Centre, P.O. Box 3800, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, G1 V 4C7 Canada) The purpose of this application is to remove the confusion caused by the existence in the same aphid subfamily, DREPANOSIPHONI- NAE, of the available and nomenclaturally valid generic names, Cala- phis Walsh, 1862, and Callaphis Walker, 1870. The facts are as follows: 2. Walsh, 1862 (Proc. entomol. Soc. Philadelphia vol. 1, p. 301) described the new genus Calaphis based monotypically on the new species Calaphis betulella Walsh, 1862. The main character of the genus is that the radial sector of the wing is lacking. Walker, 1870, (The Zoolo- gist, vol. 5, p. 2000) apparently not knowing of Walsh’s American work, established the new genus Callaphis, with Aphis juglandis Goeze, 1778, (Ent. Beytrdge vol. 2, p. 311) as type species, by monotypy. 3. Buckton, 1881, (Monogr. British Aphides, vol. 3, p. 39) estab- lished the new genus Ptychodes, with type species Aphis juglandis Goeze, 1778, by monotypy. Ptychodes Buckton, besides being a junior objective synonym of Callaphis Walker, was already three times pre- occupied, first by Audinet-Serville, 1835, for a coleopteran genus. Kirkaldy, 1904, (Entomologist, vol. 37, p. 279) proposed Panaphis as a new replacement name for Ptychodes Buckton, 1881. Palmer, 1952, Aphids of the Rocky Mountain Region, (Thomas Say Foundation, vol. 5, p. 79) accepted Panaphis and rejected Callaphis Walker in conformity with Opinion 147 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl., vol. 2, pp. 123-132). This provided, inter alia, that generic names of the same origin and meaning and differing only in the use of a single or a double consonant, should be considered homonyms. That ruling was repealed by the Paris (1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 4, p. 166); therefore the pre-existing provision that a difference of one letter prevents homonymy between generic names was restored. It appears as Article 56a in the present Code. Panaphis was thus rendered nomenclaturally invalid. 4. The confusion caused by the co-existence of Calaphis and Callaphis is increased because each name has been used as the basis of a tribe name (CALAPHIDINI, living mostly on trees of the birch family Betulaceae, CALLAPHIDINI, living mostly on trees of the beech family Fagaceae). To remove the cause of confusion, the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cal- laphis Walker, 1870, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic names: Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 61 (a) Panaphis Kirkaldy, 1904 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Aphis juglandis Goeze, 1778, and (b) Calaphis Walsh, 1862, based monotypically on the new species Calaphis betulella Walsh, 1862, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific names: (a) juglandis Goeze, 1778, as published in the binomen Aphis juglandis (specific name of type species of Pana- phis Kirkaldy, 1904), and (b) betulella Walsh, 1862 (specific name of type species of Calaphis Walsh, 1862) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Callaphis Walker, 1870, as sup- pressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the family-group names CALAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1918, (Rep. Minn. St. Entomol. vol. 18, p. 64) and PANA- PHIDINI Oestlund, 1922, (Rep. Minn. St. Entomol., vol. 22, p. 135) (type genera Calaphis Walsh, 1862, and Panaphis Kirkaldy, 1904, respectively) on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology; (6) to place the family group name CALLAPHIDINAE Borner, 1952, (Mitt. thiiring. bot. Ver. Beiheft 3, p. 32) (invalid because the name of its type genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology. 62 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 UROPLAT—AS THE STEM OF FAMILY—GROUP NAMES IN AMPHIBIA AND INSECTA (COLEOPTERA): PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.)2373. By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 80309 U.S.A.), Urless N. Lanham (University of Colorado Museum) and Arthur Loveridge (deceased). A case of family-group name homonymy involving insects and reptiles has come to our attention. Since it pertains to large and/or well-known groups whose names are in current use, we request a decision on the proper names by the Commission, in conformance with the directive of Art. 55. We are much indebted to Dr Roger Conant and Dr Richard E. White for invaluable aid in documentation of the case. 2. The nominal genus Uroplatus Duméril, 1806, p. 80, contain- ing six species of geckos in Madagascar, as now known, was emended erroneously to Uroplates Gray, 1825, p. 198, which served as the nom- inal type genus for the new generically monotypic family-group taxon UROPLATIDAE Boulenger, 1884, p. 119. That family-group name was widely accepted for about 50 years, but was synonymised with the GEKKONIDAE by Malcolm Smith, 1933, p. 17. The most recent revision of the higher categories of geckos (Kluge, 1967) did not recog- nise the genus as constituting any level of family-group separation, even tribal. Nevertheless the genus is highly distinctive and we regard it as valid at the subtribe level, hence Uroplatina (a level not treated by Kluge, op. cit., or other monographers). 3. The nominal genus Uroplata Chevrolat in Dejean, 1835, p. 365, proposed for a group of 88 species of American (mostly South American) beetles as understood in 1970 (fide White, 1981, p. 714), served as the type genus for the family-group taxon UROPLATINI Leng, 1920, p. 303 (Coleoptera, CHRYSOMELIDAE, HISPINAE), proposed at the tribal level. Twenty-five New World genera were included in the tribe by Blackwelder, 1946, p. 729 and Arnett, 1960, p. 940. The genus Uroplata continues to be recognised as valid (e.g. Harley, 1969; White, 1981). j 4. Thus two family-group names identical at common levels have been derived from similar although not identical generic names. A modification of the stem to remove family-group name homonymy without actually suppressing either name is in order. We suggest chang- ing the lizard subtribal name to Uroplatiina, the stem of Uroplatus being designated as Uroplati-, to which appropriate family-group name end- ings should be added. 5. We accordingly here request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 63 name Uroplatus Duméril, 1806 for the purposes of Article 29 is UROPLATI- (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Uroplatus Duméril, 1806 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Stellio fimbriatus Schneider, VI 2 pe 325 (b) Uroplata Chevrolat, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by White, 1981, p. 714, Hispa mucronata Olivier, 1808, p. 765; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) fimbriatus Schneider, 1792, as_ published in the bino- men Stellio fimbriatus (specific name of type species of Uroplatus Dumeril, 1806); (b) mucronata Olivier, 1808, as published in the binomen Hispa mucronata (specific name of type species of Uroplata Chevrolat, 1835); (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family— Group Names in Zoology: (a) UROPLATIIDAE Boulenger, 1884 (emended through the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above from UROPLATIDAE) (type genus Uroplatus Duméril, 1806); (b) UROPLATINI Leng, 1920 (type genus Uroplata Chev- rolat, 1835). REFERENCES ARNETT, Ross H. 1960-62. The beetles of the United States (a manual for identification). Washington, D.C., Catholic Univ. Amer. xi, 1112 pp. BLACKWELDER, Richard E. 1946. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico. Central America, the West Indies and South America. Part 4. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., no. 185, pp. i-iii, pp. 551-763. BOULENGER, George A. 1884. Synopsis of the families of existing Lacertilia. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (5) vol. 14, pp. 117-122. DEJEAN, Pierre F. M. A. 1835. Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. le compte Dejean ... Ed. 2. Paris, Méguignon—Marvis. DUMERIL, A. M. C. 1806. Zoologie analytique, ou méthode naturelle de classi- fication des animaux. Paris, Perronneau, xxxii, 344 pp. GRAY, J. E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and Amphibia, with a description of some new species. Ann. Philos. (n.s.) vol. 10, pp. 193-217. HARLEY, K. L. S. 1969. The suitability of Octotoma scabripennis Guérin and Uroplata girardi Pic for the control of Lantana in Australia. Bull. entomol. Res., vol. 54, pp. 835-843. KLUGE, Arnold G. 1967. Higher taxonomic categories of gekkonid lizards and their evolution. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 135 (1), pp. 1-60, figs. 1-8, pls. 1-5. 64 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 LENG, Charles W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico. Mt. Vernon, N.Y., John D. Sherman, Jr. x, 470 pp. OLIVIER, A. G. 1808. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes... Vol. 6, Coléoptéres. Paris, pp. 613-1104. SCHNEIDER, J. G. 1792. Amphibiorum physiologiae specimen alterum. Trajecti ad Viadrum. pp. 55. SMITH, Malcolm A. 1933. Remarks on some Old World geckoes. Rec. Indian Mus., vol. 35(1), pp. 9-19, figs. 1-7. WHITE, Richard E. 1981. The genus Uroplata, type-species and authorship (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Proc. entomol. Soc. Washington, vol. 83(4), pp. 713-715. Bull. zool. Nom., Vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 65 OECIACUS VICARIUS HORVATH, 1912 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, CIMICIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2358 By Richard C. Froeschner (Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560), Eugene V. Coan (Department of Geology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA 94118) & Raymond E. Ryckman (Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350) James G. Cooper, 1870, pp. 105-106, in Spencer F. Baird, Ornithology, Vol. 1, Land Birds, reported a bed bug (CIMICIDAEB), which he named Cimex lunifrontis, from the nests of the cliff swallow [then known as Hirundo lunifrons Say] in his house in Santa Cruz, California. He described the species thus: ‘But these bugs were evidently a distinct species from the Cimex lectularius, being different, narrower, and pale yellowish, instead of the characteristic colour from which the name ‘“‘Puce”’ is derived, through the French name of the insect. ... As usual, their [the cliff swallow’s] parasites are peculiar to them, and may be called Cimex lunifrontis.’ 2. We have found no other use of the name C. /unifrontis, which is not even mentioned in R. L. Usinger’s Monograph of the Cimicidae, 1966, Thomas Say Foundation, vol. 7. Specimens on which the above name was based were evidently not retained by Cooper. 3. The description, the Californian locality, and the cliff swallow host [now known under the combination Pterochelidon pyrrhonota (Vieillot)] allows no association other than with the ‘swallow bug’ later described by Horvath, 1912, Ann. Mus. nat. Hist. Hung., vol. 10, p. 261 as Oeciacus vicarius, a combination that has been used regularly since that time to report these insects from cliff swallow nests, and occasion- ally to report them as wandering from empty swallow nests in houses and biting humans. O. vicarius has recently been shown to transmit an arbovirus of the cliff swallow — the first unequivocal case of its kind in medical entomology involving a Cimicid. This work will probably be frequently cited in the future particularly by workers experimenting with disease transmission by the two man-biting bed bugs (Rush, W. A., Francey, B., Smith, G. C. & Cropp, C. B., 1980, Ann. entomol. Soc. America, vol. 73(3), pp. 315-318, Transmission of an Arbovirus by a member of the family CIMICIDAE). Besides the twenty-two citations given in Usinger, 1966, pp. 365-366, many more could be added, such as: Van Duzee, 1917, Univ. California Pubs. Entomol., vol. 2, p. 287; Torre-—Bueno, 1921, Bull. Brooklyn entomol. Soc., vol. 16, p. 29; Torre—Bueno, 1925, Canadian Entomol. vol. 57, p. 30; List, 1925, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 38, pp. 105, 108; Downes, 1927, Proc. 66 Bull. zool. Nom., Vol 40, pt 1, March 1983 entomol. Soc. British Columbia, vol. 23, p. 11; Knowlton, 1952, Bull. Brooklyn entomol. Soc., vol. 47, p. 122; Strickland, 1953, Canadian Entomol. vol. 85, p. 199; Ryckman, 1958, Ann. entomol. Soc. America, vol. 51, p. 38; Lattin & Schuh, 1959, Pan—Pacific Entomol. vol. 35, p. 176; Hicks, 1962, Jowa State J. Sci., vol. 36, p. 261; Hicks, 1971, Jowa State J. Sci., vol. 46, p. 169. 4. To avoid introducing a name that apparently has not been used in about 110 years and thus disturbing a substantial literature discussing this insect, we request the International Commission to: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name lunifrontis Cooper, 1870, as published in the binomen Cimex lunifrontis, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not the law of Homonymy; (2) place the specific name vicarius Horvath, 1912, as published in the binomen Qeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; and (3) place the specific name /unifrontis Cooper, 1870, as pub- lished in the binomen Cimex lunifrontis, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Tl e 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. CONTENTS Officers and Members of the Commission ........ Members of the International Trust for Zoological Newencbine Notices prescribed by the “cde wise veal . Zoolosy Special Anmonmcemamiay prerata -heytitiy sete 8 est ho bos gan Prtanbial Ipspeiet Meth ome ides ide a 420 vig ic 40,44 2105p".0) xi ne Ow SD Commission Report : General Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, 23-27 AUT, PERE ete Meee ince: a taeteal ttt. aed Anolis beim 1802 (Reptilia). cw eras A. F. Stimson by e, n lerwood PROTECTS! SG 6. ee De aL” See) ay et me ee ‘a fe tae Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Araneae, Salticidae). B. Cutler Lite Gorgonia flabelliformis Eichwald, fii hist nism Fh. Legrand D eyinetoi 8 See Votes ERA SORE CATS ania ey ae Opinions Opinion 1239. Aitelabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ... Opinion 1240. HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Opinion 1241. CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 and PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Mammalia) shat tee Opinion 1242. Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936 (Crustacea, Isopoda) . Opinion 1243. Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 (Mammalia, OTN RNG he Ne a A ea VL el OA MEO aa 2s Opinion 1244. Stethaspis Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Opinion 1245. Linyphia tenebricola Wider, 1834 (Arachnida) . New and revived cases _ Pseudopontia Plétz v. Gonophlebia Felder (Insecta, Lepidoptera). CRN Naat Ce oh ae otek ACO ALES Bee ae Cat ee Family-groups based on Myrmecia (Insecta) and Myrmecium (Arach- ida), J. Reiskind .... Family group names based on Eurhin, Eurhinus and " Eurhynchus (Coleoptera). E.C. Zimmerman; R.T. Thompson . Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Aphidoidea). ' LG. Stroyan Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Crustacea, Eee) W. Vervoort & Wa IN ee ss a ee ree Gem heeey Ds RPh e toa ANUROPODIDAE in Crustacea Isopoda and in Crustacea Tanaida- cea. M. Bacescu, J. Sieg & L.B. Holthuis .......... Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Hemip- tera, Aphididae). F.W. Quednau_ . UROPLAT —as the stem of family-group names in Amphibia ‘and Insecta (Coleoptera). H.M. Smith & U.N. Lanham .... _ Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Cimicidae) . R.C. Froeschner, E.V. Coan & R.E.Ryckman ..... 65 Printed in Great Britain by Heine Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset ee ee ee ee a ee PS ee a i ial 15 July 1983 Volume 40 Part 2 ve ) gic ation . \» The Bulletin =” Of Zoological — Nomenclature | Ls ~The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD Price £10.00 (All rights reserved). AS ade iii 4 0 AUG 1985 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON : ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE a PURCHASES , “2G Y ut 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). A. The Officers of the Commission B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 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 Cien- cias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echi- noidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzer- land) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crus- tacea 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, 75005, Paris, 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. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschafien, 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 iV 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 Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpeto- logy Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitdét Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari Dr. SHUNICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1. Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) Entomology Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical Hymenoptera INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. Per Brinck Prof. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. C.B. Cox Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. G.C. Gruchy Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. M. Luc Dr. I.W.B. Nye 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) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 67 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 40, part 2 (pp. 67-128) 15 July 1983 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circumstances the Commission May start to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following appli- cations published in the present part of the Bulletin (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b): (1) Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaffer, 1839 and Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2367. K. Mikkola. (2) Mya Rondani, 1850 and Somomya Bertoloni, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera): designation of type-species and propo- sed suppression of Somomya under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2127. A.C. Pont. (3) Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855: Proposed change of type species in order to preserve the well-established name Paralastor Saussure, 1856 (Hymenoptera, Vespoidea, Eumenidae). Z.N.(S.) 2280. J. van der Vecht. *(4) Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed con- servation by the suppression of Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843 under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2343. A. Dubois & J.-J. Morére and A.F. Stimson & B.T. Clarke. (5) Simia fascicularis Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Primates): request for the suppression under the plenary powers of Simia aygula Linnaeus, 1758, a senior synonym. Z.N.(S.) 2399. P.H. Napier & C.P. Groves. (6) Allygus Fieber, 1872 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2431. F. Ossiannils- son. *(7) Mactra sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): Proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2332. A.I. Kafanov. (8) CAECILIIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera): Proposals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2333. T.E. Moore, R.A. Nussbaum & E.L. Mockford. 68 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 40/1 on 29 March 1983 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b.): (1) (2) *(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Callionymus sagitta Pallas, 1770 and Callionymus fila- mentosus Valenciennes, 1837 (Teleostei, Callionymidae): status of names and request to make an exception from article 75 C (4) & (5) for designating a neotype for Callio- nymus sagitta Pallas, 1770. Z.N.(S.) 2435. R. Fricke. Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 and Pero 1856 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2436. D.S. Fletcher & I.W.B. Nye. Ciona Fleming, 1822 and Ascidia intestinalis Linnaeus, 1767 (Ascidia, Urochordata, Cionidae): proposed conser- vation. Z.N.(S.) 2437. R. Bour & A. Dubois. Cornalatus Attenes, 1931 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida): pro- posed designation of type species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2438. R.L. Hoffman. Liasis Gray, 1842 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed designa- tion of a type species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2439. A.F. Stimson & S.B. McDowell. LIPARIDAE: request for the proper spelling. Z.N.(S.) 2440. K.D. Vogt. Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2441. M. LeCroy. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE NEW MEMBERS OF THE TRUST The following new members have been elected to the Trust: The Rt Hon the Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.) Dr G.C. Gruchy (Canada) Dr M. Luc (France) Dr I.W.B. Nye (U.K.) Professor Per Brinck (Sweden) Lord Cranbrook’s membership is especially welcome because it will associate him, as President of the Appeal Patrons Committee, more directly with the general affairs of the Trust. Dr Nye was a member and Assistant Secretary of the Commission, 1976-1982. Professor Brinck is at present Vice-President of the Commission. Dr Gruchy, as Acting Di- rector of the National Museum of Natural History, Ottawa, was particu- Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 69 larly helpful to the Commission during its meetings in that city in 1982 and is taking practical steps to sustain the work of the Commission. OBITUARY It is with great regret that we announce the death of Viscount Boyd of Merton, C.H., at the age of 78 following a street accident in London on 8 March last. Lord Boyd—the former Mr Alan Lennox Boyd—made a distinguished and varied contribution to British public and political life, and was a former Secretary of State for the Colonies in the British Government. He also gave his time generously to a wide range of social, charitable and scientific causes. From 1963 to 1976 he was a Trustee of the British Museum (Natural History) and we remem- ber with particular gratitude the services he rendered to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, of which he was a valued member from 1967 to 1978. At the time of his death Lord Boyd was a Patron of the Trust’s internationally sponsored Appeal to fund the work of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature. FINANCIAL SUPPORT We acknowledge with grateful thanks the following donations to the Appeal Fund since the last list was published in volume 40 part 1, March 1983: Dr D.E. Butler; Academia Sinica Taiwan (further dona- tion); Mr W.F.H. Ansell; the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales; the Entomological Club; the Wellington Trust; the Danish National Science Research Council; the British Ornithologists’ Union; the Royal Society of Western Australia; the MacRobert Trusts; Sir Charles Fleming, KBE, FRS (a further donation); the Australian Academy of Sciences (a further donation); the Palaeontological Associ- ation; the Naturvetenskapliga Forskningsradet, Sweden; the Freshwater Biological Association (a further donation); and the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Covenanted donations have been received from Dr A.J. Charig, Mrs P.B. Speak, Dr B.R. Rosen, Tricen- trol Ltd and Professor V.C. Wynne Edwards. The gross value of the fund now stands at just over £50,000 (not counting expenditures). It is especially gratifying to note the broadening international support for the Appeal. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature June 1983 70 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING THE GENERIC NAMES CHUANGIA WALCOTT, 1911 AND SHANTUNGIA WALCOTT, 1905 Z.N.(S.)635 (see vol. 37, pp. 62-64) By C. Lochman Balk (Geology Department, Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, Box 1241, New Mexico 87801) and C. J. Stubblefield (35 Kent Avenue, Ealing, W13 8BE) In the above application, paragraph 6, p. 63, we said that Walcott, 1913, Publs Carnegie Inst., No. 54, Research in China, vol. 3, pp. Il, V, 6, 7, 10, 53, 147, 148, 250, 255, 369, acted as a first reviser as between the two spellings Shangtungia and Shantungia Walcott, 1905. We are grateful to Dr C. W. Sabrosky for pointing out to us that that is not the case under the letter of the Code, since Walcott, 1913, did not cite both spellings and explicitly choose one and reject the other. Since we know of no later author who has strictly complied with the requirements of the Code, we therefore now state explicitly that, as between those two spellings, we choose Shantungia as the correct original spelling and reject Shangtungia as the incorrect original spelling. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF APHYTIS MYTILASPIDIS LE BARON, 1870. Z.N.(S.)2320 By A. D. Austin, B. Bolton, Z. Boucek, N. D. M. Ferguson, M. G. Fitton, I. D. Gauld, T. Huddleston, J. S. Noyes, J. Quinlan and B. R. Subba Rao (British Museum (Natural History) and Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) (see vol. 39, pp. 73-76) We are unanimously opposed to the suppression of Agonioneurus albidus Westwood, 1837, in favour of Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870. We are of the opinion that, although mytilaspidis Le Baron is a very well used name in the literature, use of the older valid name, a/bidus Westwood, would not cause undue confusion. We favour retention of albidus Westwood for the following reasons: (1) The original type series of albidus Westwood, 1837, is still extant and the species is recognisable from the specimens of this series. (2) The specific epithet, albidus Westwood, 1837, has to our knowledge not been linked with any other species of Aphytis and thus no confusion would result from its use as the valid name for mytilaspidis Le Baron, although it may result in a slight amount of inconvenience to workers in the field of biological control or ecology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 71 (3) The original type series of mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870, is believed lost, but it is possible that it may be relocated. The possibility, however small, still exists that this material may represent a species distinct from mytilaspidis as now understood by Rosen & De Bach, 1979, and others. If no genuine confusion will result, we are in principle against the reten- tion of so-called ‘better known’ junior synonyms in favour of relatively less well known senior names. We are agreed that the use of the older name as valid in this particular and other similar cases may cause some initial inconvenience to field biologists, and they have our sympathies, but such inconvenience will cer- tainly be short lived since the use of the older name will undoubtedly stabilise the nomenclature and the controversy will be forgotten in a very few years’ time. It is possible that many unused names in insects, particularly in poorly worked groups such as Hymenoptera Parasitica, will later prove to be senior synonyms of relatively well known names. If this case, as proposed by Rosen & De Bach, is accepted, then it may lead to many more applications for suppression of older names in favour of those sentimentally favoured junior synonyms. REFERENCE ROSEN, D. & DE BACH, P. 1979. Species of Aphytis of the world (Hymen- optera: Aphelinidae). Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem, and Junk, The Hague, 801 pp., 1342 figs. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF KINOSTERNON ALAMOSE AND K. OAXACAE PRITCHARD, 1979. Z.N.(S.)2339 (see vol. 39, pp. 212-213) By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature This application is supported by Professor Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado), Dr James F. Berry (Elmhurst College, Illinois) and Dr John B. Iverson (Earlham College, Indiana). The purpose of the application is to ensure that the authorship of Kinosternon alamosae is attributed to Berry & Legler and that of K. oaxacae to Berry & Iverson. 12 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 COMMENTS ON RASNITSYN’S PROPOSAL TO REGULATE THE NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE FAMILY GROUP. Z.N.(S.)2381 By Denis J. Brothers (Department of Entomology, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 3200 South Africa) Rasnitsyn’s (1982, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 200-207) formal proposal to change the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature so as to govern names above the family group level by extending the rules applicable at the lower levels, as proposed by Rohdendorf (1977, Palaeont. Zhurnal. vol. 11, pp. 14-22), needs thorough consideration. Although such proposals appear useful at first sight, there are various drawbacks. I do not intend to go into these in any detail here, but will merely indicate some of them. A more extensive dis- cussion will be found in Brothers (1983, Nomenclature at the ordinal and higher levels, Syst. Zool. vol. 32, pp. 34-42). Despite the statement in the proposal that ‘the rule of the nomenclatural type... needs no comment,’ this is the main problem. The use of type specimens at the species level is certainly indispensable. Type species at the generic level are also essential because of the requirements of binominal nomenclature. The use of type genera at the family group level is useful but can be confusing because the limits of a taxon designated by a particular name may change according to the opinions of the systematist. It is thus not obvious which group is meant when reference is made to ‘VESPIDAE’, for example—this may or may not include EUMENINAE, MASARINAE, etc.—unless the name is qualified by a state- ment such as ‘sensu Richards, 1962.’ The problems which will result from appli- cation of a type concept at the higher levels are similar but will be much more extreme. The reason for the confusion is that application of a type system con- founds classification (subjective) and nomenclature. Ideally, nomenclature should be entirely objective such that a particular taxon (comprising particular subgroups) should always bear the same name and, furthermore, a particular name should not be applied to more than one taxon. Only under such conditions will it always be obvious exactly which group of organisms is involved when a particular name is used. Under the system proposed by Rasnitsyn and Rohdendorf a particular taxon will have different names depending on whether it is recognised at the ordinal or subordinal level, for example. Admittedly, the differences will be merely in the suffix, so that minimal confusion may result, but the names will still be different. On the other hand, the same name may very well be applied to different groups, depending on the opinions of the sys- tematist as to whether a larger or a smaller grouping should be recognised at a particular categorical level. Thus, using a type system means that a particular group may have more than one name and also that a particular name may be applied to more than one group. I am thus convinced that the use of a type sys- tem at the higher levels will promote confusion rather than clarity and have suggested an alternative approach in my paper referred to above. A further difficulty with Rasnitsyn and Rohdendorf’s proposals, and one which should not be underestimated, is that their adoption will necessitate the abandonment of all names presently used for higher taxa and their replacement with names which will be very strange to many workers. This may not be an Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 73 extreme problem to the systematists actually working on each group, but it will drastically affect non-taxonomically oriented biologists. I thus anticipate that such rules are likely to be honoured more in the breach than the observance, as is already the tendency at the family group level. (‘It involves too much time and effort to track down which author first used a name based on a generic name within the family group—systematists have more important things to do!” is a common argument). If rules are to be proposed then they must be such that most biologists will honour them. I suspect that any rules governing higher taxa, especially ones requiring extensive name changes, will not be so honoured, and it is for that reason that my proposals referred to above were put forward as principles and not as rules. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF GALEOPSOM YIA GIRAULT, 1916. Z.N.(S.)2402 (see vol. 39, pp. 297-301) (1) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA, Leiden, Netherlands) (1) In their paragraph 3 the applicants state that Nowicki, 1929, desig- nated Trichaporus aleyrodis Mercet, 1930, as the type species of Trichaporus Foerster, and Trichoporus melleus Ashmead, 1904, as type species of Tricho- porus Ashmead, 1900. Furthermore, they state that this practice was generally accepted by workers since 1929. In their paragraph 5, however, they state Trichaporus Foerster sensu Nowicki is a senior synonym of a generally accepted name, Encarsia Foerster; and that Trichoporus Ashmead sensu Nowicki is a senior synonym of the widely used name Galeopsomyia Girault. The wide use of Encarsia and Galeopsomyia seems to be in contradiction to the general accep- tance (after 1929) of their respective senior synonyms Trichaporus and Tricho- porus sensu Nowicki. Can they explain this? (2) If Ashmead, 1900, when using the spelling Trichoporus for the generic name Trichaporus Foerster, 1856, did not indicate expressly that he intention- ally changed Foerster’s spelling, Trichoporus is not an emendation but an erroneous subsequent spelling and consequently has no status. Therefore there is NO reason to suppress it. The fact that he used Trichoporus several times in his paper does not show at all that it is intended as an emendation. He may have misread the word. In 1949 Miss Buitendijk and I published a paper on a crab the name of which we cited as Rhitropanopeus Rathbun, 1898. We used that spelling consist- ently and frequently in the paper. Later it was pointed out to us that the correct spelling is Rhithropanopeus. | can emphatically state that our spelling was not an emendation but simply an error. 74 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 I believe that we should define ‘emendation’ very strictly. Either the author definitely states that he emends an older name, or he uses both spellings and makes it clear that he employs the new spelling to replace the old. (2) Reply by J. LaSalle and P. DeBach Dr Holthuis is right in assuming that workers have in general accepted the (incorrect and invalid) designations by Nowicki of Trichaporus aleyrodis Mercet, 1930 as type species of Trichaporus Foerster, 1856 and of Trichoporus melleus Ashmead, 1904 as type species of Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900. How- ever, wide usage of the names Encarsia and Galeopsomyia is not inconsistent with those facts. Since 1929 Trichaporus Foerster has been considered by some authors to be a valid generic name and by others to be a synonym of Encarsia. Those who have recognised it as a synonym of Encarsia (this synonymy is now gener- ally accepted) have avoided the priority issue by placing Trichaporus as a junior synonym of Encarsia by citing the authorship as ‘(Foerster) Nowicki, 1929’. The fact that authors have resorted to this obviously illegitimate postdating of the authorship shows how important workers have felt the name Encarsia to be. The fact is that Trichaporus Foerster sensu Nowcki, while sometimes considered a synonym of Encarsia, has never been used as a senior synonym of Encarsia, even though that is what it clearly must be if T. aleyrodis were the correct type species. Dr Holthuis’s confusion regarding Trichoporus arises from the fact that Trichoporus Ashmead sensu Nowicki is not a synonym of Galeopsomyia as stated in his question. Nowicki designated T. melleus as type species of Tricho- porus, and that has since been considered to make the name a junior synonym of Exurus Philippi, 1873 (a eulophid). It was not until many years after Nowicki that it was realised that these genera have anything to do with Galeopsomyia. We pointed out in 1981 that the correct type species for Trichaporus Foerster is Euderus columbianus Ashmead, 1888, and that this same species was chosen by Girault, 1916, as the type species of Galeopsomyia as well. If Trichoporus is treated as an emendation of Trichaporus (as in our application), it is a junior objective synonym of the latter and takes the same type species, and then it be- comes an objective synonym of Galeopsomyia. If it is an erroneous subsequent spelling (as Dr Holthuis claims), it has no existence in nomenclature. The contradiction mentioned by Dr Holthuis therefore does not exist, be- cause even though Nowicki’s invalidly designated type species were generally accepted, Trichaporus (in anybody’s sense of the name) was never used as a senior synonym of Encarsia and Trichoporus Ashmead sensu Nowicki was never used as a synonym of Galeopsomyia. In fact neither of these names (sensu Nowicki) was ever used as a senior synonym of any other name. On Dr Holthuis’s second point, since our purpose is to get rid of Tricho- porus, we are happy to accept his view that the name is an erroneous subsequent spelling without status in nomenclature. Points (1) and (4) of our detailed pro- posals should be modified accordingly. Mention of Trichoporus should be deleted in (1) and (4) should read: ‘place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Trichaporus Foerster, 1856, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Trichaporus.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 Ue OPINION 1246 HERPETODR YAS MARGARITIFERUS SCHLEGEL, 1837 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name chiametla Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber chiametla, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name margaritiferus Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Herpetodryas margaritiferus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2850. (3) The specific name chiametla Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber chiametla, 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 1116. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1704 An application for the suppression of Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802 was first received from Professor Hobart M. Smith (then of Univer- sity of Illinois) on 30 March 1965. It was sent to the printer on 20 May 1965 and published on 2 November 1965 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22, pp. 235-236. An adverse comment from the late Dr James A. Peters (U.S. National Museum) was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, p. 138, 1967. In consequence a revised application by Professor Smith and Mrs Rozella B. Smith (University of Colorado) in which evidence was given of extensive usage of the junior synonym involved (Herpetodryas margaritiferus Schlegel, 1837) as against only four uses of Coluber chia- metla since its first proposal, was sent to the printer on 18 July 1978 and published on 19 February 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 184-186. The application was supported by a working committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. No adverse com- ment was received. 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 ser- ials, to eight general and two herpetological serials. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1982)17 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 185. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: 76 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Uéno, Willink, Sabrosky, Schuster, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Cogger, Ride Negative Votes — two (2): Savage, Dupuis. Bernardi was on leave of absence. Welch returned a late affirm- ative vote. No voting papers were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. Professor Savage observed: ‘The basis for this proposal is to pre- serve the applicant’s specific name fistulosus H. M. Smith, 1942. If the application is denied the name margaritiferus Schlegel, 1837, would still be in use in the combination Drymobius chiametla margaritiferus. These name changes will have no effect outside systematic herpetology.’ 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: chiametla, Coluber, Shaw, 1802, General Zoology (Amphibia), vol. 3 (2), p. 440 margaritifera, Herpetodryas, Schlegel, 1837, Essai phys. Serp., vol. 1, p. 151, vol. 2, p. 184. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)17 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1246. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 March 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 77 OPINION 1247 DACTYLOPIUS COSTA, (NOV. 1829) AND PSEUDOCOCCUS WESTWOOD, 1840 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) The generic name Diaprosteci Costa, 1828 is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) the date of publication of Costa’s Fauna del regno di Napoli, Famiglia de’ coccinigliferi o de’ gallinsetti, Emitteri (Napoli) is hereby ruled to be (Nov. 1829); (c) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genera Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829) and Pseudo- coccus Westwood, 1840 are hereby set aside and the follow- ing designations are here made: (i) for Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829), Dactylopius coccus Costa, (Nov. 1829); (11) for Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840, Dactylopius longis- pinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867; (d) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) adonidum Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Coccus adonidum; (ii) coffeae Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Pediculus coffeae. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829) (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in Ic(i) above, Dactylopius coccus Costa, (Nov. 1829) (Name Number 2187); (b) Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in 1(c)(1i) above, Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867 (Name Number 2188). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) coccus Costa, (Nov. 1829), as published in the binomen Dactylopius coccus (specific name of type species of Dactylo- pius Costa, (Nov. 1829) (Name Number 2851); (b) /Jongispinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867, as published in the binomen Dactylopius longispinus (specific name of type 78 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 species of Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840) with an endorse- ment that it is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated by Miller, 1981, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 38, p. 83 (Name Number 2852). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) DACTYLOPIIDAE (Correction of ‘Dactylopites’) Signoret, 1875 (type genus Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829)) (Name Number 554); (b) PSEUDOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1905 (type genus Pseudo- coccus Westwood, 1840) (Name Number 555). (5) The title of the following publication, Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Famiglia de’ coccinigliferi o de’ gallinsetti, Emitteri by O. G. Costa is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Avail- able in Zoological Nomenclature, with an endorsement that its date of publication is to be cited as (Nov. 1829) and with the Title Number 46. (6) The generic name Diaprosteci Costa, 1828, as suppressed under the plenary powers in 1(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2133. (7) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plen- ary powers in 1(d)(i and ii) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) adonidum Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Coccus adonidum (Name Number 1117); (b) coffeae Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Pedi- culus coffeae (Name Number 1118). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2091 A proposal to designate type species for the genera Dactylopius Costa and Pseudococcus Westwood under the plenary powers was first received from Dr Douglass R. Miller (then of Systematic Entomology Lab, USDA, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, U.S.A.) on 9 October 1973. It was sent to the printer on 5 April 1974 and published on 20 September 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 146-153. 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 eight entomological serials. Dr Miller had asked that the date of publication of the work by O. G. Costa involved in the application should be ruled to be ‘[1835)’, but Dr L. B. Holthuis wrote to draw attention to a work by d’Erasmo, 1949, Rendiconti Accad. Sci. fis. mat. Soc. Naz. Sci. Lett. Arti Napoli (4), vol. 16, pp. 14-36, giving evidence that the date of publication Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 79 should be cited as ‘(Nov. 1829)’. Dr Holthuis’s letter was circulated to the members of the Commission with the voting papers on the case and his evidence has been taken into account in drafting the present Ruling. [In considering the application of Recommendation 22A to the citation of this date, I have treated Costa’s Fauna del Regno di Napoli as a single work and have therefore enclosed the date in parentheses, not in square brackets. R.V.M.] In February 1976 an extensive comment on the case was received from Dr Evelyna Danzig and Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) and copied to Dr Miller for his observations. Both were published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 79-83. The application was also supported by Dr Helen M. Brookes (Waite Agricultural Research Institute, University of Adelaide, South Australia). No adverse comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)19 on the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 150-151 and emended in vol. 38, pp. 81-83. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Uéno, Mroczkowski, Willink, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Schuster, Corliss, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Bernardi was on leave of absence. Cocks and Dupuis abstained. A late affirmative vote was returned by Welch. No voting papers were returned by Binder, Cogger and Lehtinen. Dupuis commented: ‘Il n’est possible de voter le cas 2091 ni sous la forme originale, ni avec les additions de Danzig & Kerzhner, ni avec celles de Miller, ni compte tenu de la correction (justifiée) sur la date de 1829 pour Costa. En effet: (1) La Commission ne peut pas endosser sans examen sérieux |’idée que ‘“‘Diaprosteci’”’ soit un nom de genre. Il me parait s’agir d’une division collective car ce nom est au pluriel, le pluriel de Diaprostecus. Ce nom vient du grec “‘diapro-steichos’’, de diapro=d’un bout a I|’autre, et stichos, steicho, de stits=rang, ligne. II signifie “‘ligné de bout en bout” (peut-étre les “longitudinal rows’’ de Danzig & Kerzhner, p. 80, d’ot possibilité d’identification des Costa, 1829). (2) Westwood, 1840, Synopsis p. 1, en note, a déclaré que sous chaque genre il a mentionné la “typical species” et l’?Opinion 71 con- sidere cette désignation comme valide. La discussion de Miller a ce sujet est incomplete et le suivre sans examen serait courir un risque de contra- diction avec l’Opinion 71. J’ajoute que la “‘course au néotype” entre divers Musées m’a paru une bonne plaisanterie.’ 80 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 [The following observations may be made on these comments. Mr George Steyskal also takes the name to be in the plural but derives it from the Greek ‘prosteko’, to stick fast to something, which would be very suitable for a scale insect. I had discussed with Dr Miller the possi- bility of asking that this name be ruled as unavailable, but in the end it seemed better to ask for suppression, in case the name has been used as an available name. As Dr Miller showed, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 148, Westwood in his Synopsis cited Pseudococcus with two included species. Not even Opinion 71 can rule that two species are the type species. I have verified this reference. R.V.M.] 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: adonidum, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1(2), p. 740 coccus, Dactylopius, Costa, O. G., (Nov. 1829), Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Coccinigliferi, p. 16 coffeae, Pediculus, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1(2), p. 740 DACTYLOPIIDAE Signoret, 1875, Ann. Soc. entomol. France, (5) vol. 5, p. 305 Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829), Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Coccinig- liferi, pp. 2, 15 Diaprosteci Costa, O. G., 1828, Pontano, vol. 1, p. 453 longispinus, Dactylopius, Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867, Mem. Soc. ital. Sci. nat., vol. 3, p. 75 PSEUDOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1905, Univ. Colorado Studies, vol. 2, p. 193 Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840, Introduction to modern classification of insects, vol. 2, pp. 447, 488. The following is the title of a work placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature: Costa, O. G., (Nov. 1829), Fauna del Regno di Napoli, famiglia de’ coccinigliferi o de’ gallinsetti, Emitteri. Napoli. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)19 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. 1247. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 March 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 81 OPINION 1248 LETHOCERUS MAYR, 1853 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Iliastus Gistel, [1848] is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (gender: mascu- line), type species, by monotypy, Lethocerus cordofanus Mayr, 1853, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2189. (3) The specific name fakir Gistel, [1848], as published in the binomen Belostoma fakir (the valid name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Lethocerus Mayr, 1853) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2853. (4) The generic name J/iastus Gistel, [1848], as suppressed under the plenary powers in | above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2134. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.)2161 An application for the conservation of Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 was first received from Dr Arnold Menke (Systematic Entomology Lab USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) on 20 January 1976. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 26 September 1978 and published on 31 May 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 236-238. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bull- etin as well as to the statutory serials, to eight general serials and seven entomological serials. Dr Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) wrote to point out, first, that the date of publication of Gistel’s Naturgeschichte des Thierreiches is 1848, and secondly that Lethocerus cordofanus Mayr, 1853 is a junior synonym of Belostoma fakir Gistel, [1848], and that this latter name should be placed on the Official List as the valid name for the species. In all other respects he supported Dr Menke’s application (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 5-6). Dr Menke accepted Dr Kerzhner’s point. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)20 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 237, 82 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 as modified in vol. 37, p. 6. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Uéno, Mroczkowski, Willink, Sabrosky, Corliss, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Cogger, Heppell, Welch, Ride. Dupuis voted partially in favour (for suppression of J/iastus). Negative Vote — Hahn. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. Hahn commented: ‘As expressed in the application, //iastus and Lethocerus have different type species (Nepa grandis for Iliastus and Lethocerus cordofanus for Lethocerus). Therefore the two generic names are subjective synonyms and only the “relative precedence”’ procedure should be used to suppress //iastus. | do not agree to suppress J/iastus completely, as proposed by Dr Menke.’ 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: fakir, Belostoma, Gistel, [1848], Naturgeschichte des Thierreiches, p. 191 Tliastus Gistel, [1848], Naturgeschichte des Thierreiches, p. 149 Lethocerus Mayr, 1853, Verh. zool.-bot. Ver. Wien, vol. 2, Sitzungsber., paki: CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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. 1248. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 22 March 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 83 OPINION 1249 TOXOSTOMA CRISSALE RULED TO BE THE CORRECT ORIGINAL SPELLING OF THE NAME FIRST PUBLISHED AS TOXOSTOMA DORSALIS BAIRD, 1858 (AVES) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that crissale is the correct original spelling of the name first published in May, 1858 as dorsale by Baird, 1858, in the combination Toxostoma dorsalis. (2) The specific name crissale Baird, May 1858, as published in the combination Toxostoma crissalis (sic), and as ruled in (1) above to be a correct original spelling, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2854. (3) The specific name dorsalis Baird, May 1858, as’ published in the combination Toxostoma dorsalis, and as an incorrect original spelling through the ruling given in (1) above, of Toxostoma crissale Baird, May 1858, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1119. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2215 An application from Dr John P. Hubbard (Santa Fe, New Mexico, U.S.A.) for the validation of Toxostoma crissale over T. dorsalis was first received on 11 February 1977. Dr Hubbard also asked for an addition to Article 32 of the Code to deal with unintended original spell- ings. The double application was sent to the printer on 6 October 1978 and published on 31 May 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 239-242. 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 general and nine ornithological serials. The application was supported by the late Dr E. Eisenmann as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress on behalf also of a majority of its members; and as Chairman of the American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on Classification and Nomenclature on behalf also of all its members (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 4). The application was also supported by Dr A. R. Phillips (Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado, U.S.A.). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)21 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 242. 84 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 The voting paper reported the decision of the Editorial Committee on the Code not to accept the proposed addition to Article 32. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting on the particular nomenclatural issue was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Uéno, Mroczkowski, Willink, Sabrosky, Schuster, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Ride. (Dr Uéno wished his vote to be recorded with the majority). Negative Votes — none (0). Bernardi was on leave of absence. Welch returned a late affirm- ative vote. No votes were returned by Binder, Cogger and Lehtinen. Dupuis commented: ‘Il est excellent que le bon sens — en I’es- pece les intentions du taxinomiste—prévale sur le formalisme étroit des “Régles’’. Personnellement j’inclinerais aussi a la modification proposée de |’Article 32’. 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: crissalis (sic) Toxostoma, Baird, June 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia vol. 10, pp. 117-118 (corrected pages) dorsalis (sic), Toxostoma, Baird, May 1858, in Henry, T. C., Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 10, pp. 117-118. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast in V.P.(82)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. 1249. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 March 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 85 OPINION 1250 GYROH YPNUS SAMOUELLE, 1819, EX LEACH MS, XANTHOLINUS DEJEAN, 1821, EX DAHL, AND OTHIUS STEPHENS, 1829, EX LEACH MS (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED FOR THESE GENERA RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the three nominal genera named below are hereby set aside, and (a) Staphylinus fracticornis O. F. Miller, 1776 is hereby designated as the type species of Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819, ex Leach MS; (b) Staphylinus linearis Olivier, 1794 is hereby designated as the type species of Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, ex Dahl; (c) Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze, 1777 is hereby designated as the type species of Othius Stephens, 1829, ex Leach MS. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819, ex Leach MS (gender: mascu- line), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Staphylinus fracticornis O. F. Miller, 1776 (Name Number 2190); (b) Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, ex Dahl (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Staphylinus linearis Olivier, 1794 (Name Number 2191); (c) Othius Stephens, 1829, ex Leach MS (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze, 1777 (Name Number 2192); (d) Gauropterus C. G. Thomson, 1869 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Staphylinus fulgidus Fabricius, 1787 (Name Number 2193). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Of- ficial List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) fracticornis O. F. Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Staphylinus fracticornis (specific name of type species of Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819, ex Leach MS) (Name Number 2855); ° (b) linearis Olivier, 1794, as published in the binomen Staphy- linus linearis (specific name of type species of Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, ex Dahl) (Name Number 2856); 86 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 (c) punctulatus Goeze, 1777, as published in the binomen Staphylinus punctulatus (specific name of type species of Othius Stephens, 1829, ex Leach MS) (Name Number 2857); (d) fulgidus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Staphylinus fulgidus (specific name of type species of Gauropterus C. G. Thomson, 1860) (Name Number 2858). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2221 An application by Dr A. Smetana (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) for the resolution of problems arising from the designation of ‘Staphylinus fulgidus’ as the type species of several nominal genera was first received on 22 April 1977. After some corre- spondence it was sent to the printer on 16 February 1979 and published on | July 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 44-52. 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 eight general serials and seven entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1982)22 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 50-51. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Uéno, Willink, Sabrosky, Schuster, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Ride Negative Votes — Holthuis, Savage. Bernardi was on leave of absence. Welch returned a late affirm- ative vote. Dupuis abstained from voting. No votes were returned by Binder, Cogger and Lehtinen. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘It seems to me that Blackwelder 30 years ago straight- ened out the nomenclature of these genera and evidently he is followed by North American authors. His 1952 revision of the generic names is a standard work by an accomplished coleopterist and nomenclaturist. Dr Smetana did not indicate the nomenclaturally correct names for the genera he cited as Xantholinus, Othius and Gauropterus nor did he give evidence of their usage. It is most aggravating that no comments were received from any coleopterist.’ [A letter from Dr Smetana giving evi- dence of recent usage was circulated to the members of the Commission on 4 January 1983. R.V.M.] Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 87 Savage: ‘The reasoning of Blackwelder, 1952, is correct and follows automatically from the Code. Just as much confusion results from the proposal.’ Dupuis: ‘Je m’abstiens pour trois raisons: (1) la complication du cas; (2) mes scrupules a remettre en cause la qualité formelle du travail de Blackwelder, 1952; (3) l’inexplicable absence de commentaires de la part des spécialistes, alors que les coleoptéristes sont les plus nombreux parmi les taxinomistes. S’ils se désinteressent de la question, nous perdons notre temps a prendre des décisions qu’ils ne liront méme pas.’ {In 1952 Dr Blackwelder should in fact have guided himself by the decision of the Paris (1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 4, pp. 158-159) that cases of genera based on misidentified type species should be referred to the Commission. Although that decision was not incorpor- ated into the Code until 1961, zoologists were recommended (ibid., p. 342) to guide themselves by those decision pending their incorporation into a revised Code. R.V.M.] ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fracticornis, Staphylinus, O. F. Miiller, 1776, Zool. Dan. Prodr., p. 99 fulgidus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Ins., p. 220 Gauropterus C. G. Thomson, 1860, Skand. Coleopt., vol. 2, p. 187 Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819, ex Kirby MS, Entomol. useful compen- dium, p. 172 linearis, Staphylinus, Olivier, 1794, Entomologie, hist. nat. Ins., vol. a, No. 42, p. 19, pl. 4, fig. 38 a Sara 1829, ex Leach MS, Nomenclature British insects, p. punctulatus, Staphylinus, Goeze, 1777, Entomol. Beitrage Linne 12. Ausgabe Natursystems, vol. 1, p. 730 Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, ex Dahl, Cat. coll. coleopt. Dejean, p:.23. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)22 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1250. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 March 1983 88 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 OPINION 1251 DICRANODONTA WOODS, 1899 (BIVALVIA, CUCULLAEIDAE): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal subgenus Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 are hereby set aside and Cucullaea benniworthensis Kelly, 1978 is hereby designated as type species of that subgenus. (2) The subgeneric name Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cucullaea benniworthensis Kelly, 1978, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2194. (3) The specific name benniworthensis Kelly, 1978, as published in the binomen Cucullaea benniworthensis (specific name of type species of Dicranodonta Woods, 1899) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2859. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2227 An application from Dr S. R. A. Kelly (then of Goldsmiths Col- lege, London) for the designation of a type species for Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 was first received on 15 July 1977. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and pub- lished on 31 October 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, 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 eight general serials, three malacological and two palaeontological serials. The application was supported by Mr A. A. Morter (/nstitute of Geological Sciences, London). Dr Colin Forbes (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) wrote to point out that the registered number of the speci- men cited by Dr Kelly as the holotype of C. benniworthensis (the origi- nal of Woods, 1899, pl. 10, fig. 14) was Sedgwick Museum No. 5. 11221, not B. 11222, as cited by Dr Kelly. Dr Kelly replied (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 201) that he had indeed associated the wrong number and illustration but that he had intended the original of Woods, pl. 10, fig. 1 la-c—B.11222—as the holotype. This was referred to in the voting paper. There were no other comments. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)24, for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 128, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 89 as corrected in vol. 36, p. 201. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Uéno, Mroczkowski, Willink, Corliss, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Cogger, Ride Negative Votes—Savage. Sabrosky abstained. Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Sabrosky: ‘I sympathise with the desire to clarify the type species of Dicranodonta under Article 70, but I cannot approve this loose pro- posal of Cucullaea benniworthensis. Where is the “statement that pur- ports to give characters differentiating the [specific] taxon” (Article 13a(1))?’ Savage: ‘Without some indication of usage it is hard to see why this subgeneric name needs to be preserved. Why not let the original designation of donningtonensis stand? It seems to me that in cases involving Article 70a the applicant needs to show the Commission how stability will best be served. In this case we have no data regarding the effect of following alternatives (i) or (i1i).’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: benniworthensis, Cucullaea, Kelly, 1978, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 128, vol. 36, p. 201 Dicranodonta Woods, 1899, Cretaceous Lamellibranchia, vol. 1, p. 53, Palaeontogr. Soc. London. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)24 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. 1251. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 7 April 1983 90 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 OPINION 1252 STERNA CERULEA BENNETT, 1840 (AVES): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name australis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Sterna australis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name cerulea Bennett, 1840, as published in the binomen Sterna cerulea, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2860. (3) The specific name australis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Sterna australis, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Inva- lid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1120. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2233 An application for the conservation of Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840, was first received on 29 September 1977 from Mr D. T. Holyoak (Department of Geography, University of Reading, U.K.) on behalf of himself, Dr Murray D. Bruce (Turramurra, N.S.W., Australia) and Monsieur J.-C. Thibault (J3 rue Daubenton, 75005 Paris, France). It was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 1 February 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 187-188. 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 eight general serials and nine ornithological serials. The application was supported by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Dr Eugene Eisenmann, Chairman). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)25 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 188. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Uéno, Mroczkowski, Willink, Sabrosky, Corliss, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Cogger, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes—none (0). Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 91 Dupuis enquired: ‘What happens “‘if the Grey Noddy were found to consist of several sibling species” (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 188)? [In that event, the Law of Priority would apply to the names involved, of which Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840 is now presumably the senior. R.V.M.] 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: australis, Sterna, Gmelin, 1789, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1(2), p. 608 cerulea, Sterna, Bennett, 1840, Narrative Whaling Voyage, vol. 2, p. 248. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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 No- menclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1252. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 7 April 1983 92 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 OPINION 1253 CHROMODORIS CALIFORNIENSIS BERGH, 10 MAY 1879 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): CONSERVED RULING.—{1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name glauca Bergh, 31 March 1879, as published in the binomen Chromodor- is glauca, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name californiensis Bergh, 10 May 1879, as pub- lished in the binomen Chromodoris californiensis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2861. (3) The specific name glauca Bergh, 31 March, 1879, as pub- lished in the binomen Chromodoris glauca, 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 hbk. HISTORY, OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2253 An application for the conservation of Chromodoris californien- sis Bergh, 10 May 1879 was first received from Dr Hans Bertsch (Cha- minade University of Honolulu, Hawaii) and Dr Robert Burn (National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia) on 1 March 1978. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 4 August 1978 and published on 31 May 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 253-256. 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 eight general serials and three malacological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)27 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 255. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Uéno, Willink, Corliss, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Brinck, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Savage, Hahn, Dupuis, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Cogger, Ride Negative Votes—none (0). Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 93 Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. Kraus remarked: ‘It is only for the sake of stability of usage in major faunistic textbooks (especially Keen, 1971) that I vote—with hesitation—in favour of the application.’ 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: californiensis, Chromodoris, Bergh, 10 May 1879, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 31, pp. 112-114 glauca, Chromodoris, Bergh, 31 March 1879, Malakool. Blatter, N.F. vol. 1, pp. 106-107. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)27 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1253. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 April 1983 94 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 OPINION 1254 PROH YSTEROCERAS SPATH, 1921 AND NEOKENTROCERAS SPATH, 1921 (CEPHALOPODA, AMMONOIDEA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) Prohysteroceras wordiei Spath, 1922 is hereby designated as type species of the nominal genus Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 (b) Neokentroceras curvicornu Spath, 1922 is hereby designated as type species of the nominal genus Neokentroceras Spath, 1921. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 (gender: neuter), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Prohysteroceras wordiei Spath, 1922 (Name Number 2195); (b) Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (gender: neuter), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Neokentroceras curvicornu Spath, 1922 (Name Number 2196). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) wordiei Spath, 1922, as published in the binomen Prohyster- oceras wordiei (specific name of type species of Prohystero- ceras Spath, 1921 (Name Number 2862); (b) curvicornu Spath, 1922, as published in the binomen Neo- kentroceras curvicornu (specific name of type species of Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (Name Number 2863). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2254 An application for the designation of type species for the ammonite genera Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 and Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 was first received from Dr C. W. Wright and Mr M. R. Cooper (Department of Geology and Mineralogy, Oxford University) on 6 March 1978. It was sent to the printer on 23 March 1979 and published on 1 July 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 37-39. 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 eight general serials, three malacological serials and two palaeontological serials. No comments were received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 95 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)28 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 38, 39. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following or- der: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Uéno, Willink, Sabrosky, Corliss, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Alvarado, Tyjapitzin, Hahn, Dupuis, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Cogger, Ride Negative Vote — Savage. Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. The following comments were sent in by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Sabrosky: ‘Although it does not affect the thrust of the application, I may note a disagreement with the authors’ conclusion that ‘4. goodhalli is, under the Code, the type species of Prohysteroceras by monotypy”. In my view there were two originally included nominal species, goodhalli and candollianus.’ Savage: ‘I appreciate the difficulties here, but balk at ex post facto designation of type species whose names were nomina nuda when the generic names were proposed. The applicants do not spell out the alter- natives, which might not lead to too much change if one of the originally included species were designated as the type, especially in Prohystero- ceras.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: curvicornu, Neokentroceras, Spath, 1922, Trans. r. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 33} p? 139 Neokentroceras Spath, 1921, Ann. South African Mus., vol. 12, p. 306 Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921, Ann. South African Mus., vol. 12, p. 286 wordiei, Prohysteroceras, Spath, 1922, Trans. r. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 53, p. 143. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast in V.P.(82)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, 96 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1254. R V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 April 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 97 OPINION 1255 LESPESIA ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, 1863 (DIPTERA, TACHINIDAE): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers Achaetoneura aniso- tae Webber, 1930, is hereby designated as the type species of Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863. (2) The generic name Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Achaetoneura anisotae Webber, 1930, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2197. (3) The specific name anisotae Webber, 1930, as published in the binomen Achaetoneura anisotae (specific name of type species of Lespe- sia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2864. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2234 An application for the designation of a type species for Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863, was first received from Dr C. W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Lab USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) on 11 October 1977. A revised draft was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 May 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 243-247. 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 eight general serials and eight entomological serials. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)29 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 246. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Uéno, Willink, Corliss, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Cogger, Ride Negative Vote — Savage. Dupuis and Sabrosky abstained. Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. Binder and Lehtinen returned no votes. 98 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Savage: “My reluctance to accept this proposal stems from the uncertainties regarding the distinction between datanarum, anisotae and a possible third species reared from Datana (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 245). Thus the type species of Lespesia ‘“‘may or may not be “‘aniso- tae, which form “may or may not prove to be equal to datanarum’’, yet if anisotae is selected as the type a possible misidentification occurs.’ Dupuis: ‘Je suis en faveur de la conservation de Lespesia. ‘Je suis cependant hostile a la solution proposée, qui consiste a sacrifier un type authentique existant a des synonymies douteuses, en passant outre aux incertitudes sur la spécificité parasitaire des espéces. ‘Le matériel-type de Robineau existe toujours; il s’agit d’un male “in sehr gutem Zustand und... vom Autor eigenhandig bezettelt” (Mes- nil, 1950, p. 108) et “‘les caractéres génériques on été décrits d’aprés ce male” (Robineau, 1863, p. 569). ‘Lessynonymies ciliata male R.D./datanarum fémelle Townsend/ anisotae male Webber/datanarum male Beneway sont incertaines (cf. Sabrosky, p. 245). ‘Les spécificités parasitaires — qui, souvent, chez les Tachinaires, ont une réelle signification taxinomique—ne sont pas suffisamment établies, ni chez anisotae, ni chez datanarum, ni, bien entendu, chez ciliata R.D. A propos de cette derniére espéce, Sabrosky a beaucoup trop résumé les dires de Robineau et ceux de Mesnil. ‘Robineau (p. 569) (sans contradiction, car il est de régle chez les Tachinaires parasites de Lépidoptéres que la larve se développe dans la chenille et éclose de la chrysalide) a écrit: “la larve de la seule espéce connue a vécu dans une chenille indéterminée” et “‘le male de cette espece que je possede, est éclos chez moi d’une chrysalide de Bombyx que je n’ai pu déterminer’’. A cette époque et sous cette forme, le nom de genre Bombyx peut désigner toute espéce possible de la famille. ‘Mesnil a tenté d’expliquer la provenance de |’hote indéterminé de Robineau par l’engouement, réel en France a l’€poque, pour |’intro- duction de Bombycides séricigénes exotiques. Ayant examiné un autre exemplaire de “diese selbe Lespesia’”’ provenant d’une chrysalide de Philosamia cynthiae, 11 a pensé que cette espece pourrait étre l’hdte du male de Robineau. Ce scénario n’est pas certain car si “‘irgend jemand” avait, a Robineau, “einige Puppen von Philosamia cynthiae geschenkt”’, Robineau eut connu la détermination de cette espéce alors tres popu- laire. ‘Pour €viter tout risque de confusion, il conviendrait de maintenir comme type du genre l’espece de Robineau, avec le spécimen-type et le nom utilisés par lui. Pour cela, il suffit, en vertu des pleins pouvoirs, de considérer le nom de ciliata R.D. comme un nom original, en déclar- ant nulle la synonymie avec la combinaison “‘masicera ciliata Macq. — Collect. du Museum” (R.D. p. 569). Cette combinaison était, pour Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 99 Robineau, un nom manuscrit, dont il n’avait “trouvé nulle part la de- scription” (p. 571) (effectivement, elle n’a jamais été publiée et l’on ne connait de Macquart que Erycia cilata et Senometopia ciliata). ‘L’intérét d’une telle solution a été entrevu par Sabrosky: je la propose formellement ici. La Commission peut utiliser ses pleins pou- voirs pour Ouvrir un nouveau vote a ce sujet. ‘Dans tous les cas, en tant que connaisseur des difficultés de la taxinomie des Tachinaires lorsque les données biologiques sont insuff- santes, je vote contre anisotae ou datanarum.’ Dr Sabrosky replied to this comment as follows: Dr Dupuis has laid great stress on the ‘synonymies douteuses’ and ‘incertaines’, the ‘incertitudes’ of host specificity, and the ‘données biologiques insuffi- santes’. It is unfortunate that, before the voting on my application, I did not call attention to my discussion of the species and my revised key to Lespesia (Sabrosky, 1980). It is thus unfortunate that Dupuis did not see this, because the confusion he sees from the doubtful synonymies, etc., does not now exist. In the past, certainly, the male specimen of ‘ciliata’ upon which the generic description was clearly based had a checkered career. It was at first unrecognised (Mesnil, 1939) and then successively identified as hesperus Brauer & Bergenstamm (now frenchii) (by Mesnil, 1950), samiae Webber (by Beneway, 1963, based on Byers’ examination of the then undissected male), datanarum Townsend (by Herting, 1974, from Arnaud’s examination of the male genitalia, never before dissected), and finally anisotae Webber (by Sabrosky, 1979, 1980, after determination of the uniqueness in the genus Lespesia of the male genitalia of aniso- tae). I do not wonder that this sequence of identifications appeared to Dupuis to be confusing, but this was a series of misidentifications that I was able finally to clarify, a series that gradually progressed toward a solution. In actual fact, the application as at first submitted to the Secretary proposed datanarum as the type species, following Beneway, 1963, who synonymised anisotae under datanarum because of his erroneous as- sociation of males and females. Incidentally, Beneway’s figure of the male genitalia of ciliata proved to fit the male of samiae! Later, when I had sorted out the confusion and recognised the uniqueness of the male genitalia of anisotae (‘ciliata’), I asked to have the still unpublished ap- plication changed to request anisotae as type species, and this was done. What I should also have done, two years later, was to have submitted a note on my published revision. Now the doubtful and uncertain synonymies do not exist. Discrimination of the species in this large and difficult genus of TACHINIDAE has long been difficult, especially of females (and the lectotype of datanarum is a female), but the successive revisions of Webber, 1930, Beneway, 1963, and Sabrosky, 1980, have clarified the problems, each contributing significant steps on which the others have 100 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 built. The male genitalia of anisotae proved to be unique in the genus and easily recognised, and the male of ‘ciliata Macq. of R.D.’ is clearly anisotae, as recognised from dissection of the male genitalia by Armaud, and is neither frenchii, samiae, nor datanarum as previously mis- identified. At the time of the application I could not distinguish the females of anisotae and datanarum, which might have been conspecific, but later I solved that problem and properly associated males with females of datanarum and showed the distinctness of those species. Host specificity: Contrary to Dupuis’ opinion that ‘les données biologiques sont insuffisantes’, the biologies are better known than he realises, and certainly well enough known that in my opinion they are irrelevant in this case. Few tachinids are exclusively parasitic on one host, even though they may be host specific to a high degree. Even such a one-species parasite as Blepharipa pratensis (Meigen) (scutellata R.D.), a common parasite of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lin- naeus), is known from at least two other hosts in Europe and from at least five native lepidopterous hosts in the United States, all rare and probably accidental hosts. Some species of Lespesia are polyphagous, others are quite host specific although occasionally a stray host of another species will be attacked. In particular a species such as anisotae, which usually parasit- ises the saturniid Anisota, may attack other saturniids. I would not con- sider it at all strange that it should attack Philosamia cynthiae in France, especially in the absence of its native American host. The fact remains that Lespesia isa New World genus, not native to France and apparently not established there. Any host record in France would have been an accidental occurrence. I have long admired Robineau-Desvoidy as a dipterist far ahead of his time, and I have defended him in print (Sabrosky, 1974), but in the case of Lespesia it is unfortunate that he did not recognise the history of Macquart’s ciliata in the works of Macquart, 1834, 1835, 1849, and 1850, all certainly available to him. I see no credit or justice in assigning the name ciliata to him. Robineau-Desvoidy cannot of course be blamed for Macquart’s misidentification of his own species! Referring to the combination Masicera ciliata Macquart, Dupuis states that ‘effectively, it has never been published and one knows from Macquart only Erycia ciliata and Senometopia ciliata.’ But Dupuis has overlooked Macquart, 1850, who cited ciliata in synonymy under Masicera scutellata and thus did refer his ciliata to Masicera. Further- more, Rondani, 1856, in proposing his new genus Blepharipa designated as type species ‘“Masicera ciliata Macq.’ I consider then that there is no ‘risque de confusion’ as Dupuis believes, and I would prefer to see anisotae declared the type, which is the species that was before Robineau-Desvoidy when he proposed the name Lespesia. If anything, use of the name ciliata, which has appeared in combination with Erycia, Senometopia, Masicera, and Lespesia and Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 101 which has in the past been considered synonymous with four different species of Lespesia, is by far the more confusing. REFERENCES References were published with the application, except for the following. MESNIL, L. P. 1939. Essai sur les Tachinaires (Larvaevoridae). [France] Min. de l’Agr., Cent. Natl. de Rech. Agron., Versailles, Monog. [7], pp. 1-67. RONDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus. vol. 1, 228 pp. SABROSKY, C. W. 1974. In defense of Robineau-Desvoidy. Mosquito Systematics vol. 6, pp. 220-1. —1979. [The application re Lespesia]. —1980. A revised key to the Nearctic species of Lespesia (Diptera: Tachinidae). Ann. entomol. Soc. Amer. vol. 7, Dp O35—140 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: anisotae, Achaetoneura, Webber, 1930, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 78(10), p. 13 Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863, Hist. nat. Dipteres environs de Paris, p. 567. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)29 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. 1255. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 April 1983 102 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 LARENTIA CAPITATA HERRICH-SCHAFFER, 1839 AND PHALAENA CORACINA ESPER, 1805 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION Z.N.(S.) 2367 By Kauri Mikkola (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland) In this application it is proposed that the names in general current use for two species of Geometrid moths, Ecliptopera capitata (Herrich-Schaffer, 1839) and Psodos coracina (Esper, 1805), be granted nomenclatural precedence over their unused senior synonyms, Phalaena posticata Fabricius, 1794 and Phalaena hirtata Fabricius, 1794, respectively. A. Larentia capitata Herrich—Schaffer, 1839 2. The nominal species Phalaena posticata was described by Fabricius, 1794, p. 196, from Danish material (Selandia) in the Sehestedt & Tonder Lund’s collection. The only specimen in that collection (Zimsen, 1964, p. 572, No. 1289) is a female in good con- dition, bearing a label ‘posticata’ in an unknown handwriting (Tuxen, 1959, p. 348; Karsholt & Nielsen, 1976a, p. 242). The specimen was designated as lectotype of Phalaena posticata Fabricius, 1794 by Mikkola, 1981, p. 433. 3. The lectotype was without difficulty determined by its outer appearance as the species currently known as Ecliptopera capitata (Herrich-Schiaffer, 1839, pl. 3) and the determination was ascertained by a genital preparation (slide ESN No. 2108 ¢) kindly made by Dr E. Schmidt Nielsen, Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen. However, the description by Fabricius is in itself sufficient for determination as it re- fers to the most distinctive character of the species: ‘Corpus flavescens’. This is conspicuous in the lectotype. The overlooking of the name is partly due to a misidentification by Aurivillius, 1897, p. 166, who incor- rectly synonymised the name with E. silaceata (Denis & Schiffermiller, A795, pi 13): 4. The specific name capitata Herrich-Schaffer is in general current use, and, from the nineteenth century on, the only name used for this species (e.g. Nolcken, 1867, p. 192; Aurivillius, 1888-91, p. 252; Spuler, 1910, p. 65; Vorbrodt & Miiller-Rutz, 1914, p. 98; Prout, 1915, p. 152; Nordstrém et al., 1941, p. 264; Valle, 1946, p. 178; Bergmann, 1955, p. 435; Hoffmeyer, 1966, p. 148; Forster & Wohlfahrt, 1975, p. 122; Karsholt & Nielsen, 1976b, p. 55; Koch, 1976, p. 171; Mersheyevskaya et al., 1976, p. 66; Jalava, 1977, p. 35; Leraut, 1980, p. 138). As far as I know, the specific name posticata F. has since Fabricius never been used as the valid name for the taxon in question. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 103 B. Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805 5. The nominal species Phalaena hirtata was described by Fabricius, 1794, p. 181 from Italian material. A single male is present in the so-called Kiel collection which was Fabricius’s own collection. Zimsen, 1964, p. 572, No. 1277, lists the name, but, for an unknown reason, does not mention the specimen. Because the specimen fits well with the description by Fabricius and as its position in the collection is appropriate, it was regarded as a syntype and designated as lectotype by Mikkola, 1981, p. 435. 6. The lectotype is a quite normal unicolorous specimen of the species currently known as Psodos coracina (Esper, 1805, p. 74). The determination was ascertained from a genital preparation (slide ESN No. 2107 ¢) kindly made by Dr E. Schmidt Nielsen. The description by Fabricius conforms exactly with the lectotype but does not exclude several closely related species. 7. The specific name coracina Esper 1s in general current use and, as far as I know, the only one used as valid for this taxon in this century (e.g. Aurivillius, 1888-91, p. 215; Aro, 1900, p. 201; Spuler, 1910, p. 111; Vorbrodt & Miiller-—Rutz, 1914, p. 186; Prout, 1915, p. 637; Wehrli, 1921, p. 155; Nordstrém et al., 1941, p. 310; Kloet & Hincks, 1945, p. 107; Valle, 1946, p. 322; South, 1948, p. 321; Jalava, 1977, p. 40; Fletcher, 1979, p. 8; Leraut, 1980, p. 150; Forster & Wohlfahrt, 1981, p. 284). The specific name hirtata F. seems since Fabricius never to have been used as a valid name. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to give (a) the specific name capitata Herrich—Schaffer, 1839, as published in the binomen Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaffer, 1839, nomenclatural precedence over its senior subjective synonym posticata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Phalaena posticata Fabricius, 1794; the specific name coracina Esper, 1805, as published in the binomen Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805, nomenclatural precedence over its senior subjective synonym hirtata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Phalaena hirtata Fabricius, 1794; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) capitata Herrich—Schaffer, 1839, as published in the binomen Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaffer, 1839, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomencla- tural precedence over posticata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Phalaena posticata (b — 104 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 Fabricius, 1794 whenever the two names are treated as synonyms; (b) posticata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Phalaena posticata Fabricius, 1794, with an endorse- ment that it is not to be given priority over capitata Herrich-Schaffer, 1839, as published in the binomen Larentia capitata Herrich—Schaffer, 1839, whenever the two names are treated as synonyms; (c) coracina Esper, 1805, as published in the binomen Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over hirtata Fabricius, 1794, whenever the two names are treated as synonyms; (d) hirtata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Phalaena hirtata Fabricius, 1794, with an endorse- ment that it is not to be given priority over coracina Esper, 1805, as published in the binomen Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805, whenever the two names are treated as synonyms. REFERENCES ARO, J. E. 1900. Suomen perhoset. [Finnish Lepidoptera]. Helsinki, pp. 1-290. AURIVILLIUS, CH. 1888-91. Nordens fjdrilar. Stockholm, pp. 1-277. — 1897. Bemerkungen zu den von J. Chr. Fabricius aus D&anischen Sammlungen beschriebenen Lepidopteren. Entomol. Tidsk. vol. 1897, pp. 139-174. BERGMANN, A. 1955. Die Grosse-Schmetterlinge Mitteldeutschlands. Band 5/1. Leipzig, pp. 1-560. DENIS, M. & SCHIFFERMULLER, I. 1775. Ankiindigung eines systematis- chen Werkes von der Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend. Wien, pp. 1-322. ESPER, E. J. CH. 1805. Die europdischen Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen. Teil 4, Abschn. 2. Erlangen, pp. 1-85. FABRICIUS, J. C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Tom. 3, pars 2. Hafniae, pp. 1-349. FLETCHER, D. S. 1979. The generic names of the moths of the world. vol. 3. London, pp. 1-243. FORSTER, W. & WOHLFAHRT, TH. A. 1975, 1981. Die Schmetterlinge Mitteleuropas. Heft 26, Heft 29-30. Stuttgart. pp. 97-128, 241-312. HERRICH-SCHAFFER, G. A. W. 1839, Deutschlands Insekten. Heft 165. Regensburg, 24 col. plates. HOFFMEYER, S. 1966. De danske malere. 2den udgave. Aarhus, pp. 1-361. JALAVA, J. 1977. Suomen perhosten luettelo. [Check-list of Finnish Lepidop- tera]. Helsinki, pp. 1-70. KARSHOLT, O. & NIELSEN, E. S. 1976a. Notes on some Lepidoptera de- scribed by Linnaeus, Fabricius and Strom. Ent. scand. vol. 7, pp. 241-251. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 105 ——1976b. Systematisk fortegnelse over Danmarks sommerfugle. Klampen- borg, pp. 1-128. KLOET, G. S. & HINCKS, W. D. 1945. 4 check-list of British insects. Stockport, pp. 1-483. : KOCH, M., HEINICKE, W. & MULLER, B. 1976. Wir bestimmen Schmetter- linge. Leipzig, pp. 1-291. LERAUT, P. 1980. Liste systématique et synonymique des Lépidoptéres de France, Belgique et Corse. Paris, pp. 1-334. MERSHEYEVSKAYA, O. I., LITVINOVA, A. N. & MOLCHANOVA, R. V. 1976. Cheshuekrylye. Lepidoptera. Belorussia [Catalog]. Minsk, pp. 1-130. MIKKOLA, K. 1981. Notes on Geometrid and Noctuid species described by J. C. Fabricius (Lepidoptera). Ent. Scand. vol. 12, pp. 433-436. NOLCKEN, J. H. W. 1867. Lepidopterologische Fauna von Estland, Livland und Kurland. pp. 1-849. NORDSTROM, F., WAHLGREN, E. & TULLGREN, A. 1941. Svenska fidrilar. Stockholm, pp. 1-353. PROUT, L. B. 1915, in: SEITZ, A. Die Gross—Schmetterlinge der Erde. vol. IV. Stuttgart, pp. 1-479. SOUTH, R. 1948. The moths of the British Isles. I ser. repr. London, pp. 1-399, SPULER, A. 1910. Die Schmetterlinge Europas. vol. Il. Stuttgart, pp. 1-523. STAUDINGER, O. & REBEL, H. 1901. Catalog der Lepidopteren des Palaearktischen Faunengebietes. Berlin, pp. 1-368. TUXEN, S. L. 1959. Der Entomolog J. C. Fabricius und die Typen der von ihm beschriebenen Arten. Zool. Anz. vol. 163, pp. 343-350. VALLE, K. J. 1946. Suuperhoset. vol. IV, Mittarit, Geometrae. Helsinki, pp. 1-370. VORBRODT, K. & MULLER-RUTZ, J. 1914. Die Schmetterlinge der Schweiz II Band. Bern, pp. 1-726. WEHRLI, E. 1921. Monographische Bearbeitung der Gattung Psodos, nach mikroskopischen Untersuchungen der ¢¢ und 99. Mitt. Scheiz. entomol. Ges. vol. 13, pp. 143-175. ZIMSEN, E. 1964. The type material of I. C. Fabricius. Kobenhavn, pp. 1-656. 106 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 MYA RONDANI, 1850, AND SOMOM YA BERTOLONI, 1861 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES, AND PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF SOMOM YA UNDER THE PLEN- ARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2127 By Adrian C. Pont (British Museum (Natural History), London) This application concerns two generic names in the family CALLIPHORIDAE (Diptera) for which no type species have been designated and for which some confusion over dating exists. One of them poses a potential threat to a well known name in the literature of medico-veterinary entomology. Decisions by the Commission are requested in order to stabilise the existing and well known nomen- clature, to ratify designations of type species for the two genera, and to determine the priority of two of the works concerned. 2. Rondani, 1850, p. 175, in a paper on Diptera in the Turin Museum, described the new genus Mya and placed it in the group of genera in which Robineau-Desvoidy, in his 1830 system, included the genera Onesia, Calliphora, Lucilia, Chrysomya and Pollenia. Three species were included in Mya: versicolor n.sp., from Venezuela; alia Robineau-Desvoidy, from San Sebastian Is.; and semidiaphana n.sp., from San Sebastian Is. 3. Rondani, 1856, p. 90, included Mya in a key to Italian genera, and cited Musca vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, as type species with the statement ‘Spec: Typ: Musca Vomitoria Lin.’ This is an invalid type species designation, however, as vomitoria was not one of the originally included species. 4. Bertoloni, 1861, p. 28, exhibited new Diptera from Mozambique at a meeting of the Academy of Sciences of the Institute of Bologna held on 27 December 1860, and, in anticipation of a more extensive report on these flies, presented brief published descriptions of the new species. The first two species are Somomya suturata and Somomya sub- translucida, both of which are briefly described in 5- and 3-line Latin diagnoses respectively. After the descriptions Bertoloni discusses the name Somomya: ‘Il gnere SOMOMYA € nuovo, e formato dal Rondani di Parma...’ No generic descriptive matter is given, but the name is made available by its combination with two available specific names (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 16a (v)). There is no mention of Mya in Bertoloni’s article, and Somomya in this context must be regarded as a new genus based on two new species. 5. Rondani, 1861, pp. 8-12, published a list of replacement names for preoccupied generic names discussed in earlier parts of his Prodromus. On page 9 he listed Mya Rondani as preoccupied by Mya Linnaeus, 1758 (Mollusca), and listed ‘“Somomya R. 1861’ as the replacement name, with a footnote ‘V. Atti del Accad. delle Scienze di Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 107 Bologna 1861’. As the other replacement names in the list are newly proposed and are given the suffix ‘m.’, it must be concluded that Rondani regarded Somomya as already available, although he clearly thought of it as his own name and supposed that Bertoloni’s (1861) work was already in print. 6. Bertoloni, 1862, pp. 42-46, published full descriptions of the species he had listed in 1861. He emended Somomya to Somomyia and attributed the name to Rondani. The species swturata was placed in sg. Pollemia (sic) Robineau-Desvoidy and subtranslucida in sg. Ochromya Macquart. 7. It is clearly of importance to establish whether Rondani’s or Bertoloni’s paper was the first to be published in 1861. If Somomya is attributed to Bertoloni, then it refers to two African species. If it is attri- buted to Rondani, then it refers to three South American species. There is no external evidence as to the dates of publication of these papers. The only evidence is internal, and rests on Bertoloni’s statement (1861, p. 28) that Somomya ‘e formato dal Rondani di Parma ...’; on Rondani’s reference to Bertoloni’s paper; and on the fact that Rondani credits Somomya to ‘R. 1861’ rather than giving it the suffix ‘m’ as he does for the other newly-proposed replacement names. But even this is not conclusive, since he may well have known of Bertoloni’s paper before publication, and may well have seen his manuscript; and his inclusion of this reference could have been in anticipation of its being published first. However, accepting the facts at their face value, it seems that Bertoloni, 1861 antedates Rondani, 1861, although if there were desirable nomenclatural reasons for doing so it could be argued that the name Somomya should be credited to Rondani instead of to Bertoloni ex Rondani MS. 8. The generic names Mya and Somomya are not mentioned in Catalogues of the Nearctic (James in Stone et al., 1965) or Neotropical (James, 1970) CALLIPHORIDAE. In James’ Neotropical catalogue, the species of Mya are placed as follows: versicolor Rondani: not mentioned alia Robineau-Desvoidy: junior synonym of Cochliomyia macellaria (Fabricius, 1775). semidiaphana Rondani: junior synonym of Hemilucilia seg- mentaria (Fabricius, 1805). 9. There appears to be no valid type species designation for Mya. The designation by Rondani, 1856, p. 90, of vomitoria is invalid, since vomitoria was not one of the originally included species, yet Townsend, 1937, p. 141, and Hall, 1948, p. 103, both cite vomitoria as the type by designation of Rondani, 1856, and synonymise Mya and Somomya Rondani with Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. Other mono- graphic works such as Senior-White, Aubertin & Smart, 1940, Zumpt, 1956, and Kano & Shinonaga, 1968 also follow Townsend. There is a later designation by Coquillett, 1910, p. 571, of Musca segmentaria 108 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 Fabricius, but this is also invalid since segmentaria is not one of the originally included species, although the name of the third species, semi- diaphana, is a junior synonym of segmentaria. Accepting Somomya as a replacement name for Mya, Coquillett (1910, p. 606) also listed segmentaria as the type species of this genus. 10. In order to fix the identity of the genus Mya Rondani, 1850, and in the absence of any previous valid type species designation, the third of Rondani’s species Mya semidiaphana Rondani, 1850, is here- with designated as type species. Mya semidiaphana is a junior synonym of Musca segmentaria Fabricius, 1805, and Mya Rondani, which is preoccupied by Mya Linnaeus, 1758 (Mollusca), thus becomes a senior synonym of Hemilucilia Brauer, 1895, but remains invalid because it is a junior homonym. 11. Somomya Bertoloni has never been adopted in the African literature for a valid taxon, nor has a type species been designated for it. Of its two original species, subtranslucida is a junior synonym of Auchmeromyia senegalensis (Macquart, 1851) and suturata is a nomen dubium. It is therefore desirable to designate subtranslucida as type species, and in order to resolve the identity of the genus from the formal point of view, Somomya subtranslucida Bertoloni, 1861, is herewith designated as type species. 12. According to the Law of Priority, the generic name Somomya Bertoloni, 1861, must now replace the name Auchmeromyia Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1891, which is long established in medical and veterinary textbooks and other literature: Auchmeromyia senegalensis (Macquart, 1851) is the well known Congo-Floor Maggot. On the other hand, if one were to accept Somomya as a Rondani genus (see discussion of dates under paragraphs 4—5 above), then Somomya would replace Hemilucilia Brauer, 1895, if semidiaphana were the type species or, if alia were designated, Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915, and such a change is equally undesirable since flies of both genera are extremely well known as medi- cal and veterinary pests: Cochliomyia macellaria (Fabricius, 1775) and hominivorax (Coquerel, 1858) are the New World Screw Worm Flies, whilst Hemilucilia includes common species of some hygienic import- ance. (The status of Cochliomyia vis-a-vis Callitroga Brauer, 1883 will be considered in a separate application.) 13. In order to preclude undesirable changes of nomenclature, and to preserve the stability of generic names of CALLIPHORIDAE important in medical and veterinary science, the Commission is asked to: (1) rule that the work of Bertoloni, 1861, has precedence over that of Rondani, 1861, for the purposes of priority; (2) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made (i) for the nominal genus Mya Rondani, 1850, and having done so, to designate Mya semidiaphana Rondani, 1850, as type species of that genus; Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 109 (ii) for the nominal genus Somomya Bertoloni, 1861, and having done so, to designate Somomya subtranslucida Bertoloni, 1861 as the type species of that genus; (b) to suppress the generic name Somomya Bertoloni, 1861 ex Rondani, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy; (3) to place Hemilucilia Brauer, 1895 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Musca segmentaria Fabricius, 1805, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology: (a) Mya Rondani, 1850 (a junior homonym of Mya Linnaeus, 1758); (b) Somomya Bertoloni, 1861, ex Rondani MS, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (2) (b) above. (5) to place the specific name segmentaria Fabricius, 1805, as published in the binomen Musca segmentaria (specific name of type species of Hemilucilia Brauer, 1895) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BERTOLONI, G. 1861. [Exhibit and description of new Diptera from Mozambique.] Re. Sess. Accad. Sci. Ist. Bologna, 1860-1861, pp. 28-29. — 1862. Illustrazione dei prodotti naturali del Mozambico. Dissertazione intorno ad insetti ditteri. Memorie R. Accad. Sci. Ist. Cl. Sci. fis. Bologna, vol. 12 (1), pp. 41-60, | plate. COQUILLETT, D. W. 1910. The Type-species of the North American Genera of Diptera. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 37, pp. 499-647. HALL, D. G. 1948. The Blowflies of North America. Thomas Say Foundation, [Volume 4], 477 pp., 46 plates, 5 col. plates, 9 figs. JAMES, M. T. 1970. Family Calliphoridae. In A Catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas South of the United States, vol. 102, 28 pp. Sao Paulo. KANO, R., & SHINONAGA, S. 1968. Fauna Japonica: Calliphoridae (Insecta, Diptera) vii+181 pp., 23 col. plates, 11+14 figs., 1 table, 2 maps. Biogeographical Society of Japan. ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, A. J. B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mém. pres. div. Sav. Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr., vol. 2, pp. 1-813. RONDANI, C. 1850. Osservazioni sopra alquante specie di Esapodi Ditteri del Museo Torinese. Nuovi Ann. Sci. nat. Bologna (3), vol. 2, pp. 165-197, plate 4. — 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Volume 1, 228 pp. Parmae. — 1861. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Volume 4, 174 pp. Parmae. SENIOR-WHITE, R., AUBERTIN, D. & SMART, J. 1940. The Fauna of British India, including the remainder of the Oriental Region. Diptera. Vol. VI. Family Calliphoridae. xiii+ 288 pp., 152 figs., 2 maps. London. 110 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 STONE, A., ET AL. [editors]. 1965. A catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. Agric. Handb., U.S. Dept. Ag., vol. 276, 1696 pp. TOWNSEND, C. H. T. 1937. Manual of Myiology in twelve parts, Part V. Muscoid generic diagnoses and data. Glossinini to Agriini. 234pp. Sao Paulo. ZUMPT, F. 1956. Calliphoridae (Diptera Cyclorrhapha). Part I: Calliphorini and Chrysomyiini. Explor. Parc. Natn. Albert Miss. G. F. de Witte. vol. 87, pp. 1-200, 113 figs. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 111 ANCISTROCEROIDES SAUSSURE, 1855: PROPOSED CHANGE OF TYPE SPECIES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE WELL-ESTABLISHED NAME PARALASTOR SAUSSURE, 1856 (HYMENOPTERA, VESPOIDEA, EUMENIDAE). Z.N.(S.)2280 By J. van der Vecht, (Burg. Vermeerlaan 4, 3881 GZ Putten, Netherlands) In his monographs of the VESPIDAE H. de Saussure (1853, p. 147) described two species in the ‘IIe Division’ (‘Ile Division’ on p. 146, but corrected on p. 3 of the ‘Table des Matieres’) of the subgenus Ancistrocerus Wesmael, 1836, of the genus Odynerus Latreille, 1802, viz. O. alastoroides from Montevideo and O. alastoripennis from Tasmania, both said to be in the Mus. Paris. 2. Shortly afterwards the same author (1855, p. 221) proposed the name Ancistroceroides for this division and added two new species to it: O. cruentus from Australia and O. sanguinolentus from an unknown locality, both based on one or more specimens in the British Museum (Natural History). 3. In a review of the American VESPIDAE de Saussure (1875, p. 211) used the name Ancistroceroides for a division of the subgenus Ancistrocerus containing a single species: A. alastoroides Sauss. (In this work de Saussure divided the genus Odynerus into four subgenera, but actually he treated these taxa as genera, using for the species only the initial of the subgenus with the specific name.) 4. In the ‘Catalogus Hymenopterorum’ Dalla Torre listed Ancis- troceroides as a subgeneric name (1894, p. 49), and it was used as such by Schrottky (1903, p. 178), who recorded Odynerus (Ancistroceroides) alastoroides (Sauss.) from Argentina. Bréthes (1903, p. 268) regarded alastoroides as a probable synonym of Odynerus clarazianus Saussure, described in 1870 from Argentina. Since then the specific name clara- zianus has been used by about a dozen different authors, in combination with Odynerus, or in a few cases, Ancistrocerus. In view of the present conception of these genera, neither name is correct. The supposed syn- onymy of alastoroides and clarazianus can now be established with cer- tainty (unpublished) so that the older name alastoroides must be used. 5. When in 1925 Bequaert revised the North American species of the genus Ancistrocerus, he also designated type species for some of the subgenera, including Ancistroceroides Saussure. He wrote: ‘only two species are described in 1856, and of these I designate the first, Odynerus cruentus Saussure, 1856, of Australia, as the type’. (Apparently Bequaert overlooked the fact that the two species described by de Saussure in 1853 (see above, first paragraph) were also available for selection as type species of Ancistroceroides.) 12 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 6. This designation was confirmed by the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature, when upon my request (Van der Vecht, 1967), it recognised H. de Saussure as the author of several names, proposed by him in the period 1855-1863, for secondary divisions of genera (Opinion 893, 1970). At that time there could not be objections against this proceeding, but lately it has become clear that this designation may have very undesirable consequences. 7. Odynerus cruentus Saussure, 1855, was based on a female wasp from ‘La Nouvelle Hollande’ in the British Museum. The type could not be found there in 1975, and no Eumenid wasp agreeing with de Saussure’s description was detected in several collections studied since then. In January 1980, however, Dr R. M. Bohart (University of California, Davis), collected in South Australia a series of a Paralastor species which is undoubtedly identical with Odynerus cruentus Saus- sure. 8. Consequently it may now be regarded as certain that Paralas- tor Saussure, 1856, is a junior subjective synonym of Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855. This is extremely unfortunate, for the name Paralastor has been in general use for a well defined group of Australian wasps ever since R. C. L. Perkins, 1914, raised it to generic rank in a monograph dealing with nearly a hundred species. The number of species known at present is about 130. Moreover this name was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Opinion 893, when the type species of the genus was fixed as Odynerus cruentus. 9. This confusion could best be avoided by rejecting Bequaert’s type designation and by selecting as such Odynerus alastoroides Saussure. Moreover, this action would have the advantage that the name Ancistroceroides thus becomes available again for a small, well- characterized and isolated, at present nameless, group of at least two species of EUMENIDAE inhabiting the southern part of South America. There is no doubt that this group deserves at least subgeneric status. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to: (1) use its plenary powers (a) to suppress all designations of type species for the genus Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855, made prior to the ruling now requested, and (b) to designate Odynerus alastoroides Saussure, 1853, as the type species of that genus; (2) correct the entry under Name Number 1857 in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology to: Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (gender: masculine), type species Odynerus alastoroides Saussure, 1853; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: alastoroides Saussure, 1853, as published in the binomen Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 113 Odynerus alastoroides (specific name of type species of Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855); (4) delete the words ‘(type species of Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855) from the entry under Name Number 2330 in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, now reading ‘cruentus Saussure, 1855, as published in the binomen Odynerus cruentus (type species of Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855) (Name Number 2330)’. REFERENCES BEQUAERT, J. 1925. The genus Ancistrocerus in North America, with a partial key to the species. Trans. Am. entomol. Soc., vol. 51, pp. 57-117. BRETHES, J. 1903. Los Eumenidos de las Républicas del Plata. 4n. Mus. nac. B. Aires vol. 9, pp. 231-320. DALLA TORRE, C. G. DE 1894. Catalogus Hymenopterorum IX, Vespidae (Diploptera). Lipsiae, 181 pp. GRIFFIN, F. J. 1939. On the dates of publication of Saussure (H. de): Etudes sur la famille des Vespidés 1-3, 1852-1858. J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. vol. 1, pp. 211-212. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE, 1970. Opinion 893. Eumenidae names of Saussure, etc. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, pp. 187-191. PERKINS, R. C. L. 1914. On the species of Alastor (Paralastor) Sauss. and some other Hymenoptera of the family Eumenidae. Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1914, pp. 563-624, | plate. SAUSSURE, H. DE 1852-1858. Etudes sur la famille des Vespidés. Geneva and Paris. |. Monographie des guépes solitaires ou de la tribu des Euméniens: pp. 1-128 (1852), 129-286 (1853): 3. Supplément a la monographie des guépes solitaires: pp. 99-288 (1855), 289-352 (1856). [For the dates of the various parts see Griffin, 1939]. — 1875. Synopsis of American wasps. Smiths. misc. Collns No. 254, XXXV +392 pp., 4 pls. SCHROTTKY, C. 1903. Enumération des Hyménoptéres connus jusqu’ici de la République Argentine, de l’Uruguay et du Paraguay. An. soc. cient. Argentina. vol. 55, pp. 80-91, 176-186. VECHT, J. VAN DER 1967. The status of certain genus-group names in the Eumenidae (Hymenoptera, Vespoidea). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 24, pp. 27-33. 114 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 KASSINA GIRARD, 1853 (AMPHIBIA, ANURA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF EREMIOPHILUS FITZINGER, 1843 UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2343 By Alain Dubois & Jean-Jacques Moreére (Muséum National d ‘Histoire Naturelle, Paris) and Andrew F. Stimson & Barry T. Clarke (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD). 1. Kassina Girard (1853, p. 421, type-species, by monotypy, Cystignathus senegalensis Duméril & Bibron, 1841, p. 418) has, almost since its inception, been generally accepted as the correct generic name for the species senegalensis and its congeners. This genus of African frogs in the family HY PEROLIIDAE now contains some fifteen species. During the last one hundred years Kassina (or the unjustified emen- dation Cassina) has been used in well over a hundred publications including the important faunal lists and systematic reviews of Boulenger (1882, p. 131), Ahl (1931, p. 447), Laurent (1941, p. 105), Hoffman (1942, p. 113), Laurent & Combaz (1950, p. 273), Loveridge (1957, p. 320), Perret (1958, p. 1437), Poynton (1964, p. 175), Wager (1965, p. 189), Perret (1966, p. 418), Schiotz, (1967, p. 67), Stewart (1967, p. 125), Liem, (1970, p. 1), Schietz (1975, p. 53), Largen (1975, p. 1), Laurent (1976, p. 31) and Passmore & Carruthers (1979, p. 224). 2. As a result of an application to the Commission by Laurent & Smith (1966) Kassina was given precedence over Hylambates Duméril, 1853 and was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 849, I.C.Z.N. 1968) and the name of its type species, Cystignathus senegalensis Duméril & Bibron, 1841, was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. At the time of this Ruling by the Commission Hylambates Dumeéril (1853, p. 162, type species by monotypy, Hylambates maculatus Duméril, 1853, p. 165) should also have been placed on the Official List. This should now be done. 3. Eremiophilus Fitzinger (1843, p. 32, type species, by original designation, Cystignathus senegalensis Duméril & Bibron, 1841, p. 418) is a senior objective synonym of Kassina (Dubois, 1981, p. 261). We can find no instance of Fitzinger’s name appearing in the primary zoological literature since its original description. 4. Strict application of the Law of Priority would result in the well established Kassina being replaced by Eremiophilus, a name unused as a senior synonym since 1843. 5. The Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Hylambates Dumeéril, 1853 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 115 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Hylam- bates maculatus Dumeril, 1853, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the direction that it not be given preference over Kassina Girard, 1853, by any zoologist who considers those names to apply to the same genus-group taxon. (3) to place the specific name maculatus Dumeril, 1853 as published in the binomen Hylambates maculatus (specific name of type species of Hylambates Dumeéril, 1853) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) to place the generic name Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES AHL, E. 1931. Amphibia: Anura III. Polypedatidae. Tierreich vol. 55, pp. 1-477. BOULENGER, G. A. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum. London, pp. i—xvi, 1-503. DUBOIS, A. 1981. Liste des genres et sous-genres nominaux de Ranoidea (Amphibiens, Anoures) du Monde, avec identification de leurs espéces- types: conséquences nomenclaturales. Monitore zool. ital. (Suppl.) vol. 15, pp. 225-284. DUMERIL, A. 1853. Mémoire sur les Batraciens Anoures, de la famille des Hylaeformes ou rainettes, comprenant la description d’un genre nouveau et de onze especes nouvelles. Annls Sci. nat. (Zool.) vol. 19, pp. 135-179. DUMERIL, A. M. C. & BIBRON, G. 1841. Erpétologie Générale ou Histoire Naturelle complete des Reptiles. Paris, vol. 8, 792 pp. FITZINGER, L. 1843. Systema Reptilium. Vienna, pp. 1-106, i-iv. GIRARD, C. 1853. Descriptions of new species of reptiles, collected by the U.S. Exploring Expedition, under the command of Capt. Charles Wilkes, U.S.N. Second Part—Including the species of Batrachians exotic to North America. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. vol. 6, pp. 420-425. HOFFMAN, A. C. 1942. Investigations on the anatomical characters of the genus Kassina, together with descriptions of the different species and of two new subspecies. Sodl. Navors. nas. Mus. Bloemfontein vol. 1, pp. 113-166. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLA- TURE, 1968. Opinion 849. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia): grant under the plenary powers of precedence over H ylambates Duméril, 1853. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25, pp. 20-22. LARGEN, M. J. 1975. The status of the genus Kassina (Amphibia Anura Hyperoliidae) in Ethiopia. Monitore zool. ital. (Suppl) vol. 6, pp. 1-28. LAURENT, R. F. 1941. Contribution a l’ostéologie et a la systematique des Rhacophorides africains. Premiére note. Revue Zool. Bot. afr. vol. 35, pp. 85-111. 116 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 — 1976. Les Genres Cryptothylax, Phlyctimantis et Kassina au Zaire. Annls Mus. r. Afr. cent. (8° Sci. zool.) vol. 213, pp. 1-67. — & COMBAZ, J. 1950. Sur l’attribution générique de certains Batraciens appartenant a la sous-famille des Hyperoliinae. Revue Zool. Bot. afr. vol. 43, pp. 269-280. — & SMITH, H. M. 1966. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia: Anura): pro- posed grant of priority over Hylambates Dumeéril, 1853. Z.N.(S.)1718. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22, pp. 317-318. LIEM, S. S. 1970. The morphology, systematics and evolution of the Old World treefrogs (Rhacophoridae and Hyperoliidae). Fieldiana Zool. vol. 57, pp. i-vii, 1-145. LOVERIDGE, A. 1957. Checklist of the reptiles and amphibians of East Africa (Uganda; Kenya; Tanganyika; Zanzibar). Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol. 117, pp. 151-362. PASSMORE, N. I. & CARRUTHERS, V. C. 1979. South African Frogs. Johannesburg, pp. 1-xvii, 1-270. PERRET, J.-L. 1958. Notes sur des Batraciens du genre Kassina du Cameroun et d’Afrique nord-équatoriale. Bull. Inst. fr. Afr. noire (A) vol. 20, pp. 1437-1447. — 1966. Les Amphibiens du Cameroun. Zool. Jb. (Syst.) vol. 8, pp. 289-464. POYNTON, J. C. 1964. The Amphibia of Southern Africa. Ann. Natal Mus. vol. 17, pp. 1-334. SCHIOTZ, A. 1967. The treefrogs (Rhacophoridae) of West Africa. Spolia zool. Mus. haun. vol. 25, pp. 1-346. 1975. The treefrogs of Eastern Africa. Copenhagen, pp. 1-232. STEWART, M. M. 1967. Amphibians of Malawi. New York, pp. i-ix, 1-163. WAGER, V. A. 1965. The frogs of South Africa. Johannesburg, pp. 1-242. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 117 SIMIA FASCICULARIS RAFFLES, 1821 (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES): REQUEST FOR THE SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF SIMIA AYGULA LINNAEUS, 1758, A SENIOR SYNONYM. Z.N.(S.) 2399 By P. H. Napier (British Museum (Natural History), London) and C. P. Groves (Department of Prehistory and Anthropology SGS, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) On the authority of Thomas & Wroughton (1909, Proc. zool. Soc. London, p. 373), the name Simia aygula Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. vol. 1, p. 27) has for many years been considered to be a Javan Leaf Monkey, antedating Presbytis mitrata Eschscholtz, 1821 (in Kotzebue, Entdeck- ungs- Reise in die Siid- See, vol. 3, p. 196, pl., type species of the genus Presbytis Eschscholtz, 1821). 2. Linnaeus’ diagnosis and description are as follows: “S. caudata subbarbata grisea, eminentia pilosa verticis longitudinal. Osb. iter. 99. Habitat in India. Osbeck. Corpus griseum lupi coloris, subtus gula, pectore, abdomine- que albicans. Cauda corpore longior, cinerea, attenuata. Facies planiuscula, albida, nuda. Nasus depressus, brevissimus, ab ore remotus, lacuna labil superioris gemina. Bucca sub- barbata, longitudine menti subbarbati. Supercilia frontis gibba, prominentia. Pedes nigri: Ungues pollicum rotundati; reliqui oblongi. Auriculae acutiusculae.”’ [‘Tailed, somewhat bearded grey monkey, with a longitudinal hairy eminence on the crown. Lives in India. Body grey, wolf-coloured, under throat, chest and abdomen becoming white. Tail longer than body, ashy-grey, slender. Face flattish, whitish, naked. Nose flat, very short, remote from mouth, with twin grooves on the upper lip. Cheek rather bearded, along the chin rather bearded. Brows swollen, promi- nent. Feet black: nails rounded on thumb; remainder oblong. Ears rather pointed.’] This description comes almost entirely from two sources: (1) Osbeck’s description of a young animal (‘the size of a small cat’) which he col- lected in Java (1757, Ostindisk Resa, p. 99), and of other ‘Jawanska markattor’ which he saw in Java, and (2) from Osbeck’s description of a live adult male ‘markatta’ belonging to Burgomaster Renhorn of Arboga in Sweden (unpublished letters from Osbeck to Linnaeus, 13th May and 27th June, 1756, in the Linnaean Society Archives). 3. Many of the features in Linnaeus’ diagnosis are incompatible with its interpretation as a Javan Leaf Monkey; most crucial, however, 118 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 is a character not mentioned by Linnaeus, but coming from Osbeck’s description of his Javan specimen: the crest on the crown is stated to be the same colour as the rest of the body (grey or grey yellow). This absolutely rules out the grey Javan Presbytis with its contrasting black- crested head. The latter species can in any case be excluded on the grounds that no Leaf Monkey could at that time have been brought alive to Europe and survived to adulthood. A few quotations may also be given from J. R. Forster’s translation of Osbeck (published in 1771 as A voyage to China and the East Indies) to show the ineptness of ident- ifying the ‘Jawanska markattor’ with any Leaf Monkey: ‘They . .. em- brace one another ... They play with dogs if they have no nearer friends about them... They make a continual noise during the night time... If any body looks at them, they are angry, and begin a smacking. They resemble all others of this genus in dirtyness, lasciviousness, drollery. . .’ 4. Unfortunately no type material is available to confirm the identification at either the Zoologiska Museet in Uppsala or the Natur- historiska Riksmuseet in Stockholm. 5. Simia aygula is quite clearly the Crab-eating or Long-tailed Macaque, as Buffon indeed opined as early as 1766 (Hist. nat. vol. 14, pp. 190-191, footnote). He allied it with his ‘Aigrette’, which is probably the derivation of aygula, signifying a little crest. At present the name used for the Crab-eater is Macaca fascicularis (Raffles, 1821, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 13, p. 246). Other names used in recent years for this taxon are (1) Macaca cynamolgos (Linnaeus, 1758) which was mistakenly applied to the Crab-eating Macaque following Schreber (1774, Sdugthiere, vol. 1, p. 91, pl. 13) which unites Linnaeus’ descrip- tion of the hamadryas baboon with an engraving of Buffon’s ‘Macaque’; and (2) [Macaca] Irus (F. Cuvier, 1818, Mem. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 4, p. 120), rightly rejected as unavailable by both Miller (1942, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia vol. 94, pp. 127-128) and Fooden (1964, Science, New York, vol. 143, p. 365) because not published in a bino- men. It would seriously impair scientific communication if the name of this species should be changed yet again, as is required by the Law of Priority. 6. The International Commission is therefore requested to (a) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name aygula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Simia aygula, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of domonymy; (b) place fascicularis Raffles, 1821, as published in the bino- men Simia fascicularis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; and (c) place the name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 119 ALLYGUS FIEBER, 1872 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2431 By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kdllparksgatan 9, Uppsala S-754 32 Sweden) I propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature suppress all designations of type species made for the genus A//ygus Fieber, 1872 prior to that made by Van Duzee, 1917. The purpose of the application is to preserve current usage of the names Allygus Fieber, 1872 and Allygidius Ribaut, 1948. The details of the case are set out below. 2. Fieber, 1872, listed the European Homoptera Auchenorrhyn- cha. On p. 13 he listed 21 species, subspecies and synonyms under Allygus. The list included Allygus atomarius “Ger.” (i.e. Fabricius, 1794), Allygus mixtus “Ger.” (i.e. Fabricius, 1794) and nine nomina nuda. No description of the genus A//ygus was given in that paper. 3. Fieber, 1875, p. 410, erected Al/ygus as a ‘new genus’ in a key of genera. No species were mentioned. 4. Van Duzee, 1916, p. 73, designated Allygus atomarius (F.) (= Cicada atomaria Fabricius, 1794) as type species of Al/ygus Fieber, 1875. 5. Van Duzee, 1917, p. 675, designated Cicada mixta Fabricius as the type species of Allygus ‘Scott’ (sic). The reason for this was obviously that he regarded Scott, 1876, not Fieber as the author of Allygus. In Scott’s paper only mixtus ‘“‘Germar” (i.e. Fabricius) and commutatus Fieber were mentioned; atomarius ‘‘Kirschb.” was included as a synonym of commutatus. 6. Ribaut, 1948, divided Al/ygus into three genera: Allygidius gen. nov. (type species ‘Cercopis’ atomaria (F., 1794) = Cicada atomaria Fabricius, 1794); Mimallygus gen. nov. (type species Jassus lacteinervis Kirschbaum, 1868) and Al/ygus Fieber with type species Jassus (sic) mixtus F., 1794= Cicada mixta Fabricius, 1794. It appears that Ribaut overlooked the oldest valid type-species designation by Van Duzee, 1916. This makes Allygidius Ribaut a junior objective synonym of Allygus Fieber, 1872. In spite of this, practically all authors have adopted the nomenclature established by Ribaut (see References). 7. Emelyanov, 1966, erected Syringius as a new subgenus of Allygus with type species Allygus syrinx Dlabola, 1961. That subgenus is then congeneric with Allygus if Cicada mixta Fabricius, 1794 is its type species. 8. If the Code is strictly applied, A//ygidius Ribaut, 1948, must be treated as a junior objective synonym of All/ygus Fieber, 1872. The generic concept of A//ygus Ribaut non Fieber will be called Syringius, but the subgenus of which Cicada mixta Fabricius, 1794 is the type species will be left without a name. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: 120 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designation of type species made for A//ygus Fieber, 1872 prior to the designation by Van Duzee, 1917, of Cicada mixta Fabricius, 1794 as type species of that genus; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Allygus Fieber, 1872 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Van Duzee, 1917 as ratified under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cicada mixta Fabricius, 1794; (b) Allygidius Ribaut, 1948 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Cicada atomaria Fabricius, 1794; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) mixta Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada mixta (specific name of type species of Allygus Fieber, 1872); (b) atomaria Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada atomaria (specific name of type species of Allygidius Ribaut, 1948). REFERENCES EMELYANOV, A. F. 1966. New palaearctic and certain nearctic cicads (Homoptera Auchenorrhyncha). Rev. entomol. URSS. vol. 45, pp. 95-133. FABRICIUS, J. C. 1794. Entomologia systematica, vol. 4, 472 pp. Hafniae. FIEBER, F. X. 1872. Katalog der Europdischen Cicadinen, nach Originalen mit Beniitzung der neuesten Literatur, iv+ 19 pp. Wien. — 1875. Les Cicadines d’Europe d’aprés les originaux et les publications les plus récentes, premiere partie. Rev. Mag. Zool. vol. 3 (3), pp. 288-416. RIBAUT, H. 1948. Démembrement de quelques genres de Jassidae (Homop- tera). Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Toulouse, vol. 83, pp. 57-59. SCOTT, J. 1876. On certain British Hemiptera- Homoptera (Athysanus). Ento- mol. mon. Mag., vol. 12, pp. 169-172. VAN DUZEE, E. P. 1916. Check list of Hemiptera (except the Aphididae, Aleurodidae and Coccidae) of America north of Mexico, 111 pp. New York. — 1917. Catalogue of the Hemiptera of America north of Mexico except the Aphididae, Coccidae and Aleurodidae. California Agric. Exper. Sta. entomol. tech. Bull. vol. 2, xiv+902 pp. The names Al/ygus Fieber and Allygidius Ribaut are treated as denoting separate genera in the following major publications: EMELYANOV, A. F. 1964. Podotrjad Cicadinea (Auchenorrhyncha) — tsikadovye. Jn Opredelitel nasekomych evropejskoj chasti SSSR, vol. |, pp. 337-437. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 121 LE QUESNE, W. J. 1969. Hemiptera (Cicadomorpha — Deltocephalinae). Handbooks ident. British insects. vol. 2, part 2(b), pp. 65-148. London. MITJAEV, D. 1971. Leafhoppers of Kazakhstan (Homoptera — Cicadinea). The Determinant. pp. 1-212. Alma Ata. NAST, J. 1976. Piewiki Auchenorrhyncha (Cicadodea). Cat. faunae Poloniae, vol. 21: 1, pp. 1-256. RIBAUT, H. 1952. Homopteres auchenorrhynches II (Jassidae). Faune de France, vol. 57, pp. 1-256. Paris. SERVADEI, A. 1967. Rhynchota (Heteroptera, Homoptera, Auchenorrhyncha) catalogo topografico et sinonimico. Fauna d'Italia, vol. 9, x+851 pp. Bologna. (A list of references to 38 works by 21 different authors between 1950 and 1981 who use Allygidius Ribaut as a valid generic name is held in the Secretariat. R.V.M.) This application is supported by Professor R. H. Cobben (Department of Entomology, Wageningen), Dr Walter J. Le Quesne (Chesham, Bucks, U.K.). Dr Janusz Nast (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) and Dr Rauno E. Linnavuori (SF-21220 Somersoja, Finland). 122 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 MACTRA SACHALINENSIS SCHRENK, 1862 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2332 By Alexander I. Kafanov (/nstitute of Marine Biology, Far East Science Centre, Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, U.S.S.R.) Spisula sachalinensis (Schrenk, 1862, Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, vol. 4, p. 412) is a name which has firmly entered world literature on Bivalvia for designating a common species of shallow water MACTRIDAE in Far Eastern seas. The geographic range for this species is from South Primorye, Sakhalin, Southern Kurile Islands to Hokkaido and North Honshu, Japan. 2. When handling the collection of Monsieur Barthe taken dur- ing the journey of ‘La Sybille’ and preserved in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, Prof. Tadashige Habe, 1978, Venus, vol. 37, no. 3, p. 124, text-fig. 2, found that Mactra sybillae Valenciennes, 1858 (April 19), C. r. Acad. Sci., vol. 46, p. 760; 1858 (April 28), /’Tnstitut, vol. 26, p. 143, described four years before, is conspecific with Mactra sachalinensis Schrenck, 1862 and should be considered a senior syno- nym of the latter. An analysis of a figure of one of the syntypes of Mactra sybillae, (Habe, l.c., text-fig. 2) taken in Hakodate Bay, Hokkaido, makes us agree fully with this opinion of Prof. Habe. 3. The name Mactra sybillae Valenciennes, 1858 has not been used as a senior synonym in the primary zoological literature for more than fifty years and according to Article 23 a—b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, I request its suppression. The list of refer- ences required for sachalinensis in accordance with Article 79 b is given at the end of the paper. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not those of the Law of Homonymy, the specific name sybillae Valenciennes, as published in the binomen Mactra sybillae; (2) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: sachalinensis Schrenck, 1862, as published in the binomen Mactra sachalinensis; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name sybillae Valenciennes, 1858, as suppressed under (1) above. Prof. Ya. I. Starobogatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R.), with whom I consulted, supports this proposal. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 #23 REFERENCES The following references comply with Article 79b for Mactra sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862: GOLIKOV, A. N. & SCARLATO, O. A. 1967. Trudy zool. Inst. Acad. Sci. vol. 42,'p. 115, textfig. 95, pl. 12, fig. 2. HABE, T. 1955. Publ. Akkeshi mar. Biol. Station, vol. 4, p. 16, pl. 5, figs 8, 9. —— 1970. Common shells of Japan in colour, p. 158, pl. 59, fig. 19 (Osaka, Hoikusha). —— & ITO, K. 1965. Shells of the world in colour, vol. 1, p. 141, pl. 48, figs 2, 3 (Osaka, Hoikusha). SCARLATO, O. A. 1955. In Atlas of invertebrates of the Far Eastern seas of the USSR, p. 195, pl. 52, fig. 7 (Moscow and Leningrad, Acad. sci.) ——— 1976. In Fauna and flora of Peter the Great Bay, p. 103, fig. 243 (Leningrad, Nauka). — & IVANOVA, M. B. 1974. Sbornik rabot Inst. mar Biol. Far East Sci. Centre USSR Acad. Sci., vol. 1, p. 311. YAMAMOTO, G. & HABE, T. 1959. Bull. mar. biol. Sta. Asamushi, vol. 9 (3), p. 110, pl. 10, figs 11, 12. ZHIDKOVA, L. S. 1972. In Atlas of the Neogene molluscs of Kurile Islands, p. 139, pl. 27, figs 2, 3 (Moscow, Nauka). ——,, KUZINA, I. N., LAUTENSCHLAGER, F. G. & POPOVA, L. A. 1968. Atlas of the Upper Miocene and Pliocene molluscs of Sakhalin, p. 127, pl. 22, fig. 5, pl. 45, fig. 4, pl. 46, fig. 1, pl. 47, fig. 1 (Moscow, Nauka). 124 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 CAECILITIDAE IN AMPHIBIA AND INSECTA (PSOCOPTERA): PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.)2333 By Thomas E. Moore & Ronald A. Nussbaum (University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan U.S.A.) & Edward L. Mockford (Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, U.S.A.) Homonymy exists between names of the family group based on similarity of spelling of the names of type genera, and thus identity of stems, for CAECILIIDAE in current use for a group of psocid insects and a group of apodous amphibians commonly called caecilians. Such cases are to be referred to the Commission (Code Article 55a). 2. Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 229; as Coecilia, p. 196) is the type genus of the family-group taxon CAECILIADAE Gray, 1825 (Amphi- bia, Gymnophiona). The emended name CAECILIIDAE Garman, 1884 is currently used for 23 genera and about 85 species of caecilians found in the tropics of Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, the Seychelles Archipelago and India (Taylor, 1968, in a summary of the application of family-group names in the Gymnophiona). Caecilia tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758, was the only species included in his family by Gray and was formally subsequently designated as type species of the genus by Dunn, 1942. 3. Caecilius Curtis, 1837, is the type genus of the family-group taxon CAECILIINI Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera), which Kolbe separated from the genus Peripsocus Hagen, 1866 in the parallel family- group taxon PERIPSOCINI, while dividing psocids into five such tribes. The emended name CAECILIIDAE is currently used for a group occur- ring in all continents and including about 16 genera with well over 300 species (Mockford, 1969). Smithers, 1972, and Badonnel, 1951, sum- marise the application of family-group names in the Psocoptera. Mockford, 1969, p. 78, designated Caecilius fenestratus Curtis, 1837 as type species of the genus. The valid name for this species is Psocus fuscopterus Latreille, 1799, a distinctive and common European species, and it was wrongly cited as the type species by Smithers, 1972, p. 117. Mockford correctly cited Curtis’s species as the nominal type species, but did not correct the synonymy. 4. Enderlein, 1901, raised Kolbe’s tribe to subfamily rank (with- out changing its spelling), included four other genera in the subfamily and separated it from the subfamily MESOPSOCINAE. Two years later (1903) he used CAECILIIDAE Kolbe for the first time. Cockerell, 1929, was the first to recognise the problem of homonymy and proposed a sub- stitute name based on Peripsocus: PERIPSOCIDAE. Karny, 1930, maintained that the two genera Caecilius and Peripsocus must be placed in separate families and proposed the name LACHESILLIDAE for the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 125 family that included Caecilius. Pearman, 1936, proposed, as one of nine superfamily names, CAECILIETAE for five families including CAECILIIDAE and POLYPSOCIDAE, assigning Lachesilla to another family in a different superfamily. Roesler, 1940, maintained that both Peripsocus and Lachesilla must fall in family-group taxa separate from the one containing Caecilius and proposed including the genera placed in CAECILIIDAE by Pearman (and three other families of Pearman’s classification) under the family POLYPSOCIDAE. Mockford, 1978, provided a recent summary of the application of family-group names to CAECILIIDAE and its relatives and discussed difficulties of interpret- ation and application. Most recent authors dealing with this insect group have ignored the homonymy and have continued to use CAECILIIDAE for this group of psocids. 5. The syntypes of Psocus fuscopterus Latreille are two female specimens in the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles, Brussels. They were recently examined by one of us (E.L.M.) and are clearly the species illustrated by Latreille, 1799, in the coloured pl. 2, fig. 2 and by Curtis, 1837, pl. 648, as both Psocus fenestratus and Caecilius fenestratus. There is, however, nothing about either specimen to indicate that it is the one shown in Latreille’s illustration. The figure is in a supposed life- like position, totally different from the positions of the pinned types. There is reason to believe that these are the specimens from the Paris region examined by Latreille in the Bosc Collection. Horn & Kahle, 1937, and Lameere, 1902, state that Latreille’s collection of ‘Neuroptera’ (Linnean sense, including psocids) went to M. E. de Selys- Longchamps whose collections are at Brussels. These specimens bear a locality label in the elongate style of Bosc’s labels, and Enderlein’s handwritten label (as judged from the photographs in Horn & Kahle, 1937, the latter probably placed there during his study of the Selys- Longchamps collection at Brussels). Enderlein, 1915, p. 15, referred to two female specimens from Paris as Latreille’s types. 6. We have chosen one of these specimens, decidedly more com- plete than the other, as lectotype. This female retains one forewing (which shows the colour pattern clearly, diagnostic for the species), both hindwings, all legs, a complete head with both antennal bases and the first flagellomere on the right and the first three flagellomeres on the left side. The abdomen, apparently complete, is glued lengthwise along the pin. Measurements of the lectotype are as follows (measuring micro- meter unit=0-014 mm): forewing length 3-06 mm, hindwing length 2:45 mm, hind femoral length 0-67 mm, hind tibial length 1-05 mm. The pin bearing the lectotype has the following labels in the order indicated: first (upper) label, handwritten word ‘Paris’; second label, first line handwritten ‘Caecilius fuscopterus Latr.’, second line handwritten ‘Latreill’sche Type’ (these two lines in Enderlein’s handwriting, referred to above), third line machine printed ‘det. Enderlein 1908’; third label, first line handwritten ‘Caecilius’, second line handwritten ‘fuscopterus’, 126 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 third line printed ‘Collection Selys’; fourth label, machine printed word ‘type’ with border in orange line. The pin bearing the paralectotype has the same set of labels. 7. Dr Tim New (La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia 3083) kindly examined the type specimens of Caecilius Jenestratus Curtis in the Curtis collection at the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne. We are grateful to him for the following information: ‘There are six specimens of Caecilius fenestratus standing under the number 742b (genus no.) and *9c (species no.). The specimens are clearly conspecific: two are directly pinned and four are mounted (with wings, and appendages spread) on small rectangular cards. None of the cards and neither pin (the insects are “low-pinned” in accordance with fashion of the time) has any data attached. The specimens are somewhat shrivelled, in common with most dry-mounted psocids, but are clearly recognisable as the species figured in British Entomology pl. 648. ‘I have no doubt that it is the species now known as Caecilius fuscopterus (Latr.) and no other similar species occurs in Britain. ‘Although British Entomology gives the type locality as Glanvilles Wootton, Dorset (probably Dale specimens), the notebook (photostat enclosed) appears to refer mainly to specimens from other localities. There is one entry “e. June Gl. Woot.” but this cannot be linked to any particular specimen. Nevertheless, if the original speci- mens of fenestratus are present, they must be included in this series. In some cases at least, Curtis merely listed additional localities in this note- book, as an adjunct to British Entomology. I will label one of the better carded specimens as “‘lectotype of Caecilius fenestratus Curtis, det. T. R. New 1983” in order to provide a definite reference point.’ 8. CAECILIIDAE Kolbe must be rejected as a family-group name in insects because it is a junior homonym. There appears to be no valid family-group name available and appropriate for Caecilius Curtis and relatives, and no junior synonym or closely related genus on which to base an effective alternative. Caecilius Curtis itself includes over 300 species, some of which occur on every continent. CAECILIDAE is not appropriate as an alternative because of the ready confusion and because herpetologists have often referred to their animals both formally and informally as caecilids. In the interests (1) of main- taining as much stability as possible in family names and nomenclatural systems, (2) of enhancing access to the generalisations that they pro- mote, and (3) of having the familial associations of Caecilius Curtis and relatives as obvious as possible, we propose emending Kolbe’s family- group name for the psocids to CAECILIONIDAE to avoid homonymy. In addition, we request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature take the following actions: (1) use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of Caecilius Curtis, 1837, for the purposes of Article 29 is CAECILION-; Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 127 (2) place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Dunn, 1942, Caecilia tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia Gymnophiona); (b) Caecilius Curtis, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Mockford, 1969, Caecilius fenestratus Curtis, 1837 (Insecta, Psocoptera); (3) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) tentaculata Linnaeus, as published in the binomen Caecilia tentaculata (specific name of type species of Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758); (b) fuscopterus Latreille, 1799, as published in the binomen Psocus fuscopterus) (the valid name at present of the type species of Caecilius Curtis, 1837); (4) place the following names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology (a) CAECILIDAE (emendation of Caeciliadae) Gray, 1825 (type genus Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758); (b) CAECILIONIDAE (emendation, through the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above, of CAECILIINI Kolbe, 1880), type genus Caecilius Curtis, 1837; (5) to place the family-group name CAECILIINI Kolbe, 1880 (a junior homonym of CAECILIIDAE Gray, 1825) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BADONNEL, A. 1951. Ordre des Psocopteéres. In: Traité de Zoologie P.-P. Grassé [ed.], Masson et Cie, Paris, vol. 10 fasc. 2, pp. 1301-1340. COCKERELL, T. D. A. 1929. The Psocid family Caeciliidae. Entomologist. vol. 62, p. 19. CURTIS, J. 1837. British Entomology; ... R.and J. E. Taylor, Printers, London, Hymenoptera Pt. II, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, vol. 4, p. 648. DUNN, E. R. 1942. The American caecilians. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard, vol. 91 (No. 6), p. 494. ENDERLEIN, G. 1901. Neue deutsche und exotische Psociden, sowie Bemer- kungen zur Systematik. Zool. Jahrb. Syst. Geogr. und Biol, der Thiere, vol. 14, Heft 6, p. 538. — 1903. Die Copeognathen des Indo-Australischen Faunengebietes. Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Nat. Hungarici, vol. 1, pp. 179-344, pls. 3-14. — 1915. Collections zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys-Longchamps, Catalogue Systématique et Descriptif, fasc 3 (2) Copeognatha Bruxelles, Hayez, Impr. des Académies, 55 pp., 5 pls. GARMAN, S. 1884. The North American reptiles and batrachians. Bull. Essex Inst., Salem, Mass., vol. 16, p. 36. 128 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 2, July 1983 GRAY, J. E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and amphibia, with a description of some new species. Ann. Philos. London, (2), vol. 10, p. 217. HORN, W. & KAHLE, I. 1935-1937. Uber entomologische Sammlungen, Entomologen, und Entomo-Museologie. Entomol. Beihefte aus Berlin- Dahlem, Bd. 2, pp. 1-536. KARNY, H. H. 1930. Zur Systematik der Orthopteroiden Insekten. Zweiter Teil. Treubia, vol. 12. pp. 431-461. KOLBE, H. 1880. Das Fliigelgeader der Psociden und seine systematische Bedeutung. Stettiner Entomol. Zeitung, vol. 41, p. 183. LAMEERE, A. 1902. Edmond de Selys-Longchamps. Mém. Soc. Entomol. Belg., vol. 9, pp. 1-14. LATREILLE, P. A. 1799. In: Illustratio iconographica Insectorum quae in Musaeis Parisiensis observavit et in lecum edidit J. C. Fabricius ..... A. J. Coquebert de Montbret [ed.], decas 1-111, Tabula 11, p. 10, fig. 2. LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, 10th Ed., Holmiae, vol. 1, pp. 196, 229. MOCKFORD, E. L. 1969. The Genus Caecilius (Psocoptera: Caeciliidae). Part Ill. The North American Species of the alcinus, caligonus, and subflavus groups. Trans. Amer. entomol. Soc., vol. 95, pp. 77-151. — 1978. A generic classification of Family Amphipsocidae (Psocoptera; Caecilietae). Trans. Amer. entomol. Soc., vol. 104, pp. 139-143. PEARMAN, J. V. 1936. The taxonomy of the Psocoptera: preliminary sketch. Proc. Roy. entomol. Soc. London, Ser B. vol. 5, p. 60. ROESLER, R. 1940. Neue und wenig bekannte Copeognathengattungen II. Zool. Anzeiger, Leipzig, vol. 130, Nr. 1/2, p. 15. SMITHERS, C. N. 1972. The classification and phylogeny of the Psocoptera. Mem. Australian Mus. vol. 14, pp. 1-349. TAYLOR, E. H. 1968. Caecilians of the World. Univ. Kansas Press, Lawrence. [xiv]+ 898 pp. ; ; . ‘ j ; Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 Si hasan ead Vespoidea, PAbba Ae dae). J. vander Vecht . 111 Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amp ibia, Anura). A “Dubois & a0 Morére ; and A.F. Stimson & B.T. Clarke f 114 Simia fascicularis Raffles, eh (Mammalia, Primates). PH. Napier . wae RG Graves Js 4 as | : : 117 Allygus Fieber, 1872 (Insecta, Homoptera). F. Ossiannilsson_ 119 Mactra pening Schrenk, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). All Kafano 122 CAECILIIDAE i in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocopter) TE. Moore, R.A. Nussbaum & E.L. Mockford pa we 124 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. CONTENTS . Omoss'aut Members of the Commission . . ..... . ; Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the anc uct ee nadir ee: Special Announcements — . en Comment on Chuangia Walcott, 1911 and Shantungia Walcott, 1905 (C. Lochman Balk & C.J. Stubblefield) . . ...... Comment on Aphytis mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870 (A.D. Austin, B. Bolton, Z. Boucek, N.D.M. Ferguson, M.G. Fitton, L.D. Gauld, T. Huddleston, J.S. Noyes, J. Quinlan & B.R. Subba Rao). ae on oe alamose & K. oaxacae Pritchard, 1979 OPE BS ETI CSRS ae Las ae A So nD Comments on Rasnitsyn’s proposal to regulate the names of taxa above the family group (D.J. Brothers) . . ... . aaah. A re sai 1916 a es EE if Lasalle Bach . . . . . . Opinions Opinion 1246. “Nbaeale margaritiferus Schlegel, 1837 (Reptilia, po Sy VOGELS OOS Rd es aoe ae eg Meh Opinion aT. Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829) arid hegre) Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homoptera). Me Opinion 1248. Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Insecta, Hemiptera) Opinion 1249. Toxostoma crissale Baird, 1858 (Aves) . . . Opinion 1250. Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819; Xantholinus Dejean, 1821; Othius Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . Opinion 1251, Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (Bivalvia, Cucullaeidae) Opinion 1252. Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840 (Aves) . . . . . . Opinion ey californiensis Bergh, 10 May 1879 (Mol- lu ) Opinion 1254. Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 and Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea). . ; nee ea maaan step usin me (Diptera Tachi- ni eS . . . . . . . an Ba AD OU a aed oe New and revived cases Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaffer, 1839 and Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). K. Mikkola. . Mya poor ae and iinet chiseecatig’ aiiin Ainsecta, Dip- iii 102 106 Printed in eg Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset ce ae ENS ao 21 October 1983 Volume 40 Part 3 | Maat pp. v-vi, 129-190 ISSN 0007-5167 The a... of Zoological | eure The Official Organ of the International : Commission on Zoological Nomenclature BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY) PURCHASED _ ZOOLOGY LIBRARY © International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature International Trust for Zool Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD Price £10.00 (All rights reserved). \~ Wi AURAL SS APIs 179" V pul oLoGY ~ Ll ND ae ACH “,ay THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: 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). 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). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 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 Cien- cias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echi- noidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzer- land) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crus- tacea 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, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut 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) (President) 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) (Councillor) 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 Geowissenschafien, 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 vi 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 Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1 JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpeto- logy Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut ftir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari Dr. SHUNICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1. Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) Entomology Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical Hymenoptera INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. Per Brinck Prof. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. C.B. Cox Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. G.C. Gruchy Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. M. Luc Dr. I.W.B. Nye Dr. E.P:F) Roses. D. Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. G.B. White Prof. J.M. Dodd, F.R.S. (Observer for the Royal Society) B. The Officers of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) Mr. A. Penrose, B.Sc. (Assistant Zoologist) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 129 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 40, part 3 (pp. 129-190) 21 October 1983 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circumstances the Commission may start to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following appli- cations published in the present part of the Bulletin (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b): (1) Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed nomenclatural validation by use of plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2319. B. Kensley. (2) Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (Amphibia, Anura): request for designation of a neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2366. H.M. Smith, K.T. Fitzgerald & L.J. Guillette, Jr. (3) Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Pisces, Siluriformes): proposal to place on the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2371. R.M. Bailey & D.J. Stewart. (4) Neadmete Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2420. R.E. Petit. (5) Calymene Brongniart, 1822 in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 (Trilobita): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 637. H.B. Whittington. (6) Panopea Menard de la Groye, April 1807 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation and related problems. Z.N.(S.) 1049. The Secretary. (7) Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 and Troo- don wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931 (Reptilia, Dinosauria): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2323. D. Baird. (8) Donax hanleyanus Philippi, 1847, proposed conservation and proposed suppression of Donax hilairea Guerin, 1832 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). Z.N.(S.) 2152. W. Narchi. (9) Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2375. D.G. Broadley. 130 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 40(2) on 15 July 1983 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b.): (1) (2) (3) (4) *(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, 1828 (Insecta, Lepi- doptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2442. C.M. Naumann & W.G. Tremewan. Massilina jacksonensis Cushman, 1935 non 1927 (Fora- miniferidae): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2443. H.V. Anderson. Marenzelleria Mesnil, 1896 (Polychaeta): proposed desig- nation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2444. K. Banse. Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879 (Pisces): proposal to alter lectotype designation. Z.N.(S.) 2445. P.J.P. Whitehead & G. Nelson. Centrurus limpidus Karsch, 1879 and Centruroides orna- tus Pocock, 1902 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed con- servation. Z.N.(S.) 2446. O.F. Francke. Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (Arachnida, Araneida): proposal to designate a type species. Z.N.(S.) 2447. A. Loerbroks & O. Kraus. Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2448. E.M. Danzig & I.M. Kerzhner. Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964 as type species of Septotrochamina Zheorg, 1979 (Foraminiferida). Z.N.(S.) 2449. A.R. Loeblich, Jr. & H. Tappan. Sipunculans (Sipuncula): proposed conservation of four junior subjective synonyms. Z.N.(S.) 2450. J.I. Saiz Salinas. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE MEMBERSHIP OF THE TRUST It is with the very greatest regret that we have to report that Dr C.A. Wright died on 19 June, 1983. An obituary is printed in this Bulletin. The Royal Society was invited to appoint an assessor on the Trust in succession to Dr Wright. We are pleased to announce that Professor J.M. Dodd, F.R.S., has agreed to serve in this capacity. Professor Dodd is also a Patron of the Appeal to fund the work of the International Com- Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 131 mission for Zoological Nomenclature. His assistance and guidance will be of great value to the Trust and the Commission. OBITUARY: DR C.A. WRIGHT Dr C.A. Wright—‘Chris’ to all his friends—died on 19 June this year at the age of 54. Words can ill express our grief and sense of loss. His best known scientific work was in the application of exper- imental techniques, largely of his devising, to the study of molluscs and their parasites, most notably to the snails that transmit schistosomiasis to humans. His synthesis of field work with laboratory studies showed how his intellectual discipline could control a powerful imagination. He also pioneered the Royal Society’s study of the undisturbed ecosystems of Aldabra Atoll in the Indian Ocean and served on the committee that planned and supervised the research programme there. These were only two aspects of an intellectual activity of exceptional breadth and vigour. There were few aspects of zoology that he was not competent to discuss; any interlocutor left a dialogue with him renewed in hope and determi- nation. He was best known to members of the Commission as Secretary- General of IUBS from 1973 to 1976. The changes that he initiated there have been at the root of the present strength of the Union, which he found in a much weakened condition. From 1979 to 1982 he served as an observer on the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on behalf of the Royal Society and IUBS while those bodies provided sub- ventions to the Trust. His intellectual brilliance was coupled with strong common sense and a sense of humour. He loved good food and had a thorough know- ledge of wine. He was a superb raconteur, so that a meal with him was an unforgettable experience, including the stomach cramps induced by helpless laughter. His zest for life was infectious and gave him the cour- age to face his fatal illness with undiminished humour. His wife, Pam, to whom he was married for 30 years, was the perfect partner and support for this exceptionally great man. FINANCIAL SUPPORT Since the last list of donors to the Appeal Fund was published in volume 40 part 2 a covenanted donation has been received from Dr E. Trewavas. Donations have also been received from: Mr David Attenborough; Dennis Curry’s Charitable Trust (a third donation); The British Ecological Society; The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa: Professor R.G. Davies; Professor J.1. Furtado; Professor P.C.C. 132 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 Garnham; The Linnean Society, New South Wales, Australia; Dr A.J. Sutcliffe (further donation); Dr Angela Taylor; Mr and Mrs Yeats Brown (further donation). The gross value of the fund now stands at over £72,000 (not counting expenditures). THE TRUST’S SHERBORN EVENING On June 30th a Sherborn evening was held in the British Museum (Natural History) by kind permission of the Director, on the 122nd anni- versary of the birth of C.D. Sherborn. The occasion was a very happy one giving a pleasant opportunity for members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Patrons of the Appeal to meet the Under Secretary for Science, Technology and Environmental mat- ters, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. James Adams, and several members of the London Diplomatic Science Club, including Scientific Counsellors from Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa and Sweden. The Science Adviser to the Commonwealth Secre- tariat (Professor J.I. Furtado) and Dr B.J. Lavercombe (Science & Tech- nology Group, British Council) were also present. At the same time the celebration provided the chance for thanking personally those who had contributed to the Appeal. The Museum conversazione room was amazingly transformed with a fascinating exhibition of Sherborniana kindly provided by Mr Banks, Archivist, Natural History Museum and Mr Ottewill of the Exhi- bitions Department, the slip cabinet being the very one which was used by Sherborn in the Museum. Sir Peter Kent (Chairman of the Trust) welcomed the guests. Pro- fessor Southwood then gave a highly entertaining talk on the work of the Commission. (This is printed in this issue of the Bulletin). Professor Southwood’s talk was followed by an address on international aspects of the work of the Commission by Mr James Adams. Special mention must be made of the interesting and amusing extracts from ‘Squire’ (C.D. Sherborn) which were read beautifully by Mr David Wilson (Manager. Teletext B.B.C.) and which added much pleasure to the evening. A musical interlude, given by the Rodney Williams Singers was interspersed among the readings. The songs chosen were of a zoological nature and contributed to the evening’s merriment. Thanks were expressed by the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, the President of the Trust’s Appeal, to the speakers, donors and singers. A convivial buffet supper closed the evening. The occasion generated not only helpful publicity in the Times and the B.B.C. Natural History Unit, Bristol, but also resulted in additional welcome donations. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 133 This unique celebration for the work of Sherborn, his contri- bution to zoology and palaeontology, and to the practice of zoological nomenclature in particular, could not have taken place but for all the expenses being met by the most generous donations from members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, the Committee of Patrons of the Appeal, members of the Secretariat of the Commission and other kind friends. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature September 1983 ADDRESS BY PROFESSOR T.R.E. SOUTHWOOD, F.R:S. (Vice-President of the Royal Society) on the occasion of the ‘Sherborn Evening’ held by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on 30 June 1983 [In the spring of 1982 the International Trust for Zoological Nomencla- ture launched an international appeal for funds to enable it to continue funding the work of the Commission. One year later the Trust decided that it would be appropriate to hold a reception to thank those who had subscribed to the appeal or who had helped it in various ways. The anniversary of the birth of C.D. Sherborn seemed an appropriate date for this reception. Professor T.R.E. Southwood, FRS, Vice-President of the Royal Society, Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) and Linacre Professor of Zoology in the University of Oxford, gave the following address]. It is recorded in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 11, that the descen- dants of the children of Noah after the Flood, speaking all in one lan- guage, decided to build a tower that would reach Heaven; and that the Lord God, to reprove their pride, scattered them to the ends of the earth and caused them to speak many languages. Science, being international, labours constantly to propitiate that sin of pride by constructing a single international language for each discipline. The early works on Natural History were written in Latin, yet by the mid-sixteenth century Conrad Gesner in the Jcones that accom- panied his Historiae Animalium (1551-1558) thought it wise to give the names of animals in Latin, Italian, French and German whenever possible. He did not recognize what is now clear to us that he and many of his successors dealt not in names but in descriptions of animals. As knowledge developed, and as the voyages of exploration brought home vast harvests of unknown creatures, descriptions, however condensed, were seen to be an intolerably cumbersome medium for the communi- 134 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 cation of ideas and especially for comparing one author’s ideas with those of others. Our modern system of naming animals and plants derives from the discovery by the great Swedish naturalist Linnaeus that the function of a name is not to express a description but simply to convey an idea. The taxonomic entities of the genus and the species within the genus having been invented long before, clearly one word would suffice to label each idea. From this came our binominal nomenclature. Latin and Greek then provided the basis for a universal language that might have repaired the sin of Babel, but this was not to be. Nature herself provided enough complexities to puzzle zoologists. For instance, the largest known Old World species of a genus might have been known as ‘maximus’ following a tradition dating back to Aristotle or Pliny. Explorers of the New World might bring back yet larger species of the same genus. A species named ‘primitivus’ in the belief that it represented the prototype of a particular structure might be found, with the development of evolutionary theory and fossil evidence, to display a degenerate state of that structure. Such examples merely illustrate the weakness of using a name as a shorthand description. A less obvious but more serious difficulty may arise from the complex life cycles of animals in certain groups. Linnaeus and many of his successors did not always realize the relationships between the larval and adult stages of a single species, so that different names were given to different forms of what we now know to be one animal. Zoologists compounded such problems by failures of communication between one another. Thus a given genus or species might be given two, three, even ten diffferent names by different authors working in relative ignorance of each other. Some multiple namings reflect nationalist spirit or loyalty to some major author. In this way new Towers of Babel are gratuitously erected. After a number of false starts, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was set up in 1895 to provide a single inter- national set of rules to regulate the prevailing confusion. The first prin- ciple underlying these rules is that of priority—the first name to be published for a genus or species is the one that must be used; or the first use of a name determines its use thereafter. However, it is not always easy to determine when a name was first published or by whom. The care that C.D. Sherborn gave to accuracy on these points is one of the outstanding virtues of his Index Animalium. In many cases the direct application of the principle of priority produces more confusion than stability. This is especially true with species of high economic or social importance when it is found that the name by which they have long been known is not the first to have been given to them. Yet the presence or absence of their name in a report may influence decisions on the expen- diture of vast sums of money by committees of which not one member has any notion of zoology or zoological nomenclature. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 135 Another type of problem—and one that I met early in my own career—arises when what was thought to be a single species—say an agricultural pest—is found to comprise a number of species, not all equally harmful and not all susceptible to the same measures of control. Which of these species must carry the original name? Surely it must be the one that most nearly represents the idea of the original author of the name. But how is this to be ascertained? In such cases the type prin- ciple embodied in the rules drawn up by the Commission provides an answer. The specimen used by the original author, or one chosen among those that he used, must determine the meaning to be given to the name. In some cases this may mean that the important pest species is not that represented by the original specimen (‘holotype’) or by that selected from the original series (‘lectotype’). Clearly a system of rules, though necessary, is not a sufficient answer to the problems encountered by zoologists. Some organisation must be empowered to deliver decisions that are accepted by zoologists because they secure stability in the usage of names, even if the rules have to be suspended for that purpose. Such a body must have international standing, must embrace all fields of zoology and palaeontology, and must work according to known and accepted procedures. Particulars of problems submitted to it must be published, as must its eventual rulings on those problems. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is such a body. Zoology affects human life at almost every conceivable point: pests attack the animals and plants that provide our food or the raw materials of our clothing; other animals may be used to control those pests if they are in turn protected. Wild life must be conserved or the consequences of its destruction understood. Fossil fuels and groundwater can be found only by careful palaeontological studies. In these and many other fields, including notably tropical medicine and hygiene, the scientific names of animals are a vital element in communication and hence in decisions of courses of action. The Commission and its publications provide the rules, the framework. I assure you taxonomists are not dull people—they are almost more varied than their subjects—and one rule now abandoned formerly caused much merriment. It laid down that no name that is ob- scene or likely to give offence should be used. One entomologist working in the Pacific sent in descriptions of new species of insect with unusual specific names like ‘Kissme fetu’. Perhaps this was a place name in Samoa? But as others followed—‘Kissmesala’, ‘Kissmefili—the editor realised to his horror that Fetu, Sala, Fili and others were successive Polynesian girl friends. The editor declined—as the rules allowed—to publish further names in this style—perhaps he was fearful of the combination in the next stage! Less successful was the editor who tried to prevent the publica- tion of a series of names for fleas and other parasites that were those of ancient Greek prostitutes. The eminent lady who was the author of 136 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 these names said it was all in the editor’s mind—the names were those of ancient poets, etc., though these persons bearing the same names were much more obscure than the ladies of ill repute. Regrettably perhaps these problems no longer come to the Com- mission itself—its work is less amusing, but much more vital. It seems strange to me that the international community can spend millions of pounds to launch satellites whereby to talk together, and tens of thousands of pounds on biological programmes that may be frustrated by simple mistakes in taxonomy or nomenclature, and yet the Commission—modest, efficient and self-effacing—is left in need of rela- tively tiny sums. The Commission has an international responsibility; its scope and authority are international; it must have international support. Without it, communications in this vast area of international science will revert to Babel. We hope that the scientific counsellors here tonight will pass this message back to the governments and academies of science, with two objectives in view: — first, that their governments may provide direct support to the Commission: — secondly, that their national delegations may bring pressure to bear on the International Union of Biological Sciences to secure funding from the United National family of organis- ations, among whom FAO, WHO and UNEF are direct customers of the Commission’s service. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 137 FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1982 In 1982, income from the sale of publications was £15,179, an increase of £1,921 compared with the audited figure for 1981 (£13,258). A determined effort was made to collect unpaid subscriptions for copies of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which explains the differ- ence between the unaudited (£6,336) and audited returns (£13,180) for 1981. The last grant of $10,000 was received from IUBS. Other donations in response to the Appeal and Bank Interest brought in £16,317. Total income was £31,496 (£27,294). Salaries and office expenses increased from £14,027 to £17,186, largely because Mr Penrose was employed for three months to assist Mr Melville. Office expenses increased as a result of the Appeal and bad debts written off amounted to £337. The surplus for the year was £14,310 (£13,267). Revenue reserves increased to £56,703 (£38,034). Some £18,359 of reserves have been set aside for the publication of the 3rd Edition of the Code. This includes a repayable interest-free loan of £2,000. Thanks to money brought in by the Appeal and to assistance from the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux which has undertaken to publish, promote and distribute the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature for the next two years, the finances of the Trust are more satisfactory than they have been for several years. (Note that under this arrangement CAB retain any profits on the Bulletin but pay the Trust two sums of £10,000.) Despite improvements in finance, there is no room for com- placency. The Trust is still unable to pay realistic rates to its employees or for its accommodation. It is unlikely that this situation can continue indefinitely. The Appeal for funds from home and abroad must continue, and on its success depends the survival of the Trust and the Commission. F. G. W. JONES Managing Director and Secretary 21st June, 1983. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 138 dd} IWWWIOD JUSWIASeUR Ly IY} JO SINQUIDTA| 6SE SIF 000°7 000°L 6S 6 (peusis) AUMUND ‘a (peusis) LNAM “Ad UBOT 99JJ JSO19}UT spun jsnij, wor suoneiudoiddy suoleuog oyioeds SMO]I[OJ Se dn ape SI sINJY[OUIWION [BOISO[OOZ JO 9pOD [euoNeuUsa}U] IYI JO UONIPY pr¢ oy1 jo Burjutd 10; uoIstAOId ayy *Z ‘panjBA Usaq JOU sey sUOTTROITGN, JO YOOIS IY] | €OL‘9SF 6SE'8I pre'Be Ole rl pEO'be €0L‘9SF 9E6'9 0S9"b 98L'I 6E1°€9 p06°29 p90°6S p78 910° SEz c9s 008 (Z 9JON) UOISIAOIg OYy1Oadg T7861 10} snjding 186] ‘laquisseq 1S] ¢ 18 soURleg AAYASAY ANNAATA SGNNa4 GaLVTANNOOV OURAPY UI PSAIgddy S}JUBUDAOD poysodaq juoujsn{pe yseD pue yueg anp soxe] 1oYyjO pue swosuy IOURAPY UI POATa00y suONdiosqns SIOJIPsIg Aipuns SHILITIGAVIT LNaaaNO pueyY ul pue yueg 1 ysea d[QeIDAOIOY SoXV] 19YyIO pue swWo0dUT sayeS Wo onp sjunowy SLYSSV LNAYaNO uoneiosded payejnunooy :ssaT7 3809 18 [NAWdINO” AOIMAO S.LASSV G4AXId 7861 “MAdWaOd S1¢€ LV SV LAAHS AONVIVE ‘SALON PEO REF 000'rI pEO'bT L9T‘E| L9L‘OI PEO BEF e8I'b Z € LLv‘z 10L‘I LIZ SS6IP SPO'ee 016'8 797 1861 AYNLVIONAWON TYOIDOTOOZ YO LSNUL TVNOILVNYALNI 139 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 s]uRJUNOSOY poaloweyD €86l ‘unr 419 ‘OO ¥ ADOINAVAUD ADTAOW ‘HCE NIOM YopuoT ‘MOY PsIOJPog “19011 SOULS JBIID ‘¢ ‘0861 0} 8h6I SY saruRdUIOD ay YIM Ajdwioo pue ayep yey} UO papuds Ie9A ay} IOJ snjding Bunviodo ay] JO pue ZRG] “J9quiadaq IS|E Ie SIleye JO 9}e}S JY} JO MoIA Jie} PUL INI} B 9AIS UOTJUAUOD sod [BOTIOJSIY 94} Jopun posedaid useq savy YoIYM Jsn1y 34} JO sjuNOSDY ay} UOTUIdO INO UT SUOLIGNV AHL AO LYOdda Ole PIF LAAHS AONV TV LOT EIF 0} poles YVAA AHL YOd SNTd ANS 98 ILI — L70'PI — 97 LNaWdInda AOId4O AO NOILVIOdNdda 67 ogs‘s SNOILLVOITENd 107'S 4O NOLLAGIYLSIG GNV DNILNIMd LEE SLdd GVd YOsd NOISIAOUd — SZI qqd LIGNV STI 8SS‘Z SASNad Xd AIO POL‘ 019'8 SNOLLAIYLNOO 8969 TN CNV SAIUV IVS :8927 96h IE p67 LZ ZS6'r LSAYALNI YNVE 6L8'I 90¢'7 INVNAAOD JO Sassd 0Z B9I's GNNA TVdddV = 16L‘€ SNOILLVNOG LEVI 6L rs | . SSTE I ——— L67 suotuldO Z £6 S}SIT [BIOYJO bb L agpoD [euoneussj}uy] ZE 78L‘vl dINje[SUSWION [BoIsO[OOZ Jo uNa|[ng OSI‘€I SNOLLVOITENd AO AVS 1861 7861 ‘WAGWAOAC I1€ GAGNA UVAA AHL AOA LNNOOOV AWMNLIGNAd xa GNV AWOONI FAUNLVIONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YOA LSNUL TYVNOILLVNUYALNI 140 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 NOMENCLATURE OF ORGANISMS CONSIDERED BY SOME TO BE ANIMALS AND BY OTHERS TO BE PLANTS OR BACTERIA. Z.N.(G.)193 The following report, presented by Dr W. D. L. Ride to the XXI General Assembly of IUBS at Ottawa in 1982, outlines the nomencla- tural problems that arise in the study of organisms that may be treated as both plants and animals. It was published in Biology International No. 6, pp. 15-16 (December 1982) and is here reprinted by kind per- mission of the Executive Secretary of IUBS. R.V.M. Nomenclature of Organisms Treated both as Plants and Animals. Chairman: Professor W. D. L. Ride (Canberra College of Advanced Education, School of Applied Science, P.O.B.1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616 Australia) A number of species of unicellular eukaryotic organisms are treated in both botanical and zoological nomenclature. Because the rules governing nomenclature in botany and zoology are different, such organ- isms may be known by different names in the literature, concurrently. In recent years, particularly in botany, a solution has been attempted to deal with the problem, for names at any rate, by conserving individual names acceptable in zoology under the botanical Code (see Silva, 1980, Taxon, vol. 29, pp. 121-143). The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature also pro- gresses towards meeting the problem by giving names of algae, first established as those of animals, priority from the date that they are established under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Bot. Code Art. 45.4). This concession does not apply to myxomycetes, also sometimes treated as animals. The Third Edition of the Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature will require that for a name of an organism, first classified as a plant, to be acceptable under the zoo- logical Code it must be validly published under the botanical Code as well. Despite these concessions, there are fundamental differences in the operation of the Codes that make the treatment of names different under the two Codes depending on which Code is used by the worker to determine the ‘right name’ for a taxon. For instance, the concept in zoology that names are coordinated within each of the family group, genus group, and species groups (i.e., that a name established at any rank in one of the groups is simultaneously established at all other ranks in that group), as compared with the rule in botany that names at any rank compete for priority only with names established at that rank (including names established as autonyms), results in a fundamentally different approach to the Principle of Priority in the two Codes. Similarly, the concept in botany that different combinations formed by several generic names and the same specific name are different names, while in zoology Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 141 when such combinations involve the allocation of the same specific epi- thet to different genera they are regarded only as different combinations, not different names, produces a different approach to the Principle of Homonymy. Different approaches to the substitution of preoccupied names, and to the correction of incorrect spellings, also result in names being correct under one Code and not the other (see examples in Silva, op. cit.). Different starting points in the two Codes (1 May 1753 in botany, for relevant organisms; | January 1758 in zoology) and the fact that a name may be invalid (=incorrect, botany) because preoccupied under one Code and not under the other, results in different usages (also see examples in Silva, op. cit.). Possible solutions 1. Ecumenical approach: A possible (but probably utopian) sol- ution would be to unify the Codes. However, the differences are so fun- damental and have been established for so long that the change would result in a considerable number of name changes in both kingdoms. For instance, Brummitt and Greuter have independently estimated that some 15-20% of the names given to infraspecific taxa of Spermatophyta would have to be changed if the botanical Code adopted the coordinate concept of the zoological Code (Greuter and Voss, 1982, Englera, vol. 2, pp. 23, 4). However, it is likely that some changes could be made to the Codes that, while producing little effect on the question of the cor- rectness of names under the two Codes, might make things a little easier for those who have to use the products of the two Codes such as bio- logists working in fields such as ecology and biological survey, and for the editors of their writings, who are faced by different conventions in the citation of authorship and the use of parentheses. 2. Case-by-case approach: Silva (op. cit.) has demonstrated the use of this approach to names at the generic level. Until a detailed study of the problem reveals the number of names requiring treatment to achieve uniformity, it is not possible to decide whether the approach is feasible. It is clear that the decision by the International Botanical Con- gress (Sydney, 1982) to admit the conservation of specific names in botany (although limited to species of major economic importance) will enable a greater uniformity to be achieved piecemeal than has been pos- sible hitherto. However, for anything effective to be achieved by such a procedure, coordinated action would be required under both Codes. 3. Separate Code: A solution might be to follow the lead of the bacteriologists and to establish a new and separate Code for all protists that would be more suited to the solution of nomenclatural problems in microscopic organisms and to achieve stability and uniformity in their names. Both Codes are currently more suited to the treatment (especially in requirements for typification) of macroscopic organisms and those 142 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 that can be identified by gross morphological criteria; but in recent years the responsible organizations have discussed amendments to make both more suited to the needs of microbiologists (see Taxon, vol. 28, p. 428; vol. 30, pp. 102, 3; Englera, vol. 2, pp. 34-40; Bull. Zool. Nomencl., vol. 34, pp. 173, vol. 35, pp. 200-208, vol. 36, pp. 17-21, vol. 37, pp. 199, 212). Even if a separate Code is considered undesirable, it is clear from these discussions that a joint approach to the problems of descrip- tion and typification of protists would be desirable. 4. Arbitrary allocation: Jeffrey (1982, Kew Bull., vol. 37, pp. 403—416—in press) has proposed that the problem might be met by the arbitrary allocation to the different Codes of those taxa of Protista that are customarily the primary concern of botanists (as ‘Divisions’) or of zoologists (as ‘Phyla’). In this proposition, the following Phyla would be the responsibility of the zoological Code, the remainder would come under the botanical Code: Phylum Ciliophora Opalinida Cnidosporidia Apicomplexa (Sporozoa) Caryoblastea Rhizopodata Foraminifera Radiolariata (Acantharia, Polycystia, Phaedoria) Heliozoata Porifera The feasibility and attractiveness of this proposition would depend, to a great extent, upon the way in which workers are distributed among the taxa. If most workers on Protista confine themselves to one or other of these arbitrary groupings, the proposition would solve the problem; but if many would have to use two Codes, it is unlikely that the benefit would be sufficient to make the proposition worth while. Recommendation It is recommended that the Executive Committee of [UBS should refer the alternatives considered in this paper to the IUBS Sections on Zoological Nomenclature and Plant Taxonomy with a request that the Sections establish a joint committee to study them with a view to making recommendations to the International Commission on Zoological No- menclature and the Section on Nomenclature of the International Bot- anical Congress. Acknowledgement This minute was prepared following discussions with R. K. Brummitt, C. Jeffrey, Hj. Eichler, R. V. Melville, D. H. Nicolson and C. W. Sabrosky. It is presented with the concurrence of N. Grobbelaar. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 143 Ref. IUBS General Assembly Resolution 8 (Helsinki): Names of organ- isms common to botanical and zoological nomenclature. The presentation of this report led to the following resolution being adopted by the Ottawa General Assembly: RESOLUTION 5: COMMON APPROACHES TO BIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONVINCED of the need to achieve greater harmony in the codes governing different systems of biological nomenclature, CONSIDERING the recommendations following from the Resolution of the XX General Assembly on the Names of Organisms common to Botanical and Zoological Nomenclature, RECEIVING a Resolution of the International Congress of Systematic Bacteriology seeking an integrated approach to com- mon problems of nomenclature among Botanists, Bacteriolo- gists, Virologists and Zoologists, RESOLVES to request the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature and the Commission on the Nomencla- ture of Plants to establish a joint committee to examine alternative solutions to achieving a universal system of names for protists, and to invite organizations responsible for nomenclature of bacteria and viruses to participate. The Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, with the agreement of Professor Edward Voss, Secretary of the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature, established a Committee on the Nomenclature of Protists with the following member- ship: Professor John O. Corliss, University of Maryland, for this Com- mission; Dr Paul Silva, University of California Berkeley, for the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature; Dr Bronislaw Honigberg, University of Massachusetts, for the In- ternational Commission on Protozoology; Dr David Hawksworth, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, U.K., for the International Mycological Association; Dr L. R. Hill, Central Public Health Laboratories, London, for the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology; Dr F. Brown, Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, U.K., for the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. 144 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 The Chairman/Secretary will be Professor John Corliss and most of the work will probably have to be by correspondence. The Committee will report to the XXII General Assembly of IUBS at Budapest in 1985. R. V. Melville July, 1983 Another paper that bears on this subject has recently been pub- lished. The following extract from ‘Consequences of Creating new King- doms of Animals’ by John O. Corliss, Bioscience, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 314-318, copyright © 1983 by the American Institute of Biological Sci- ences, is reprinted by permission of the Institute, to which acknowledge- ments are due. RESOLUTION OF CODE-RELATED NOMENCLATURAL PROBLEMS There are a number of possible options available to solve the obvious taxonomic-nomenclatural problems arising from any new multi- kingdom arrangement of the biotic world (specifically, expansion from two to three or more kingdoms within the superkingdom Eukaryota). I am indebted to Ride (1982) for his mention of four possible solutions or approaches listed in a brief report (on nomenclature of organisms treated as both plants and animals) delivered in August 1982 before the 21st General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences (UBS). But, in the critical discussion below, I have modified Ride’s points somewhat to accord with my own views on the subject. A Single Unified Code This has been called the ‘ecumenical approach’. Cavalier-Smith (1978) urged its production several years ago. But the unlikelihood of its success stems from the large number of major and minor changes that would have to be effected in the present international codes of botanical and zoological nomenclature alone to bring it into being. Such revisions, especially if retroactive, would obviously wreak havoc on hundreds of past actions taken by taxonomic botanists and zoologists. Nomenclatur- ists from both groups already experience difficulty enough agreeing among themselves (working within a single code) without being exposed to the challenge of a truly ecumenical approach! Yet, ideally, this propo- sal probably represents the best solution as a long-term goal. Some bio- logists are even thinking (perhaps quite naively?) that the single nomen- clatural code could embrace the prokaryotes as well (i.e., incorporate provisions suitably substituting for rules comprising the present /nter- national Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria). Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 145 New and Separate Codes for Every Eukaryotic Kingdom For the Protista, this would mean a code tailored to the needs of taxonomists working (mainly) with algae and protozoa, typically unicellular microorganisms whose lower taxa do present problems sometimes poorly resolved by the conventional botanical and zoological rules. Still, many of its provisions would or should be identical to those already present in the two relevant existing codes, which almost brings us back full circle to the preceding proposal. Phycologists who have faithfully followed the botanical code would hardly agree to major changes, and the same could be said of protozoologists trained originally as zoologists and thus nurtured on the zoological code. Furthermore, until protistologists, a hybrid group themselves, can agree on the exact composition and boundaries of their newly revived kingdom, they can hardly decide what groups of species should be transferred from their former nomenclatural jurisdictions to a new code. Nevertheless, this sol- ution may some day be feasible and justifiable. And it has an undeniable ‘pioneering’ appeal. Harmonizing Existing Codes on a Case-by-Case Basis From a pragmatic and short-range approach, at least, this idea has much in its favour. Botanists, at their recent International Botanical Congress held in Sydney, Australia, have already taken some steps in this direction, proposing emendations or modifications in provisions of their code that permit recognition of certain names accepted under the zoological code (see Silva, 1980). To be successful on a large scale, how- ever, as Ride (1982) points out, coordinated action would be required under both codes, returning us nearly to the ecumenical approach dis- cussed under the first proposition. But the proposal should be further pursued by everyone involved, and in a cooperative and constructive way. It is unclear whether the bacterial code is implicated here. I foresee great difficulties, however, in bridging the gap between the great super- kingdoms Prokaryota and Eukaryota—nomenclaturally and taxonomi- cally. Arbitrary Allocation to Existing Codes Taxa within any newly established eukaryotic kingdom might be allocated to jurisdiction under one or the other of the two existing codes. Both Cavalier-Smith (1981) and Jeffrey (1982) have formally made this proposal. But, to me, this appears to be the weakest of all possible sol- utions. It flies in the face of now-recognised basic interrelationships among many protist groups, and it is a backward step since, in effect, it contradicts some major classificatory points that various protistolo- gists are trying to make. For example, numerous high-level groups of protists are more closely related to each other than they are to groups within either one of the two kingdoms with which they have been tradi- tionally associated; various algal assemblages are phylogenetically closer 146 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 to certain protozoan taxa than they are to other conventional algal groups; and, similarly, some protozoa are more like algae than protozoa in the traditional sense. The same could be said, on a less grand scale, for protist relationships of the so-called lower fungi (the essentially unicellular aquatic forms with flagellated stages in their life cycles). The whole raison d’étre of recognising a kingdom Protista is to unite great masses of taxonomically similar organisms (> 120,000 species) within a single group phylogenetically set apart from plants and animals. Arbitrarily insisting that subgroups of such microorganisms, often formerly called ‘phyla’ by chance, must be treated as ‘minianimals’ nomenclaturally (simply because ‘phylum’ is a zoological term) and sub- groups called ‘divisions’ must ipso facto be considered ‘miniplants’ (since ‘division’ is a botanical category), denies completely—and irrationally—taxonomic distinctness of the protists sensu lato as a kingdom in their own right. Furthermore, such a proposal appears to totally ignore the fact that many identical species of unicellular forms are included simultaneously in high-level taxa called divisions by some practising biologists and phyla by others. To me, therefore, this highly arbitrary fourth suggestion, which at best maintains the status quo, is hardly a practicable option. A soon-to-be-appointed, broadly based committee of the [UBS will be expected to study these problems. It may propose additional sol- utions beyond the few discussed here. The committee might be well ad- vised to pay particular attention to the third proposition above (modification of the codes on a case-by-case basis) because its appli- cation could bring swift relief to students of such a group as the dinofla- gellates, long plagued as these researchers have been by the impossible task of complying with provisions of two different codes at the same time. In the long run, however, some compromise along the lines of the first or second proposition will probably have to be reached. COMPOSITION OF KINGDOM PROTISTA Consideration of any resolution to the taxonomic-nomenclatural problems that are seldom realised by many zoologists or botanists to even exist requires some appreciation of the overall composition of such a ‘new’ (unconventional) eukaryotic kingdom as the Protista or the Protoctista, as some prefer. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 147 OPINION 1256 SOREX DSINEZUMI TEMMINCK, 1843 (MAMMALIA, INSECTIVORA): RULED TO BE A CORRECT ORIGINAL SPELLING RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the spelling dsinezymi Temminck, as published in the binomen Sorex dsinezumi, is the correct original spelling of the name of the species figured by Temminck in 1843 with the names Sorex kinezumiand Sorex kinczumi. (3) The names kinezumi Temminck, 1843 and kinczumi Tem- minck, 1843, as published in binominal combinations with the generic Numbers 1122 and 1123 respectively. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2224 An application for the conservation of the name Sorex dzinezumi Temminck, 1844, and to rule it a correct original spelling dating from 1843 was first received from Dr G. B. Corbet (British Museum (Natural DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)23 Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following or- der: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Savage, Uéno, Willink, 148 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 Sabrosky, Corliss, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Cogger, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes—none (0). Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. Dupuis observed: ‘Ce cas est identique au cas 635 (Opinion 1261); c’est celui d’une graphie prioritaire erronée qu’1l faut corriger (et qu’il faudrait pouvoir corriger automatiquement).’ 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: dsinezumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1844, Apercu gén. spéc. mamm. Japon, part 2, p. 26 kinczumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1843, Aper¢cu gén. spéc. mamm. Japon. part 1, pl. 4, figs c, c kinezumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1843, Apercu, gén. spéc. mamm. Japon, part 1, pl. 5, fig. 3. (Temminck’s work formed part of Siebold, 1833-1850, Fauna Japo- nica.) CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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. 1256. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 April 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 149 OPINION 1257 TIPULA FERRUGINEA FABRICIUS, 1805 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name fer- ruginea Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Tipula ferruginea, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name ferruginea Fabricius, 1805, as published in the binomen Tipula ferruginea, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2866. (3) The specific name ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Tipula ferruginea, 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 1124. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2255 An application for the conservation of the junior primary homonym Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 was first received from Professor George W. Byers (Department of Entomology, University of Kansas) on 19 March 1978. It was sent to the printer on 23 March 1979 and published on | July 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 40-41. 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 seven general and seven entomological serials. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)31 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, p. 41. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Savage, Uéno, Willink, Sabrosky, Schuster, Halvorsen, Corliss, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Dupuis, Cocks, Starobogatov, Heppell, Bayer, Ride Negative Votes—none (0). Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder, Brinck, Cogger and Lehtinen. Holthuis voted ‘for, if to para 4(1) of the application is added “and all uses of this name prior to the publication of Tipula ferruginea 150 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 Fabricius, 1805”. The suppression of T. ferruginea Scopoli 1763 alone for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy would make Tipula ferrug- inea Villers, 1789 a senior primary homonym of Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805.’ This comment was taken into account in drafting the present ruling. 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: ferruginea, Tipula, Scopoli, 1763, Entomol. carniolica, p. 321 ferruginea, Tipula Fabricius, 1805, Syst. antliat., p. 28. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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. 1257. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 April 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 151 OPINION 1258 OCHTHERA EXSCULPTA LOEW, 1862 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PLACED ON OFFICIAL LIST RULING:— (1) The neotype designated for Ochthera exsculpta Loew, 1862 by Clausen, 1977, is hereby suppressed. (2) The specific name exsculpta Loew, 1862, as published in the binomen Ochthera exsculpta, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2867 and with an endorsement that the name is to be interpreted by reference to the holotype of the species. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2256 An application from Dr Philip J. Clausen (Department of Ento- mology, Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota) for the sup- pression of the neotype that he had designated for Ochthera exsculpta Loew, 1862, was first received on 13 March 1978. It was sent to the printer on 23 March 1979 and published on 1 July 1979 in Bull. zool Nom., vol. 36, pp. 42-43. No use of the plenary powers was entailed. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)32 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 42-43. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Mroczkowski, Uéno, Willink, Sabrosky, Schuster, Halvorsen, Corliss, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Dupuis, Starobogatov, Bayer, Cogger, Heppell (in part), Ride Negative Votes—none (0). Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Dupuis: ‘Excellent exemple du danger des néotypes!” Heppell: ‘I do not accept that the cancellation of an invalid neo- type designation is grounds for placing on the Official List any name for which no nomenclatural uncertainties have been demonstrated. As the holotype is shown to be extant no action by the Commission is required to prevent taxonomic confusion between QO. exsculpta and O. 152 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 loreta. | therefore vote for the proposal to suppress the neotype designa- tion but against the proposal to place the specific name exsculpta on the Official List.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: exsculpta, Ochthera, Loew, 1862, Monographs Diptera North America, part 1, Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 6, p. 160. The following is the reference to a neotype designation suppressed by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Clausen, P. J., 1977, Trans. amer. entomol. Soc., vol. 103, p. 496. CER PIBICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)32 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. 1258. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 April 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 153 OPINION 1259 OG YGIOCARIS ANGELIN, 1854 AND OG YGITES TROMELIN & LEBESCONTE, 1876 (TRILOBITA): CONSERVED RULING:— (1) Under the plenary powers (a) The generic name Ogygia Brongniart, 1817, is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) all designations of type species hitherto made for the two nominal genera named in column (i) below are hereby set aside and the nominal species named in column (ii) below are designated as their type species: (i) (ii) Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854 Trilobus dilatatus Briinnich, (gender: feminine) 1781 Ogygites Tromelin & Ogygia desmaresti Brongniart Lebesconte, 1876 in Brongniart & Desmarest, (gender: masculine) 1822 (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Trilobus dilatatus Briinnich, 1781 (Name Number 2198); (b) Ogygites Tromelin & Lebesconte, 1876 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Ogygia desmaresti Brongniart, in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 (Name Number 2199). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) dilatatus Briinnich, 1781, as published in the binomen Trilo- bus dilatatus (specific name of type species of Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854) (Name Number 2868); (b) desmaresti Brongniart, in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 as published in the binomen Ogygia desmaresti (specific name of type species of Ogygites Tromelin & Lebesconte, 1876 (Name Number 2869). (4) The family-group name OGYGIOCARIDINAE (correction by Jaanusson, 1959, of OGYGIOCARINAE) Raymond, 1913 (type genus Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names with the Name Number 556. (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 154 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 (a) Ogygia Brongniart, 1817, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above (Name Number 2135); (b) Ogygia Hiibner, [1821], a junior homonym of Ogygia Brong- niart, 1817 (Name Number 2136). (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) OGYGINAE Raymond, 1913 (invalid because the name of its type genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) (Name Number 495); (b) OGYGIOCARINAE Raymond, 1913 (an incorrect original spelling of OGYGIOCARIDINAE) (Name Number 496). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)439 An application for the suppression of the generic name Ogygia Brongniart, 1817 (Trilobita) was first prepared by Mr F. Hemming (then Secretary to the Commission) 1n July 1949 on the mistaken premise that that name threatened the well-known trilobite generic name Asaphus Brongniart, 1822, as a senior synonym; and because it threatened the lepidopteran generic name Ogygia Hubner, [1821] as a senior homo- nym. That application, however, was never published in the Bull. zool. Nom. In December 1951 an application dealing with the trilobite aspects of the case was received from Dr Marvin J. Weller (University of Chicago) but this too was never published. In March 1979 I wrote to Sir James Stubblefield FRS (35 Kent Avenue, Ealing, London W13 8BE) who had advised Mr Hemming on the case in 1949. The result of this was that an application was prepared by Dr G. Henningsmoen (Palaeontologisk Museum, University of Oslo), Dr V. Jaanusson (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm), Dr I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Sir James Stubblefield, sent to the printer on | August 1979 and published on 18 February 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 226-230. Dr Nye was responsible for the presentation of the lepidopteran aspects of the case. 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 seven general serials and two palaeontological serials. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)33 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 155 229-230. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski (in part), Uéno, Willink, Sabrosky, Schuster, Halvorsen, Corliss, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Savage, Hahn, Cocks, Dupuis, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No voting papers wee returned by Binder, Cogger and Lehtinen. Mroczkowski voted ‘for, except (5)(b), the proposal to place Oxygia Hiibner, [1821], Verz. bekannt. Schmett., signature 15, p. 225 as a valid name in the Lepidoptera; and (1)(a), this proposal should be to suppress Ogygia Brongniart for the purposes of both priority and homonymy.’ Dr Nye pointed out, however, that Yigoga Nye, 1975, the replacement name for Ogygia Hiibner, has come into use in the British, French and Spanish literature and perhaps in other countries as well. 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: desmaresti, Ogygia Brongniart in Desmarest & Brongniart, 1822, Hist. nat. Crust., p. 28 dilatatus, Trilobus, Briinnich, 1781, Nye Sammi. k. dansk. Skr., vol. 1, p. 393 Ogygia Brongniart, 1817, in Desmarest Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (2nd edition), vol. 8, p. 516 Oxygia Hiibner, [1821], Verz. bekannt. Schmett., signature 15, p. 225 OGYGINAE Raymond, 1913, Bull. Victoria Mem. Mus. No. l, p. 41 OGYGIOCARIDINAE Raymond, 1913, in Eastman-Zittel, Textbook of Paleontology, p. 718. OGYGIOCARINAE Raymond, 1913, in Eastman-Zittel, Textbook of Paleontology, p. 718. Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854, Pdlaeont. Scand., p. 92 Ogygites Tromelin & Lebesconte, 1876, C.R. Assoc. Jr. Ady. sci., for 1875. p: 633. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.T.(82)33 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 156 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1259. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 April 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 157 OPINION 1260 ORTHUNGA DOHRN, 1859 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): ADDED TO OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) The generic name Orthunga Dohrn, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Emesa wahlbergi Stal, 1855, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2200. (2) The specific name wahlbergi Stal, 1855, as published in the binomen Emesa wahlbergi (specific name of type species of Orthunga Dohrn, 1859) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2870. (3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Iccius Dohrn, 1859, rendered invalid in relation to Orthunga Dohrn, 1859, by the first-reviser action of Wygodzinsky, 1966 (Name Number 2137); (b) Jcecius Dohrn, 1859, rendered an incorrect original spelling by the first-reviser action of Melville, herein (Name Number 2138). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1767 An application to conserve the generic name Orthunga Dohrn, 1859 was first received from Dr P. Wygodzinsky (American Museum of Natural History, New York) on 7 July 1966. It was sent to the printer on 8 November 1966 and published on 6 March 1967 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 24, pp. 39-40. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 9 January 1969 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1969)7 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 24, p. 40. At the close of the voting period on 9 April 1969 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes —twenty-one (21) received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Obruchey, Vokes, Forest, Evans, Jaczewski, Simpson, do Amaral, Uchida, Bonnet, Binder, Mertens, Kraus, Alvarado, Starobogatov, Sabrosky (in part), Tortonese Negative Votes — none (0). Melville abstained. Brinck returned a late affirmative vote. No voting papers were returned by Munroe and Ride. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: 158 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 Holthuis: “No action by the Commission is required here since Orthunga is the valid name and Jccius an objective synonym. But no harm is done by placing these two names on the Official List and Official Index as requested.’ Eisenmann: ‘It seems to me that Dohrn, 1859, in his Emendanda et Corrigenda might be considered to be the first reviser. In any event, Article 23b also results in preferring Orthunga.’ Melville: ‘Surely this should be a plenary powers case? If Iccius Champion, 1886, is to be rescued, it is not enough to treat Jccius Dohm, 1859, as a nomen oblitum since Article 23b does not apply to homo- nyms. The voting paper should be withdrawn. New proposals for dealing with Jccius Dohrn should be prepared and submitted to Wygodzinsky & Hussey for their approval.’ Simpson: ‘On evidence submitted Orthunga is valid under the Code. No suspension is needed and no objection arises to placing the name on the Official List.’ Sabrosky: “Use of the first-reviser rule made it unnecessary to bring Orthunga to the Commission. Page precedence (cited in the applicants’ paragraph 6) is not binding. However Jccius as a properly proposed name has standing under the Code and its suppression for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy will require use of the plen- ary powers, not mentioned in the application and not supported by evidence.’ SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE After the voting had been completed the file was put on one side while the problems concerning Article 23b and nomina oblita were being resolved. The case was then overlooked. In 1977 I asked Dr I. W. B. Nye to prepare an Opinion. This led to a difference of view between us as to the relative status of Jccius and Orthunga which was referred to the Council in February 1983. The question then to be decided was whether Dohrn could be considered to have been his own first reviser, even though his Emendanda et Corrigenda had been published simul- taneously with the rest of the Catalogus Hemipterorum, or whether that role could only be filled by a subsequent author (in this case Wygodzinsky, 1966). Council took the view that the latter was the correct position to adopt. I thereupon prepared the present Opinion. THE STATUS OF JCCIUS DOHRN, 1859 In proposing Orthunga, Dohrn, 1859, p. 105, said: ‘Seite 52 statt Jccius Dohrn: Orthunga Dohrn.’ The status of Jccius has never been considered. Clearly it is one of two original spellings, /ccius and Jccius, and as such is susceptible to first reviser action. I now act as first reviser Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 159 and declare that Jccius Dohrn, 1859 is the correct original spelling and Jccius the incorrect original spelling. 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: Iccius Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, p. 52 Jccius Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, p. 105 Orthunga Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, p. 105 wahlbergi, Emesa, Stal, 1855, Ofvers. k. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl., vol. LZ p.4S: The following are the original references to first reviser actions accepted in the present Opinion: for Orthunga vis-a-vis Iccius, Wygodzinsky, 1966, Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 133, p. 146; for Iccius vis-a-vis Jccius, p. 148 herein. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(69)7 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 Number 1260. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 April 1983 160 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 OPINION 1261 CHUANGIA WALCOTT, 1911, CONSERVED; SHANTUNGIA WALCOTT, 1905, ADDED TO OFFICIAL LIST (TRILOBITA) RULING:—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) The generic name Schantungia Lorenz, 1906, is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Chuangia Walcott, 1911, are hereby set aside and Ptychoparia? batia Walcott, 1905 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) Chuangia Walcott, 1911 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Ptycho- paria? batia Walcott, 1905 (Name Number 2201); (b) Shantungia Walcott, 1905 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Shantungia spinifera Walcott, 1905 (a correct original spelling by the first reviser action of Lochman Balk & Stubblefield, 1983) (Name Number 2202). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Offi- cial List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci- fied: (a) batia Walcott, 1905, as published in the binomen Prycho- paria? batia (specific name of type species of Chuangia Walcott, 1911) (Name Number 2871); (b) spinifera Walcott, 1905, as published in the binomen Shan- tungia spinifera (specific name of type species of Shantungia Walcott, 1905) (Name Number 2872). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Schantungia Lorenz, 1906, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above (Name Number 2139); (b) Shangtungia Walcott, 1905, an incorrect original spelling by virtue of the first reviser action of Lochman Balk & Stubblefield, 1983 (Name Number 2140). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)635 An application concerning the generic names Chuangia and Shantungia was first received from Dr J. Marvin Weller and Dr Christina Lochman (University of Chicago) on 6 December 1951. That application was never published and the case lapsed until Sir James Stubblefield FRS (35 Kent Avenue, Ealing, London W13 8BE) revived Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 161 it in a letter received on 16 July 1979. This led to a fresh application being prepared by Dr Christina Lochman Balk (now of Geology Depart- ment, Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico 87801) and Sir James Stubblefield, with which the name of the late Dr Weller was associated. This was sent to the printer on 23 January 1980 and published on 8 May 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 63-64. 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, to seven general serials and two palaeontological serials. A comment by Dr W. T. Chang, and Dr P. A. Jell (Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chin-Ming-Ssu, Nanjing, China) added pertinent information not previously brought out. It was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 5. No adverse comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)34 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 63-64, taking note of the additional information in vol. 39, p. 5. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Uéno, Mroczkowski, Willink, Sabrosky (in part), Corliss, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn (in part), Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Cogger, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Welch returned a late affirmative vote. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their votes: Sabrosky: ‘I vote against proposal (4)(b). Walcott, 1913, is not a first reviser. I have carefully examined that publication and the spelling Shantungia is used consistently, with no mention of Shangtungia. This and other publications certainly indicate that Shantungia was the orig- inally intended spelling, but it will have to have been chosen by another reviser, or adopted by the applicants (if no one preceded them), or under plenary powers if Howell & Moore are first revisers for Shangtungia.’ [This comment was referred to the applicants who promptly prepared a note in which they acted as first revisers strictly in the terms of Article 24a(i) of the Code. This was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, p. 70.] Hahn: ‘| agree to the part dealing with Chuangia. In Shantungia =Shangtungia I see no need for the Commission to act. Walcott, 162 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 1911, was the first revising author and with this, according to Article 32b, the spelling is fixed.’ [In 1911, Smiths. misc. Colls., vol. 57(4), p. 72, Walcott wrote: ‘Shantungia Walcott, 1905=Shantungia Walcott’. He may have intended to write ‘Shangtungia= Shantungia’ but he did not do so and his action cannot be counted as that of a first reviser.] Dupuis: ‘Pour les mémes raisons que dans le cas de Sorex dsine- zumi (Opinion 1256) je vote pour la proposition dans son ensemble. Je demande, toutefois, que les noms Schantungia Lorenz, 1906 et Shang- tungia Walcott, 1905 soient supprimés a la fois quant a la priorité et quant a l’homonymie. En effet. quelque simpliste et vicieuse que soit la définition de l’homonymie dans le Code, il ne fait aucun doute, conformément a l’idée de Walcott, 1911, que ces noms soient étymo- logiquement de parfaits homonymes de Shantungia Walcott, 1905.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: batia, Ptychoparia? Walcott, 1905, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 29(1415), pp. 75-76 Chuangia Walcott, 1911, Smiths. misc. Colls., vol. 57(4), p. 72 Schantungia Lorenz, 1906, Z. deutsch. geol. Ges., vol. 58(1), p. 79 Shangtungia Walcott, 1905, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 29(1415), p. 87 Shantungia Walcott, 1905, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 29(1415), p. 87 spinifera, Shantungia, Walcott, 1905, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 29(1415) pp. 87-88. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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 Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1261. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 April 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 163 ASTACILLA CORDINER, 1793 (CRUSTACEA, ISOPODA): PROPOSED NOMENCLATURAL VALIDATION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.((S.)2319 By Brian Kensley (National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) The authorship of the well-known isopod generic name Astacilla is usually given as ‘Cordiner’, with a variety of dates, e.g. 1788, 1793, 1795, which differ because of the difficulty in dating Cordiner’s work. Over 30 species have been assigned to this genus. The name has been accepted by such authorities as Sars, 1899; Koehler, 1911; Nordenstam, 1933; Barnard, 1940; Hale, 1946; Menzies & Glynn, 1968; and Naylor, 1972. 2. Cordiner’s work carries the date 1788 on the title page and in- cludes a plate (numbered 85 in manuscript in the copy I have examined) dated 1793, and accompanying comments on ‘very lively species of little lobsters’ which he referred to as “Astacillae’ (signature Ff). The quite accurate figure is undoubtedly of the species known as Astacilla longi- cornis (J. Sowerby, 1805, p. 31), but no specific name was introduced by Cordiner. 3. As the generic name Astacilla was published originally as a Latin plural in English text, it does not meet the requirements of Article 11f of the Code, which stipulates that genus-group names must be nouns in the nominative singular or treated as such. Therefore ‘Astacillae Cordiner, 1793’ is unavailable and its usage as shown in the first para- graph is illegal. 4. Johnston, 1825, dealing with the same species, instituted the new genus Leacia for it and stated unequivocally “This is a new genus’ (p. 220). He proceeded to give a description of a new species, Leacia lacertosa, but this is the same as Oniscus longicornis J. Sowerby, 1805, p. 31. The name Leacia has not been used since and it has been relegated to the synonymy of Astacilla by various authors (see Sars, 1899, p. 88; Harger, 1880, p. 363) possibly because of its similarity to Leachia Lesueur, 1821, the cephalopod mollusc. 5. Fleming, 1830, discussed the confusion that had already arisen over the name Astacilla, quoting from both Johnston’s and Sowerby’s descriptions, and this constitutes the first available use of the generic name. Fleming, 1830, p. 108, redescribed Sowerby’s Oniscus longicornis and assigned it, along with Jdotea baffini Sabine, to the genus Astacilla. These are therefore the two species first referred to the genus. Fleming did not designate a type species, and no subsequent designation is known to me. I therefore now designate Oniscus longicornus J. Sowerby, 1805, as type species. 164 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 6. As more than 30 species have been described under the generic name Astacilla, much confusion would result from its replacement by the unused name Leacia Johnston, as would be required by strict application of the Code. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that Astacilla is the correct original spelling of the name published as ‘Astacillae’ by Cordiner, 1793; (2) to place the generic name Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation herein, Oniscus lon- gicornis J. Sowerby, 1805, as nomenclaturally validated by the use of the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name Jongicornis J. Sowerby, 1805, as published in the binomen QOniscus longicornis (specific name of type species of Astacilla Cordiner, 1793) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BARNARD, K. M. 1940. Ann. South African Mus. vol. 32, pp. 381-543. CORDINER, C. 1793. Remarkable ruins and romantic prospects, of North Britain. With ancient monuments and singular subjects of natural history. 96 pls with letterpress. London, Mazell. FLEMING, J. 1830. Q. J. Sci. Lit. Art. for 1830, pp. 104-110. HALE, H. M. 1946. Rep. B.A.N.Z. Antarctica Res. Exped. 1929-1931, Ser. B., vol. 5, pp. 163-212. HARGER, O. 1880. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fisheries, part 6, Rep. Commissioner for 1878, pp. 297-462. JOHNSTON, G. 1825. Edinburgh Philos. J. vol. 13, pp. 218-222. KOEHLER, R. 1911. Bull. Inst. Océanogr. vol. 214, pp. 1-65. LESUEUR, C. A. 1821. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 2, pp. 86-101. NAYLOR, E. 1972. Synopsis of the British Fauna, n.s. vol. 3, pp. 1-86. NORDENSTAMM, A. 1933. Further zoological results Swedish Antarctic Exped. vol. 3 (1), pp. 1-284. SARS, G. O. 1899. An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, part 2, lsopoda. Bergen. SOWERBY, J. 1805. The British Miscellany, part 4. London. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere thanks are due to Drs F. M. Bayer, T. E. Bowman and L. B. Holthuis for their comments and advice in the preparation of this proposal. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 165 HYLA FEMORALIS CHR YSOSCELIS COPE, 1880 (AMPHIBIA, ANURA): REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE. Z.N.A(S.)2366 By Hobart M. Smith, Kevin T. Fitzgerald & Louis J. Guillette, Jr. (Department of EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.) Over the past 44 years extensive research by many observers and experimental biologists has documented the previously unsuspected co- existence in much of the eastern United States of two extremely similar, hence cryptic, species of treefrog, one diploid, the other tetraploid. It has recently been discovered (Fitzgerald, Smith & Guillette, 1981, J. Herpetol., vol. 15, pp. 356-360) that the name that has become univer- sally accepted over the past 20 years for the diploid species, Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (originally as Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. no. 17, p. 29) is based upon a holotype representing the tetraploid species Hyla versicolor Le Conte, 1825. It is the purpose of this request to suspend application of the automatic provisions of the Code in relation to the name chrysoscelis, since otherwise, under the provisions of the Law of Priority (Art. 23), a different name would have to be used for the diploid species. 2. Only one name junior to chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 exists for the diploid species: Hyla versicolor sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947 (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 60, pp. 47-50). Its proper applications to the diploid species is incontrovertible. However, it was used as a valid name only once after 1947 (Schmidt, 1953), hence its resurrection would not be in the interests of nomenclatural stability. To substitute sandersi for chrysoscelis that has been used consistently, frequently, and in many different fields of endeavour for the past 20 years would be an unneces- sary cause of confusion, irritation and regulatory alienation of a large body of professional and amateur zoologists, mostly non-taxonomists, and would have no redeeming features. 3. We estimate, very conservatively, that at least 75 usages of chrysoscelis have occurred in different works since 1961, when the name was formally revived in its present sense. No name was adopted by Johnson in 1959 when he revived the species, and although he adopted the name in his doctoral thesis in 1961, as cited by several authors, he did not revive the name in a nomenclaturally valid way until his disser- tation abstract appeared later the same year. 4. The name chrysoscelis was not used after 1880 until it was revived in 1947 by Smith & Brown for a subspecies of the species (versi- color) later found to be the tetraploid member of the diploid-tetraploid complex. Only one other use of the name (Schmidt, 1953) has occurred in that sense. 166 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 5. Among the 75 or more usages in different works of chrysoscelis for the diploid species are the following 38 that we regard as especially important: Bachman & Bogart, 1975; Becak et al., 1973; Behler & King, 1979: Boernke, 1975; Bogart & Jaslow, 1979; Bogart & Wasserman, 1972; Brown & Brown, 1972; Cash & Bogart, 1978; Conant, 1975; Duellman, 1977; Dunlap, 1963; Fellers, 1979a, b; Fortman, 1974; Fortman & Altig, 1974; Gerhardt, 1974a, b, 1975, 1978; Green, 1980; Jaslow & Vogt, 1977; Johnson, 1961, 1963, 1966; Maxson, Pepper & Maxson, 1977; Mecham, 1965; Pierce, 1975; Pierce & Ralin, 1972; Ralin, 1968, 1976a, b, 1977, 1978; Ralin & Rogers, 1979; Ralin & Selander, 1979; Smith, 1978; Wasserman, 1970; Zweifel, 1970. (These references are held on the file in the Commission’s office. Editor). 6. In addition, many state and local lists or reviews, ecological accounts, locality records, range extensions, popular and amateur works have used the name chrysoscelis in the same sense during the same period. The total literature is thus extremely diverse in nature, only a small proportion strictly taxonomic, but a large part experimental, anatomical, histological, biochemical, ecological, ethological and, equally importantly, highly popular field guides (e.g. Behler & King, 1979: Conant, 1975; Smith, 1978). 7. The relative brevity (20 years) of the period of universal adop- tion of the name chrysoscelis for the diploid species is offset by the aston- ishing frequency and diversity of its usage and the use of only that name for the diploid species once it was recognised as distinct from the slow- call, tetraploid species. 8. We therefore propose that the Commission use its plenary powers to set aside Cope’s type designation for his subspecies Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis (Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, no. 13762, Dallas, Texas) and to substitute for it the holotype of Hyla versicolor sandersi (U.S. Nat. Mus. no. 123978, 8 miles S.W. of Somerset, Atascosa County, Texas). The name sandersi would thereby become a junior objective synonym of chrysoscelis which would become incontrovertibly valid for the diploid species so long known under that name. 9. We accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside the original designation of type specimen for Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis Cope, 1880, and (b) having done so, to designate USNM no. 123978 as neo- type of that taxon; (2) to place the species-group name chrysoscelis Cope, 1880, as published in the trinomen Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis, and as interpreted by reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 167 BAGRUS BOSC, 1816 (PISCES, SILURIFORMES): PROPOSAL TO PLACE ON THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.)2371 By Reeve M. Bailey (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) and Donald J. Stewart (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) In a study of bagrid catfishes from Lake Tanganyika, we have uncovered a potential nomenclatural problem that stems from the use by Cuvier, 1816 [Nov.], in Le Régne Animal, of a French vernacular ‘Les Bagres’ in lieu of a properly latinised name. Cuvier’s text entry “Les Bagre’ (p. 204) is an obvious printing error for ‘Les Bagres’. ‘Bagres’ appears in the table of contents (p. viii) and the text entry in Cuvier, 1829, ed. 2, p. 292, is corrected to Les Bagres. Jayaram, 1956, contended that Porcus, attributed by him to Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1818, should replace Bagrus Valenciennes, in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1839. We find, however, that Bagrus and Porcus were both simultaneously proposed in Bosc, 1816 [Sept.]. In order to avoid possible confusion in generic and family names we propose acceptance of Bagrus Bosc, 1816, designa- tion of Silurus bajad Forsskal, 1775, as its type species, and also request that the name BAGRIDAE be added to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 2. Jayaram, 1956, pp. 248-249, correctly pointed out that Oken’s 1817 emendation of Cuvier’s (1816, p. 204) vernacular ‘Les Bagres’ to Bagre is admissible under the Code. However, Cloquet, 1816, pp. 161-163 [Dec.] had earlier taken the same action. Under the vernacular ‘bagre’ he referred to Cuvier’s recently published genus ‘des bagres’, described the taxon, and listed and described three species. The first of these was ‘Le Bagre’, Bagre pimelodinus, of which he cited Silurus bagre, Linn. and Pimelodus bagre Lacep. as synonyms. The description applies to the species currently known as Bagre bagre (Linnaeus). The type species is Silurus bagre Linnaeus, 1766, by absolute tautonymy. Bagre Cloquet, 1816, is a senior synonym of Bagre Oken, 1817, Felichthys Swainson, 1839, and Ailurichthys Baird & Girard, 1854. Bagre is in current use for a genus of New World catfishes in the family ARIIDAE (=TACHYSURIDAE of Jayaram, 1956). [Contrary to the indication by Jayaram, 1956, p. 248, Bagre bagre (Linnaeus) is not identical with Silurus marinus Mitchill=Bagre marinus (Mitchill)]. 3. Jordan, 1919, p. 194, regarded Bagre and Bagrus as homo- nyms, both being forms of Les Bagres Cuvier. We agree with Jayaram, 1956, p. 249, however, that under Article 56a of the Code they are not homonyms. 4. Bleeker, 1862, p. 9 erroneously cited Cuvier as author of Bagrus, and listed Bagrus bajad Cuv. as type species. Jordan, 1919, p. 168 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 194, Jayaram, 1956, p. 249, and others have attributed Bagrus to Valenciennes, in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1839, p. 388, who included in it a complex assortment of 58 species now assigned to about 14 genera and three families (Jayaram, 1954). No type species was designated by Valenciennes, but Jordan, 1919, pp. 194-195, listed Silurus bajad Forsskal as type by subsequent designation. However, there are several proposals of Bagrus, some available, prior to that by Valenciennes. 5. The first use of Bagrus known to us was as a nomen nudum by Rafinesque, 1815, p. 89 (Neave, 1939). The next appearance of Bagrus was by Bosc, 1816 [Sept.] p. 147, who wrote: “-BAGRE, Bagrus. Espece du genre SILURE, que Cuvier regarde comme devant former un sous-genre, a raison de ce qu’elle a deux rangées de dents a la machoire supérieure, une intermaxillaire et une vomérienne; son crane est aussi plus lisse, et sa plaque de la nuque plus petite. (B.)’ 6. Except for the entry Bagrus, this material is identical with Cuvier, 1816, [Nov.], which Bosc, 1816 [Sept.], preceded; thus, Bosc (and also Cloquet, see below) presumably had access to Cuvier’s manuscript or to proof sheets. Bagrus Bosc is interpreted as a generic name latinised from bagre. The description is not clearly identifiable, and no available specific name is cited (bagre as used is apparently a vernacular name). It was apparently proposed for one only of the species of the genus Silurus. In the absence of any named species we propose that Si/urus bajad Forsskal be designated as type species of Bagrus Bosc, 1816, by subsequent monotypy. No species had previously been placed in Bagrus Bosc, 1816, although B. bajad and other species have been ascribed to Bagrus of later authors. 7. Fleming, 1822, p. 387, employed Bagrus instead of ‘Les Bagres’ for the fifth of the ten subgenera of Si/urus L. indicated by Cuvier, 1816, pp. 201-207. Fleming included a single species, Si/urus bagre Linnaeus, 1766. If Bagrus Fleming, 1822, is regarded as the pro- posal of a new name, then Si/urus bagre Linnaeus, 1766, is the type species by monotypy, Bagrus Fleming is an objective junior synonym of Bagre Cloquet, 1816, in the ARIIDAE, and a junior homonym of Bagrus Bosc, 1816. 8. Bagrus was proposed again by Riippell, 1829, p. 5, also latin- ised from the French vernacular ‘Les Bagres’ employed by Cuvier in the two editions of Le Régne Animal, as a genus including the Nilotic species B. bayad (=bajad), equivalent to Porcus bayad of Geoffroy. Riippell also listed Porcus docmac= Silurus docmak Forsskal, but it is not clear whether or not he regarded this nominal form as a species of Bagrus. In the absence of any known previous type designation, we select Silurus bajad Forsskal as type species of Bagrus Riuppell. Bagrus, with attribution to Cuvier, was listed by Bonaparte, 1831, p. 180, with- out named species or description as a subordinate group (subgenus) of Pimelodus, subfamily SILURINI of family SILURIDAE; it is a nomen nudum. Bagrus was used by Griffith & Smith, 1834, p. 403, as a sub- Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 169 genus of Pimelodus. The account is a translation from the second edition of Cuvier’s Le Régne Animal, 1829, with the name Bagrus added. One section of Bagrus was characterised by eight barbels and an oblong and depressed head; included species were given as: ‘Sil bayad, Forsk. Porcus Bayad., Geoff., Egypt, Poiss., pl. xv, f. 1 and 2. Sil docmac, Forsk., Geoffr. ib. 3, 4. Pimelodus aor, Buchan, XX, 68. In the absence of any known previous type designation, we select Silurus bajad Forsskal as type species of Bagrus Griffith & Smith. 9. Jayaram, 1956, apparently following Jordan, 1919, p. 107, argued that Porcus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1818, p. 303, is the correct and oldest available name for the genus, usually known as Bagrus, that includes the species bajad Forsskal and docmak Forsskal. Etienne F. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire is clearly the responsible author of Porcus, but the determination of the publication date is not straightforward. 10. Sherborn, 1897, attempted to establish dates for the several parts of the Natural History portion of Savigny’s Description de l’Egypte, published through the period 1809 to 1829. Volume 1, part 1, Poissons du Nil by Geoffroy, pp. 1-52, was published in 1809; according to Dr. W. R. Taylor who examined it, there is no mention of Porcus. Suite des Poissons du Nil (pp. 265-3 10) and Poissons de la Mer Rouge (pp. 311-343) of vol. 2 of the Hist. Nat. de 1 ‘Egypte, written by Etienne and edited and completed by his son Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, were published in 1827. On p. 295 Isidore said that the name Porcus was first applied by his father ‘. .. mais que mon pere avoit déja appelé porcus’ Thus, Porcus should be credited to Etienne. Isidore described Porcus on p. 302, with three species. Jordan, 1919, p. 107, gave publication dates 1817, 1818 for the plates of Suite de l’Histoire des Poissons du Nil. But examination by us and by Dr Taylor of two copies of this volume reveal names but no date. We are unable to verify Jordan’s inference that dated plates existed and therefore assume that Sherborn’s date of 1827 applies to both text and plates. 11. The first use of Porcus is by Bosc, 1816 [Sept.], p. 332, who wrote: ‘BAYAD, Porcus. Genre de poisson établi par Geoffroy _Saint- Hilaire, dans le grand ouvrage de la commission de |’Institut d’Egypte, aux dépens des SILURES de Linnaeus. II renferme deux especés: les BAY ADS FITILE et DOCMAC, qui sont figurés dans cet ouvrage. (B.)’ On the same page under BAYATTE Bosc recorded: ‘Poisson du genre SILURE, observé dans le Nil par Sonnini, et figuré pl. 27 de son Voyage en Egypte. C’est le silurus bajad de Forskaél [sic]. Il atteint la grandeur d’un homme, mais sa chair est peu estimée. V. PIMELODE et BAYAD. (B.)’. The cross index clearly links the variant spellings BAYAD and BAYATTE. In view of attribution to Geoffroy, listing of included species, descriptive indication, and reference to a published figure we interpret this as an acceptable proposal of the genus Porcus E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in Bosc, 1816. In the absence of any known type designa- tion we select Silurus bajad Forsskal, 1775, as type species. 170 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 12. Porcus was proposed again in Cloquet, 1816 [Dec.], pp. 52-53, once more being attributed to Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. The genus was named, described, two species (Si/urus bajad Forsk., and S. docmak, Forsk.) were described, and one is noted as illustrated on plate 15 of Poissons d’Egypte. It is apparent that this plate, though presumably not published, had already been engraved and was seen by Cloquet. In the absence of any known type designation we select Si/urus bajad Forsskal, 1775, as type species of Porcus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in Cloquet, 1816. Thus, Porcus Cloquet, 1816, is ajunior homonym and a junior objective synonym of Porcus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in Bosc, 1816. 13. It follows from the above that Bagrus Bosc, 1816, is a senior homonym of Bagrus Fleming, 1822, Bagrus Rippell, 1829, Bagrus Griffith & Smith, 1834, and Bagrus Valenciennes, 1839 (in Cuvier & Valenciennes). Bagrus Bosc, 1816, and Porcus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in Bosc, 1816, both described in the same work, are simultaneous objec- tive synonyms, both having the same type species (see 6 and 11 above). In the interest of stability in nomenclature we as first revisers select the more familiar name Bagrus to have priority over Porcus. 14. Bagre Cloquet, 1816, is the available senior synonym of a genus-group taxon of the ARIIDAE that includes as type species Silurus bagre Linnaeus, 1766. Bagrus Fleming, 1822, a homonym of Bagrus Bosc and a junior synonym of Bagre Cloquet, 1816, and Bagre Oken, 1817, is referred to the ARIIDAE. 15. BAGRIDAE dates from Bleeker, 1858, p. 49, as cohors Bagrini, and has since been widely used as a subfamily or family name for a group of African and Asiatic freshwater fishes; its included consti- tuents vary greatly. Among its synonyms, the oldest family-group names available appear to be those proposed by Bleeker, 1858 and 1862: BAGRICHTHYIDAE Bleeker, 1858, p. 49 (as subfamily Bagrichthyoi- dei, based on Bagrichthys Bleeker, 1858); CLAROTEIDAE Bleeker, 1862, p. 4 (as stirps CLAROTEINI, based on Clarotes Kner, 1855); RITIDAE Bleeker, 1862, p. 8 (as phalanx Ritae, based on Rita Bleeker, 1858). Other family-group names and the first uses known to us include: CHRYSICHTHYINAE Regan, 1911; PORCINAE Fowler, 1915; MYSTIDAE Fowler, 1935; AUCHENOGLANIDINAE, BAGROIDI- NAE, GEPHYROGLANIDINI, and PELTEOBAGRINI Jayaram, 1966. 16. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to: (1) place Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species by designation herein, Si/urus bajad Forsskal, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) bajad Forsskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 17] Silurus bajad (specific name of type species of Bagrus Bosc, 1816); (b) bagre Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Silurus bagre (specific name of type species of Bagre Cloquet, 1816, of Bagre Oken, 1817, and of Bagrus Fleming, 1822): (3) place BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858 (as cohors Bagrini), type genus Bagrus Bosc, 1816, on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BLEEKER, M. P. 1858. De visschen van den Indischen Archipel. Siluri. Act. Soc. Sci. Indo-Neerl. vol. 4, 1858, pp. (2) 370, XII. —— 1862. Atlas ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néerlandaises. Tome II. Siluroides, Chacoides et Heterobranchoides, Amsterdam, pp. 1-112. BONAPARTE, C. L. 1831. Saggio d’una distribuzione metodica degli animali vertebrati a sangue freddo. G. Arcadico Sci. Rome, vol. 52, pp. 129-189. BOSC, L. A. G. 1816 [Sept.]. In: Nouveau dictionnaire d ‘histoire naturelle, etc. Tome III. Paris, 560 pp. CLOQUET, H. 1816 [Dec.]. Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles. vol. 3 (supplement), pp. 160-163: vol. 4 (supplement), pp. 52-53. CUMIER 6G: 4Lic€! 41816 [Nov.]. Le Régne Animal distribué d/apres son organisation. Tome II. Paris, pp. xviii+532 [This publication is com- monly cited as 1817, but we follow Roux, 1976; J. Soc. Biblphy nat. Hist. vol. 8(1), p. 31, who determined that it appeared in November 1816, or perhaps earlier. ] — 1829. Idem, new edition. Tome II. Panis, pp. xv+ 406. —— & VALENCIENNES, A. 1839. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 14, pp. i-xxii, 1-424. 1840. Ibid., Vol. 15, xxxi, 1-540 pp. DEAN, B. 1917. Bibliography of fishes, vol. 2. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, 702 pp. FLEMING, J. 1822. The Philosophy of zoology: or a general view of the structure, functions, and classification of animals, vol. 2. Archibald Constable & Co., Edinburgh, 618 pp. FORS[S]KAL, P. 1775. Descriptiones Animalium, avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium, quae in itinere orientali observavit. Post mortem auctoris edidit Carsten Niebuhr. Hauniae. 1775. 164 pp. 43 pls. map. 4°. FOWLER, H. W. 1915. Notes on nematognathous fishes. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 67, pp. 203-243. —— 1935. Scientific results of the Vernay-Lang Kalahari Expedition, March to September, 1930. Freshwater fishes. Ann. Transvaal Mus., vol. 16(2), pp. 251-293, pls. 6-9. GEOFFROY ST. HILAIRE, E. F. 1809-30. Poissons du Nil, de la mer Rouge et de la Méditerranée (In: Description de | ‘Egypte ... Histoire naturelle, 1809-30). Vol. I, pt. 1, pp. 1-52, 27 pls. Paris, 1809, 4°. Vol. II, pp. 265-343, pls. (completed by Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire). Paris, 1827, 4°). _—_— —___ 172 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 GRIFFITH, E. & SMITH, C. H. eds. 1834. The animal kingdom arranged in conformity with its organization, by Baron Cuvier, with supplementary additions to each order, vol. 10, Class Pisces, 680 pp. HAMILTON, F. (formerly Buchanan). 1822. An account of the fishes found in the river Ganges and its branches. Edinburgh and London, 405 pp., 39 pls. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLA- TURE. 1961. International code of zoological nomenclature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology, London. pp. xvii+ 176. JAYARAM, K. C. 1954. Systematic position of fishes described under Bagrus by Valenciennes, 1839. Rec. Indian Mus., vol. 54 (1 & 2), pp. 53-59. — 1956. Nomenclatural status of the names Bagre Cuvier (Oken), Bagrus Valenciennes and Porcus Geoffroy St. Hilaire. Copeia 1956 (4), pp. 248-249. — 1966. Contributions to the study of the fishes of the family Bagridae. 2. A systematic account of the African genera with a new classification of the family. Bull. Inst. Fond. d'Afrique Noire, vol. 28, ser. A, no. 3, pp. 1064-1139. JORDAN, D. S. 1919. The genera of fishes, Part II. Stanford Univ. Publ. Univ. Ser., no. 36, pp. i-ix, 163-284, i-xiil. OKEN, L. 1817. Cuvier’s and Oken’s zoologien naben einander gestellt. /sis, Encyclo. Zeitung, vol. 8(148), pp. 1179-1185. REGAN, C. T. 1911. The classification of the Teleostean fishes of the order __ Ostariophysi. 2. Siluroidea. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) vol. 8, pp. 533-577. RUPPELL, W. P. E. S. 1829. Beschreibung und abbildung meherer neuer fische im Nil entdeckt. Frankfurt a. M. p. 12, 3 pls. [Dean, (1917 p. 369) cited “Abstract in Isis (Oken), 4: 414.”, but P. H. Greenwood informs us that this volume of Isis contains no refence to Riippell, 1829. On page 414 is a discussion of Gobio uranoscopus.] SHERBORN, C. D. 1897. On the dates of the Natural History portion of Savigny’s Description de l’Egypte. Proc. zool. Soc. London, pp. 285-288. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This application has benefited greatly from the advice and criti- cism of colleagues who have read preliminary drafts: William A. Gosline, P. Humphry Greenwood, K. C. Jayaram, John B. Kethley, John G. Lundberg, Joseph S. Nelson, and C. Richard Robins. Richard V. Melville has been most patient and constructive in our preparation of this application. Without input from William Ralph Taylor, (U.S. National Museum of Natural History), this paper could not have been completed in its present form. He called our attention to several essential references that have been generally overlooked by ichthyologists. We thank all of the above persons, although we accept responsibility for the opinions and interpretations presented. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 173 NEADMETE HABE, 1961 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2420. By Richard E. Petit (P.O. Box 30, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29582, U.S.A.) 1. Habe (1961a, App. p. 28) proposed the genus Neadmete, citing Neadmete japonica (Smith, 1879) as type; the diagnosis, discussion and type designations are in Japanese. On page 73, and on plate 36, figure 2 of the main part of the same work, a specimen stated to represent the type species is listed and figured. On the same page and plate (figure 3), and on App. page 29, another species is listed and described: N. nakayamai n.sp. The misspellings Neadomete (p. 73, caption for figure 3) and Neadmeti (App. page 29) are lapsus calami and do not enter this discussion. 2. The taxon Neadmete was subsequently used by authors who based their use on Habe’s identification of the type species. These authors include: Habe, 1961b, p. 435, pl. 23, fi. 11 and pl. 24, fig. 3. Kanakoff & McLean, 1966, pp. 1-6, figs. 1, 2. Mount, 1970, pp. 1-4, fig. 1. Kuroda & Habe, 1971, p. 312 (Japanese), p. 204 (English), pl. 109, fig. 23. Keen & Coan, 1974, p. 53. Abbott, 1974, p. 248. 3. In 1974 it was demonstrated (Petit, 1974, pp. 109-111) that the type species had been misidentified and that the type specimen of Cancellaria japonica E. A. Smith, 1879 is badly broken, is probably juvenile, and is not congeneric with the species figured as Neadmete Japonica by Habe. Smith’s type cannot be identified with any known species (Petit, 1974, l.c.). The species that Habe described and figured as Neadmete japonica (Smith) has been renamed Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974 (Petit, 1974, l.c.). 4. In 1974 Petit (p. 111) stated that as the type species had been misidentified a petition would be submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to request that the type of Nead- mete be fixed as Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974, as it is the “nominal species actually involved, which was wrongly named in the type designa- tion” (Article 70a (i)). Although this petition is just now being presented, the following authors have treated Neadmete in this sense: Habe, 1977, p. 82 Hickman, 1980, p. 76 Ladd, 1982, pp. 57-58 5. If the original type designation is allowed to stand, Neadmete would be based on an indeterminate species and a new genus would have 174 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 to be proposed for those species currently treated in the literature as Neadmete. 6. In order to retain the name Neadmete in the sense intended by Habe, and conforming to Article 70a (1), I suggest that the nominal species actually designated as the type species, wrongly named by Habe Neadmete japonica (Smith), and renamed Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974, be selected as the type species of Neadmete Habe, 1961. 7. In order to achieve this the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species made prior to the present Ruling for the genus Neadmete Habe, 1961, and, having done so to designate Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974 (=N.. japonica ‘Smith’ Habe, 1961, not Cancellaria japonica Smith, 1879) as type species of Neadmete Habe, 1961; (2) to place the generic name Neadmete Habe, 1961 (gender: feminine), with type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name okutanii Petit, 1974, as published in the binomen Neadmete okutanii (specific name of type species of Neadmete Habe, 1961) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ABBOTT, R. T. 1974. American Seashells, 2nd Ed. New York. 663 pp., 24 pls. HABE, T. 1961la. Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan, 2. Osaka, pp. i-x, 1-183, App. 1-42, 66 pls. — 196lb. Description of Four New Cancellariid Species, with a List of the Japanese Species of the Family Cancellariidae. Venus vol. 21, pp. 431-441, 23, 24. — 1977. Catalogue of Molluscan Taxa Described by Tadashige Habe During 1939-1975, with Illustrations of Hitherto Unfigured Species. Tokyo, pp. 1-185, pls. 1-7. HICKMAN, C. S. 1980. Paleogene Marine gastropods of the Keasey Formation in Oregon. Bull. Amer. Paleont. vol. 78(310), pp. 1-112, pls. 1-10. KANAKOFF, G. P. & MCLEAN, J. H., 1966. Recognition of the cancellariid genus Neadmete Habe, 1961, in the West American fauna, with descrip- tion of a new species from the Lomita Marl of Los Angeles County, California. Los Angeles County Mus. Contr, Sci. No. 116, pp. 1-6. KEEN, A. M. & COAN, E. 1974. Marine Molluscan Genera of Western North America, 2nd Ed., Stanford, pp. i-vi, 1-208. KURODA, T. & HABE, T. 1971. In: The Sea Shells of Sagami Bay. Tokyo, pp. 1-741 (Japanese), 1-489 (English), 1-51 (Index), 121 pls. LADD, H. S., 1982. Cenozoic Fossil Mollusks From Western Pacific Islands; Gastropods (Eulimidae and Volutidae Through Terebridae). U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 1171, pp. 1-100, pls. 1-41. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 175 MOUNT, J. D. 1970. A new species of Neadmete (Neogastropoda) from the Pliocene of California. Los Angeles C ounty Mus. Contr. Sci. No. 177, pp. 14 PB alee. R. E. 1974. Notes on Japanese Cancellariidae. Venus vol. 33(3), pp. 109-115, text-figs. 1-6. 176 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 CALYMENE BRONGNIART, 1822, in BRONGNIART & DESMAREST, 1822 (TRILOBITA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)637 By H. B. Whittington (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, U.K.) Desmarest, 1816, pp. 49-50, described four species of trilobites under the vernacular name Calyméne. In 1817, pp. 517-518 (under the entry ‘Crustacés’) he described them again but gave the vernacular name Calymeéne its accompanying latinised form Calymena. He said: ‘Caly- mene de Blumenbach, ou fossile de Dudley, Calymena Blumenbachii Brong. Le fossile appelé par Blumenbach Entomolithus paradoxus, bien qu’il soit trés-différent de celui de Linnaeus, est le type de ce genre. [description follows]. Il se trouve 4 Dudley en Angleterre, dans une pierre argileuse grise.” 2. In 1822, p. 11, Brongniart associated the vernacular name Calymeéne with the latinised form Calymene and described Calymene blumenbachii in greater detail, with illustrations. He again drew atten- tion to the difference between the species described by Linnaeus as Entomolithus paradoxus and by Blumenbach under the same name. The species in question is one of the best known trilobites in the world and is particularly well known in well preserved exoskeletons from the Silurian of Dudley, England. Since 1822 the genus has been universally referred to as Calymene. So far as is known, the spelling Calymena has been used only once, and then as an invalid synonym, by Whittington, 1959, p. 0.452. 3. Before going any further, it is necessary to establish the status of Entomolithus paradoxus Linnaeus and of Entomolithus paradoxus Blumenbach. Sherborn, Jndex Animalium, cites the name in quotation marks, and gives a reference to ‘Syst. Nat. ed. 12, p. 160, 1768’. If such a name existed it would have no status in nomenclature by virtue of the ruling given in Opinion 296, but in fact no such name exists there. In fact, Entomolithus paradoxus was described by Linnaeus in 1759, K. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl., vol. 20, p. 19. The name was suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy in Opinion 496. Entomolithus paradoxus Blumenbach, which denotes a different nominal species, is therefore a junior primary homonym and Calymene blumenbachii is the oldest nomenclaturally valid binomen for the genus and the species. 4. The vernacular family name Calymenines was proposed by Milne Edwards, 1840, p. 293 and may be corrected under Article lle (ii) to CALYMENIDAE and attributed to Milne Edwards, 1840. This name has been in common use ever since. The authorship was attributed to Milne Edwards (e.g. Raymond in Zittel, 1913, p. 724; Shirley, 1936, p. 384). However, the first author to use the correct suffix was Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 177 Burmeister, 1843, p. 93, and Whittington, 1959, p. 0.450, attributed authorship of the family name to him. Certain subsequent authors (Hass, 1968; Schrank, 1970; Pillet, 1972) have followed this practice, but others (Campbell, 1967; Ingham, 1977) have cited the author as Milne Edwards. The latter is the more desirable course and is in accordance with the Code. The original specimens of Calymene blumenbachii are preserved and have been redescribed by Shirley, 1933. 5. The following is a selection of references to the use of Calymene in the last 50 years: Shirley, J. 1933. Mem. Proc. Manchester lit. phil. Soc., vol. 77, pp. 51-67, pl. 1. —1936. Q.J. geol. Soc. London, vol. 92, pp. 384422, pls 29-31. Gill, E. D. 1945. Proc. roy. Soc. Victoria, n.s. vol. 56, pp. 171-186. Richter, R. & Richter, E. 1954. Abh. senck. naturforsch. Ges., vol. 488, pp. 1-76, pls 1-6. Whittington, H. B. 1959. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, vol. 0, Arthro- poda 1, p. 0.452. Campbell, K. S. W. 1967. Bull. Oklahoma geol. Surv., vol. 115, pp. 1-68, pls 1-19. Hass, W. 1968. Palaeontographica, vol. A.130, pp. 60-207, pls 26-37. Schrank, E. 1970. Ber. deutsch. Ges. geol. Wiss., A, Geol.-Palaont., vol. 15, pp. 109-146, pls 1-12. Whittington, H. B. 1971. Palaeontology, vol. 14, pp. 455-477. Pillet, J. 1972. Soc. études sci. Anjou, mém. 1, pp. 1-307. Ingham, J. K. 1977. Upper Ordovician trilobites from the Cautley and Dent districts of Westmorland and Yorkshire, Part III. Palaeontogr. Soc. (Monograph), pp. 89-121, pls 19-27. 6. There appear to be two possible ways in which the name Calymene might be conserved. One would be to use the plenary powers to rule that it is a correct original spelling and to date it from Desmarest, 1817. As the name has always been attributed to Brongniart, that would be the less desirable course. The other way would be to suppress Calymena Desmarest, 1817 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and that is now proposed. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Calymena Desmarest, 1817, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Cal/lymene Brongniart, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Calymena blumenbachii Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name blumenbachii Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817, as published in the binomen 178 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 Calymena_ blumenbachii (specific name of type species of Calymene Brongniart, 1822) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name CALYMENIDAE Milne Edwards, 1840 (type genus Ca/ymene Brong- niart, 1822) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BRONGNIART, A. & DESMAREST, A. G. 1822. Histoire naturelle des Crus- tacés fossiles. Paris. BURMEISTER, H. 1843. Organisation der Trilobiten. Berlin. DESMAREST, A. G. 1816. in Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., 2nd ed., vol. 5, pp. 49-50. ——1817, in Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., 2nd ed., vol. 8, pp. 517-518. MILNE EDWARDS, H. 1840. Hist. nat. Crustacés (Roret’s Suites a Buffon), vol. 3, p. 293. WHITTINGTON, H. B. 1959, in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, vol. 0, Arthropoda 1, p. 0. 450-454. ZITTEL, K. A. VON 1913. Text-book of Paleontology, ed. C. R. Eastman. Macmillan, London, pp. x+ 839. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 179 PANOPEA MENARD DE LA GROYE, APRIL 1807 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION AND RELATED PROBLEMS. Z.N.(S.)1049 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Introduction An application on this subject by Professor H. E. Vokes (Tulane University, New Orleans, U.S.A.) and the late Dr L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 18, pp. 184-188, 1961. For reasons that are now obscure it was never taken to a vote. It is here revived, with certain modifications to the earlier presentation. Dr Holthuis pointed out that Ménard de la Groye’s pamphlet Mémoire sur un nouveau genre de coquille bivalve- équivalve ... of January 1807 must be treated as having been published for the purposes of the Code, so that in consequence the generic name Panope must be suppressed under the plenary powers. Mr Heppell dis- covered earlier references to the family names PECTUNCULIDAE and GLYCYMERIDIDAE than those provided by the applicants. Dr Robert Robinson and Professor Vokes provided evidence of usage of the three names Panope, Panopea and Panopaea for the nominal genus centrally involved. Statement of the Case The main object of the present application is the stabilization of the form of the generic name that has hitherto been known by the alter- native renderings, Panope, Panopea and Panopaea. The opportunity is taken to seek clarification of the status of certain names involved in the discussion. 2. The taxonomic genus to which the names just mentioned have been applied was originally named G/ycimeris by Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. nat. Paris, p. 83, the type species being Mya glycimeris Born, 1778, Index Mus. Caes. Vind., p. 10, by monotypy. In 1898 Dall, Trans. Wagner free Inst. Sci., vol. 3, pp. 571-572, 607-613, revived the neglected name G/ycymeris da Costa, 1778, Hist. nat. Test. Brit., p. 168, for the genus of bivalves that up to then had generally been called Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. nat. Paris, p. 87), a junior homonym of Pectunculus da Costa, 1778. From then on, G/yci- meris Lamarck, 1799, was rejected as a virtual homonym of G/lycymeris da Costa, 1778. The 1961 Code, however, Article 56a, ruled that generic names are not homonyms if they differ in spelling by a single letter. There is therefore no need to reject G/ycimeris Lamarck for homonymy. The coexistence in a single molluscan class of two generic names differ- 180 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 ing in only a single letter—a vowel—would be a serious cause of con- fusion. The Commission is therefore asked to suppress Lamarck’s name for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 3. The genus Glycymeris da Costa, whose name is now proposed for the Official List, was established with a single included nominal species cited as Glycymeris orbicularis, with Arca glycymeris Linnaeus in its synonymy. The reference was to the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae, but the original reference is 1758, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 695. Under Article 68d, Arca glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758, is therefore the type species by absolute tautonymy. 4. The name of the genus with which this application is princi- pally concerned was first published as Panope by Ménard de la Groye in January, 1807, in a pamphlet entitled Mémoire sur un nouveau genre de coquille bivalve-équivalve, de la famille des Solénoides intermédiaire aux Solens et aux Myas (etc.). This pamphlet was first noticed by Dall, 1912, Proc. malac. Soc. London, vol. 10, p. 34. Apart from Dall’s copy, only two others are known: one in the library of the Muséum national d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, and one that passed through the hands of a Paris bookseller to an unrecorded purchaser in 1954. In their earlier application Vokes & Cox adduced circumstantial evidence to show that this pamphlet, though dated ‘Janvier, 1807’, may not have been pub- lished until after April, 1807, with effects noted in the next paragraph; but Dr Holthuis, in a letter commenting on that application, pointed out that the evidence presented was not sufficient to permit the assump- tion that the date of publication was incorrectly cited in the work. 4. In April 1807 what appears to be a version of the same pamphlet, shortened from 37 pages to nine, appeared in Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 9, with the name Panopea on p. 135. On both occasions the same two species were included in the genus, P. aldrovandi Ménard and P. faujas (sic) Ménard; of these the first was designated as type species by Children, 1823, QO. J. Sci. vol. 14, p. 84; but the generic name was now spelt Panopaea, following Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vert., vol. 5, p. 456. 5. The suppression of Gl/ycimeris Lamarck, 1799, was proposed in paragraph 2 above. An additional reason for doing so is that Lamarck did not adhere to his original usage but in 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vert., p. 126, transferred the name to the genus typified by Mya siliqua Spengler, 1793, Skrivt. naturhist. Selskabet, vol. 3, p. 48. This name was at one time fairly widely used, but after its status as a junior homonym was recognised it was replaced by Cyrtodaria. This name is usually attributed to Daudin, 1799, Bull. Soc. philomath. Paris, vol. 22, p. 170, but he gave only the vernacular name ‘Cyrtodaire’. He diagnosed the genus and included three species in it under the names used by their original authors. Reuss, 1801, Repertorium Commentationum, vol. 1, p. 351, listed the genus under the Latin name Cyrtodaria with a refer- Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 181 ence to Daudin’s work. This serves as an indication for the generic name and establishes Reuss as its author; but under Article 69a (ii) (1) the species mentioned by Daudin cannot be considered as originally included in Cyrtodaria Reuss, which was in fact established without originally included species. The first subsequent author to have referred a species to the genus was Gray, 1847, ‘A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyms and types’, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1847, p. 190, where Mya siliqua alone was cited, without an author. Vokes & Cox thought that this ‘must be ignored’, but I take it as an inclusion of Mya siliqua Spengler, 1793 in the genus and as the fixation of that species as the type species of Cyrtodaria by subsequent monotypy. If my view is not correct, then the first authors to include a species in Cyrto- daria are Vokes & Cox, p. 186, when they fixed Mya siliqua Spengler, 1793 as type species by subsequent monotypy. 6. Two family-group names are involved in the present appli- cation. Mr Heppell has provided earlier references for these than were given by Vokes & Cox. The first of these is GLYCYMERIDAE Newton, 1916, J. Conch. vol. 15, p. 83 (type genus Glycymeris da Costa, 1778) (correctly GLYCYMERIDIDAE, as shown by Stenzel, Krause & Twining, 1957, Univ. Texas Publ. No. 5704, p. 60). GLYCYMERIDAE Herrmannsen, 1846, Ind. Gen. Malac. Primordia, p. 482 is derived from “Les Glycimérides’ of Deshayes, 1839, Traité élémentaire Conchyl., vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 124, which is based on Glycimeris Lamarck, 1801, non 1799 and is invalid as being based on a junior homonym. AXINAEINAE H. & A. Adams, 1858, Genera Rec. Moll., vol. 2, p. 541, is a senior synonym of GLYCYMERIDAE Newton, because its type genus, Axinaea Poli, 1791 Testacea utriusque Siciliae, vol. 1, Introd., p. 32, (type species, by subsequent designation by Gray, 1847, p. 198, Arca pilosa Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 1143) is a junior synonym of Glycymeris da Costa. The rejection of Axinaea as a junior synonym led to the rejection of the family-group name based on it; GLYCYMERIDIDAE Newton is therefore protected under Article 40a. PECTUNCULINAE Dall, 1898, Trans. Wagner free Inst. Sci., vol. 3, p. 607, is also a senior synonym of GLYCYMERIDAE Newton but is invalid because it is based on the junior homonym Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799, non da Costa, 1778. PECTUNCULIDAE Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1847, p. 273, based on Pectunculus da Costa, 1778, is nomenclaturally valid, but taxonomically unnecessary in the present state of knowledge, because Pectunculus da Costa is now treated as a subgenus of Dosinia Scopoli, 1777. 7. The second family-group name involved is PANOPEIDAE Stewart, 1930, Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, spec. Publ. No. 3, p. 294, based on Panopea, but the genus is most usually referred to the family HIATELLIDAE Winckworth (formerly SAXICAVIDAE Swainson). No action is proposed regarding any of these three names. 8. The original application included proposals that Axinaea 182 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 Poli, 1791 be placed on the Official List and Tuceta Réding, 1798 on the Official Index; but as the first is subjectively invalid (as a junior subjective synonym of Glycymeris da Costa, 1778) and the latter is objectively invalid (as a junior objective synonym of Axinaea) no action is called for regarding them. Records of Usage 9. Extensive evidence of usage of the three spellings in question has been provided by Dr Robert Robinson (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia) in 1962 and by Professor Vokes in 1978. Dr Robertson gave evidence for the years 1929-1958 (with a separate figure for the period 1947-1958); Dr Vokes gave evidence for the period 1959-1978 (with separate figures for the periods 1959-1968 and 1969-1978). Dr Vokes’s figures are supported by references held on the Commission’s file. 1929-1958 (1947-1958) 1959-1978 (1959-1968) (1969-1978) Panope 12 (7) 47 (28) (35) Panopea 14 (3) 85 (35) (50) Panopaea 11 8 10. These figures show that Panopea has steadily gained ground as the most widely used spelling since 1958, and notably so since 1969, when Panopea was used in the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology, vol. N2, p. N.700. They also show that no action is necessary concerning the youngest spelling, Panopaea. Proposals to the Commission 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799: (b) Panope Ménard de la Groye, 1807; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (a) Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent monotypy, Mya siliqua Spengler, 1793; (b) Glycymeris da Costa, 1778 (gender: feminine), type species by absolute tautonymy, Arca glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758; (c) Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Children, 1823, Panopea aldrovandi Ménard de la Groye, 1807; Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 183 (d) Pectunculus da Costa, 1778 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Juke-Browne, 1911, Proc. malac. Soc. London, vol. 9, p. 250, Pectunculus capill- aceus da Costa, 1778, p. 187; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) siliqua Spengler, 1793, as published in the binomen Mya siliqua (specific name of type species of Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801); (b) glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Arca glycymeris (specific name of type species of G/ycymeris da Costa, 1778); (c) aldrovandi Ménard de la Groye, 1807, as published in the binomen Panopea aldrovandi (specific name of type species of panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807); (d) exoleta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 688 as published in the binomen Venus exoleta (the oldest avail- able name for the type species of Pectunculus da Costa, 1788); (4) to place the family name GLYCYMERIDIDAE Stewart, 1930 (type genus G/ycymeris da Costa, 1778) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (a) Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above; (b) Glycimeris Lamarck, 1801, a junior homonym of Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799; (c) Panope Ménard de la Groye, 1807, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above; (d) Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799, a junior homonym of Pectun- culus da Costa, 1778; (6) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) capillaceus da Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen Pectunculus capillaceus (a junior objective synonym of exoleta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Venus exoleta); (b) orbicularis da Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen Glycymeris orbicularis (a junior objective synonym of glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Arca glycymeris). 184 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 PACH YCEPHALOSAURUS BROWN & SCHLAIKJER, 1943 AND TROODON W YOMINGENSIS GILMORE, 1931 (REPTILIA, DINOSAURIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N(S.)2323 By Donald Baird (Museum of Natural History, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, U.S.A.) The object of this application is to ask the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress a name, which, so long as it remains available, represents a potential threat to the stability of the nomenclature of an important group of dinosaurs. The names concerned are Tylosteus Leidy, 1872 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1872, p. 40) and ornatus (ibid.), published in conjunction with the foregoing generic name. 2. In 1872 Joseph Leidy established the new genus and species Tylosteus ornatus on the basis of a broken fossil bone that the geological explorer Ferdinand V. Hayden had collected somewhere in the ‘ “Black Foot country” at the head of the Missouri River’ in the western terri- tories of the United States. Leidy was able to identify his specimen neither anatomically nor taxonomically, but he thought it might be ‘part of the dermal armor of some huge saurian or perhaps of an armadillo- like animal’. The following year Leidy (1873, pp. 285-286, pl. 19, fig. 14) published an illustration and a somewhat amplified description of Tylosteus ornatus, stating that the specimen was ‘probably derived from the Cretaceous formation’ and concluding, by way of identification, that ‘it looks as if it might be an element of the osseous dermal armor of some animal, whether reptile or mammal is by no means certain, though . .. I suspect the former’. The type specimen was deposited in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia as ANSP 8568. Thus a taxon was validly published although the anatomical identity, systematic position, geologic age, and geographic source of the type specimen were conjec- tural or vague. 3. The few authors who have subsequently noticed Tylosteus ornatus have done so only to dismiss it. O. P. Hay’s catalogue (1902, p. 477) listed it doubtfully among the lizards, adding (perceptively) ‘It is not improbably a portion of the dermal armor of some Dinosaur’. C. L. Camp (1923, p. 303) merely cited Hay in dismissing the taxon from consideration as a lizard. S. W. Williston (1925, p. 274) listed Tylosteus as a questionable lizard incertae sedis, erroneously attributing the name to E. D. Cope. C. W. Gilmore (1928, p. 1)— who seems to have been the only palaeontologist since Leidy to examine the type specimen — dismissed the taxon as one of several ‘originally referred to the Lacertilia [but] now known to belong to the Dinosauria’. In the subsequent half- century the name has not even been cited. 4. Upon reexamination (Baird, 1979) the type specimen of Tylosteus ornatus proves to be readily identifiable as the nodose Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 185 portion of the left squamosal bone from a skull of the dome-headed dinosaur Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943, p. 132 (Ornithischia; Pachycephalosauria, PACHYCEPHALOSAURIDAE). Although several nominal species of that genus have been distinguished on the basis of differences in the nodose excrescences on the squamosal, current authorities agree that these differences are probably attributable to sexual dimorphism and indivigual variation; indeed, the ornamen- tation tends to differ on the two sides of a single skull. The type species, Pachycephalosaurus grangeri Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943, p. 133, is therefore a junior subjective synonym of P. wyomingensis (Gilmore, 1931, pp. 1-4) (described as Troddon wyomingensis) (Galton, 1971; Baird, 1979). All the known specimens are derived from the Lance and Hell Creek Formations (formations of equivalent, latest Cretaceous age) in Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming. 5. From examination of historical records I hypothesize that the type specimen of Tylosteus ornatus was collected by Hayden on Capt. W. F. Raynolds’ expedition of 1859-60, from an outcrop of the Lance Formation that the party crossed on a traverse northwestward from the headwaters of the Little Missouri River in the Black Hills of north- western South Dakota to Little Powder River in southeastern Montana. This area was ‘Blackfoot country’, i.e. it lay within the territory of the Blackfoot band of Teton Dakota Indians. 6. In the opinion of all current workers who have examined the evidence, Tylosteus Leidy, 1872, is a senior subjective synonym of Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943; and 7. ornatus Leidy, 1872 is a senior subjective synonym of P. wyomingensis (Gilmore, 1931). Strict application of the rule of priority would require that the junior names be supplanted. Tylosteus ornatus, however, is a forgotten name — indeed, a canonical example of a forgotten name. The name has never been ‘applied to a particular taxon as its presumably valid name’ in any zoologically meaningful way; for it has been applied only to a single broken bone of dubious provenience, a bone that no previous author has identified anatomically and that none has classified more precisely than to refer it to ‘the Dinosauria’. Recently Olshevsky, 1978, on the basis of information received from the author, has listed Ty/osteus Leidy, 1872 [nomen oblitum] as a synonym under Pachycephalosaurus, and Tylosteus ornatus Leidy, 1872 [nomen oblitum] as a synonym under P. wyomingensis. Otherwise, the most recent reference to it was published more than fifty years ago (Gilmore, 1928). 7. Pachycephalosaurus, on the other hand, has been used exten- sively in both primary and secondary scientific literature and in innu- merable semi-popular and popular publications. The appended bibliography lists a dozen publications by as many different authors in which Pachycephalosaurus is cited as the valid generic name. (This list could be extended, for in fact no author has referred to the genus by any other name). The universally-accepted family-name PACHYCE- 186 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 PHALOSAURIDAE Sternberg, 1945, p. 535 and the sub-order name Pachycephalosauria Maryanska & Osmolska, 1974 are both based upon it. 8. To replace the universally used name Pachycephalosaurus with an unused and hitherto enigmatic name would be an inexcusable violation of the principles of stability and universality. Therefore the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to suppress under the plenary powers the generic name Tylosteus Leidy, 1872, and the specific name ornatus pub- lished in conjunction with it for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Tylosteus Leidy, 1872, and the specific name ornatus published in conjunction with it, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Generic and Specific Names in Zoology, respectively; (3) to place the generic name Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 (gender: masculine), type species, by origi- nal designation, Pachycephalosaurus grangeri Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the specific name wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931, as published in the binomen Jroédon wyomingensis (the valid name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (5) to place the family name PACHYCEPHALOSAURIDAE Sternberg, 1945 (type genus Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943) on the Official List of Family—Group Names in Zoology. This application is supported by Dr Hans-Dieter Sues (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.). REFERENCES An asterisk (*) indicates works employing Pachycephalosaurus, listed to fulfil the conditions of Article 79(b). BAIRD, D. 1979. The dome-headed dinosaur Tylosteus ornatus Leidy, 1872 (Reptilia: Ornithischia: Pachycephalosauridae). Notulae naturae Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. vol. 456, pp. 1-11. *BROWN, B. & SCHLAIKJER, E. M. 1943. A study of the troddont dinosaurs with the description of a new genus and four new species. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 82(5), pp. 115-150. CAMP, C. L. 1923. Classification of the lizards. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 48(11), pp. 289-481. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 187 *COLBERT, E. H. 1961. Dinosaurs, their discovery and their world. New Y ork: E. P. Dutton, 300 pp. *DONG, Z. 1978. A new genus of Pachycephalosauria from Laiyang, Shantung. Vertebr. Palasiat. vol. 16(4), pp. 225-228. *ESTES, R. 1964. Fossil vertebrates from the Late Cretaceous Lance Formation, eastern Wyoming. Univ. Calif: Publs geol. Sci. vol. 49, pp. 1-180. *GALTON,-P. M. 1971. A primitive dome-headed dinosaur (Ornithischia: Pachycephalosauridae) from the Lower Cretaceous of England and the function of the dome of pachycephalosaurids. J. Paleont. vol. 45(1), pp. 40-47. GILMORE, C. W. 1928. Fossil lizards of North America. Mem. natn. Acad. Sci. vol. 22(3), pp. 1-201. — 1931. A new species of troddont dinosaur from the Lance Formation of Wyoming. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. vol. 79(9), pp. 1-6. HAY, O. P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bull. U.S. geol. Surv. vol. 179, 868 pp. *HUENE, F. VON, 1956. Palaeontologie und Phylogenie der Niederen Tetra- poden. Jena: G. Fischer, 716 pp. LEIDY, J. 1872. Remarks on some extinct vertebrates. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. vol. 1872, pp. 38-40. — 1873. Contributions to the extinct vertebrate fauna of the Western Territories. Rep. U.S. geol. Surv. Terr. vol. 1, 358 pp. *MARYANSKA, T. & OSMOLSKA, H. 1974. Pachycephalosauria, a new suborder of ornithischian dinosaurs. Palaeontol. pol. vol. 30, pp. 45-102. *OLSHEVSKY, G. 1978. The archosaurian taxa (excluding the Crocodylia). Toronto: G. & T. Enterprises, 50 pp. *ROMER, A. S. 1956. Osteology of the reptiles. Univ. Chicago Press, 772 pp. cs 1966. Vertebrate paleontology. Univ. Chicago Press, 468 pp. *STEEL, R. 1969. Ornithischia. Handb. Palaeoherp. vol. 15, pp. 1-84. *STERNBERG, C. M. 1945. Pachycephalosauridae proposed for dome-headed dinosaurs, Stegoceras lambei, n.sp., described. J. Palaeont. vol. 19(5), pp. 534-538. *SUES, H.-D. 1978. Functional morphology of the dome in pachycephalosaurid dinosaurs. Neues Jb. Geol. Palaont. Mh. vol. 1978(8), pp. 459-472. *WALL, W. P. & GALTON, P. M. 1979. Notes on pachycephalosaurid dino- saurs (Reptilia: Ornithischia) from North America, with comments on their status as ornithopods. Can. J. Earth Sci. vol. 16, pp. 1176-1186. *WHITE, T. E. 1973. Catalogue of the genera of dinosaurs. Ann. Carneg. Mus. vol. 44(9), pp. 117-155. WILLISTON, S. W. 1925. The osteology of the reptiles. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 300 pp. 188 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 DONAX HANLEYANUS PHILIPPI, 1847, PROPOSED CONSERVATION AND PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF DONAX HILAIREA GUERIN, 1832 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA). Z.N.(S.)2152 By Walter Narchi (Departamento de Zoologia, C.P. 20.520, Sao Paulo, Brazil) The aim of this application is to seek conservation of the specific name hanleyanus Philippi, 1847 (Donax), which has recently been set aside (Morrison, 1971) in favour of the totally forgotten name hilairea Guerin, 1832 (Donax). 2. Guérin (1832, Icon. du Régne Anim. pl. 30, fig. 4) described Donax hilairea without indicating a locality. 3. Philippi (1847, Zeits. f Malakozool. vol. 4: p. 84) described D. hanleyanus, which is considered to be the same species, also from an unknown locality. This latter name has since been used for the species in question, reported only from the southern part of the Atlantic coast of South America. 4. In his list of synonyms Morrison (1971) cites the following names: rugosa Hanley, 5 times (3 misidentifications); denticulata Guerin, once (misidentification) and hanleyana Philippi, 8 times. This list has definite under-representation of the name hanleyanus, but even so, it shows the tendency to apply it. 5. The type localities for hilairea and hanleyanus are, as shown above, unknown. Morrison (1971) accepted the first locality published by Reeve (1854), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as designation of the type locality of D. hanleyanus. 6. The Commission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name hilairea Guérin, 1832 as cited in the combination Donax hilairea for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the name hanleyanus Philippi, 1847, as cited in the combination Donax hanleyanus on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the name hilairea Guerin, 1832, as cited in the combination Donax hilairea at (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. A list of references is held in the Commission’s Office to prove that during the last 35 years (from 1944 to 1979) the name D. hanley- anus Philippi, 1847 was used at least eleven times by nine different authors, and the senior name has not been used once during that period. The species D. hanleyanus is used by many authors in the area of fisheries concerned with the study of biology, reproductive cycles and migration. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 189 REFERENCES MORRISON, J. P. E. 1971. Western Atlantic Donax. Proc. biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 83(48), pp. 566-567. REEVE, L. A. 1854. Conchologia Iconica, vol. 8. pl. II, p. 6. DROMOPHIS PETERS, 1869 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2375 By Donald G. Broadley (National Museum, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe) The purpose of this application is to suppress the generic name Philodendros Fitzinger, 1843, used only once in the literature during the last hundred years, which is a senior synonym of Dromophis Peters, 1869. 2. In 1843 Fitzinger erected the genus Philodendros, designating Dendrophis praeornata Schlegel as type species (Syst. Rept., p. 26). 3. In 1846 Agassiz published the name Philodendrus, an unjusti- fied emendation of Fitzinger’s name (Nomen. Zool. Index Univers., p. 285). 4. In 1869 W. C. H. Peters erected the monotypic genus Dromo- phis to accommodate Dendrophis praeornata Schlegel (Monatsber. kénigl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, p. 447). 5. In the last revision of the genus, Loveridge cited 42 papers by 16 authors in which the name Dromophis was used, but overlooked the name Philodendros Fitzinger, 1843 (1940, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harv., vol. 87, pp. 7-12). 6. In 1957 Loveridge pointed out that the name Philodendros Fitzinger had priority over Dromophis Peters and urged that the Com- mission be requested to set aside the older name (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Hary., vol. 117, pp. 159 and 211). 7. Since 1940 the name Dromophis Peters has been used in at least 22 papers by 15 authors. In accordance with Article 79(b) of the Code, approved by the XVII Congress in 1972, the following is a selec- tion of ‘at least 5 different authors and in at least 10 publications’ in which Dromophis has been used during the past 50 years: (1) Scortecci, G., 1939. Gli Ofidi Velenosi dell’Africa Italiana, p. 140. (2) Bogert, C. M., 1940. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 77, pp. 12 and 79 (3) Loveridge, A., 1953. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harv., vol. LiGep: Pa be (4) Witte, G.-F. de, 1953. Explor. Parc. natn. Upemba, Miss. G.-F. de Witte, vol. 6, p. 233. 190 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 3, October 1983 (5) Laurent, R. F., 1956. Annis Mus. r. Congo belge Ser. 8 vo, vol. 48, p. 247. (6) Perret, J. L., 1961. Bull. Soc. neuchdtel. Sci. nat., vol. 84, p. 136. (7) Fitzsimons, V. F. M. 1962. Snakes of Southern Africa, p. 219. (8) Underwood, G., 1967. A contribution to the classification of snakes, Di 156: (9) Broadley, D. G., 1971. Puku, vol. 6, p. 87. (10) Pitman, C. R. S., 1974. A guide to the snakes of Uganda (Revised Edition), p. 152. 8. Since its establishment, the generic name Philodendros Fitzinger has been used only twice: once in its emended form Philo- dendrus by Agassiz (1846, op. cit.) and once recently in a list of genera assigned to the tribe Psammophiini of the subfamily Lycodontinae by Dowling & Duellman (1974, Systematic herpetology, p. 112b, 3). 9. In the interests of nomenclatural stability the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Philo- (2 (3 (4 — — — dendros Fitzinger, 1843, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; to place the generic name Dromophis Peters, 1869 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy, Dendrophis praeor- nata Schlegel, 1837, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name praeornata Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Dendrophis praeornata (specific name of the type species of Dromophis Peters, 1869), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the generic name Philodendros Fitzinger, 1843, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. ewe eK 5 > ee 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. CONTENTS . Caos and Members of the Commission. . . .. . . Members of the International Trust for Zoological nomenclature . Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology. . Special Announcements . Address by Professor T.R E, Southwood, FR. S. Vice-President, The Raval SOREN = Shas An en sk Financial Report for 1982. . Nomenclature of Organisms considered b ome to be animals and by others plants or bacteria(W.D.L. Ride). . . . . Opinions Opinion 1256. Sorex dsinezumi Temminck, 1843 (Mammalia, Insec- tivora) Opinion’ 1257. Tipula ‘ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1258. Ochthera exsculpta Loew, 1862 (Insecta, Diptera) . Opinion 1259. Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854 and Ogygites Laine & Lebesconte, 1876 (Trilobita)©. .°. . ... ; Opinion 1260. Orthunga Dohrn, 1859 (Insecta, Hemiptera) . ca Opinion 1261. Chuangia Walcott, pe ai Ses Walton eae oo) id Ye Metin 5 05..6)—? «Nm A eee ae New and revived cases _ Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (Crustacea, Isopoda). B. Kensl Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (Amphibia, eae HM. Smith, K.T. Fitzgerald & L.J. Guillette, Jr. . 2. . . Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Pisces, Siluriformes). R.M. Bailey & D.J. beri, Neadmete Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda). R.E. Petit. . . . ; Calymene Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita). H.B. Whittington Panopea Menard de la Groye, April 1807 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). The Secretary igh eepmalaenines Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 and Troodon wyom- ingensis Gilmore, 1931 (Reptilia, Dinosauria): vas as conser- vation. D. Baird . Donax hanleyanus Philippi, 1847 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). “W. Narchi. Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Reptilia, Serpentes): Ais cay conservation under the plenary powers. D.G. Broadley . . 147 149 151 153 157 160 163 165 167 173 176 179 184 188 189 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset | shat erg tga Gavia wR 1a Nomenclatu | oe Bi The Official Organ of the tintehantiaene Commission on ss am Noweans of * NAT. Hist, 6) + 16 JANI984 } © International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 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 A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia). 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). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 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 Cien- cias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echi- noidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzer- land) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crus- tacea 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, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut 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 (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) (President): 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) (Councillor) 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, 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 Vili 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 Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpeto- logy Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitdt Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari Dr. SHUNICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1. Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) Entomology Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical Hymenoptera INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. Per Brinck Prof. J.H. Callomon, F.R.S.C. ProfC:B? Coxh 1D! Prof. D. Curry, F.G:S. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. G.C. Gruchy Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. M. Luc Dr. I.W.B. Nye Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. G.B. White Prof. J.M. Dodd, F.R.S. (Observer for the Royal Society) B. The Officers of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) Mr. A. Penrose, B.Sc. (Assistant Zoologist) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 19] BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 40, part 4 (pp. 191-266) 30 December 1983 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circumstances the Commission may start to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following appli- cations published in the present part of the Bulletin (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b): (1) Caeparia Stal, 1877 (Insecta, Dictyoptera): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers. Z.NA(S.) 2284. L.M. Roth & A.B. Gurney. (2) Proposal to suppress the first designation of a type species for the generic name Megilla Fabricius, 1805, and to place Macropis Klug, 1809, on the Official List of Generic Names (Hymenoptera, Apoidea), Z.N.(S.) 2401. C.D. Michener. *(3) Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2404. J.B. Rasmussen & A.F. Stimson. (4) Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 and Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Gastro- poda, Opisthobranchia): proposed clarification and conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2432. W.B. Rudman. (5) Rhinoclama Dall & Smith, 1886 (Mollusca, Septibran- chia): proposed validation of the customary usage. Z.N.(S.) 2151. D. Heppell & R.E. Morgan. *(6) Chelydra osceola Stejneger, 1918 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation by use of the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2282. H.M. Smith, R.B. Smith & D. Chiszar. (7) Bainella Rennie, 1930 (Arthropoda, Trilobita): proposed conservation under the plenary powers by suppression of Anchiopella Reed, 1907. Z.N.(S.) 2368. M.R. Cooper. (8) Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 and Pero Herrich- Schaffer, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conser- vation. Z.N.(S.) 2436. D.S. Fletcher & I.W.B. Nye. 192 (9) (10) *(11) *(12) (13) (14) *(15) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 (Gastropoda): revised proposals for conservation. Z.N.(S.) 1987. D. Heppell. Tricelia variopedata Renier, [1807] (Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the specific name. Z.N.(S.) 1093. The Secretary. Euphaedra_ Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1686. C.F.Cowan. Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1687. C.F. Cowan. Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers, Z.N.(S.) 2180. R.C. Marinoni. Rallus tabuensis Gmelin, 1789 (Aves): proposed con- servation under the plenary powers by the suppression of Rallus nigra (sic) Miller, 1784, Z.N.(S.) 2276. M.D. Bruce, D.T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault. Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2405. H. Silfverberg. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 40(3) on 21 October 1983 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b.): (1) (2) *(3) *(4) *(5) *(6) Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 (Spiriferida, Brachiopoda): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2451. N.W. Archbold and G.A. Thomas. Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 & Aphrodita minuta, Fabricius, 1780 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conser- vation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2452. S. Chambers & D. Heppell. Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera, Stratiomyidae): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2453. E.P. Nartshuk & R. Rozkosny. Musca trilineata Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2454. E.P. Nartshuk & R. Roskosny. Physophycus bilobatus Lesquereux, 1890 (Arthropoda Trace Fossil): proposed designation as a nomen oblitum. Z.NA(S.) 2455. R.M. Feldmann. Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2456. M. Mroczkowski. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 193 (7) Fucus Hudson, 1762 (Bryozoa, Ctenostomata): proposal for suppression. LINAS.) 245 Tar. Thorpe & J.E. Winston. (8) Description of taxa based on enzymes. Z.N.(S.) 2458. J.E. Jelnes. (9) Oculata D’Orbigny & Bibron, 1837 (Reptilia, Sauria): Proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2459. J. Lescure & J.Cei. (10) Ammonites chrishna Forbes, 1846 (Mollusca): proposed suppression of specific name under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2460. R.A. Henderson & W.J. Kennedy. *(11) Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Kroyer, 1837) Kroyer, 1863 (Copepoda, Caligidae): request to conserve. Z.N.(S.) 2461. L. Margolis & B. Berland. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FINANCIAL SUPPORT Since the last list of donors to the Appeal Fund was published in volume 40 part 3, donations have been received from: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences; the Lesley David Trust (further donation); Dr J.S.G. Lund; the Palaeontographical Society; the Society of Protozoologists (British Section); the Systematics Association; and the Unione Zoologica Italiana. Including £45,000 invested long-term, the net balance of the Appeal Fund stood at over £51,000 on 18 November 1983. The International Union of Biological Sciences has decided to give the Trust US $5,000 in 1984 with the prospect of a like sum in 1985. This has enabled the British Research Councils (except for that for Social Sciences) and the Royal Society to fulfil their conditional Promises to provide £9,000 a year for the present and the next two financial years. This welcome news will, we hope, be followed by sup- port on a similar scale from other national adhering bodies of IUBS se) that the work of the Commission can be realistically funded in future. It is desirable that support be spread proportionately between as many countries as possible so as to maintain the truly international character of the Commission and its sustaining agency, the Trust. 194 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Editorial Committee’s final draft of the third edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was submitted for a vote by the Commission on 5 August 1983. There were three voting papers, V.P. (83) 18, 19, 20. At the close of the voting period on 5 November 1983 the result of the votes was as follows: V.P.18 on the treatment of species-group names formed from personal names and ending in -i or -i/: 12 votes in favour of treating subsequent variations between these two spellings as erroneous sub- sequent spellings and 6 against, with one abstention. V.P.19 on agreeing or disagreeing that the instructions given by the Division of Zoology at IUBS in 1979 to the Commission had been carried out: 18 agreed, | disagreed, | abstention. V.P.20 for or against publishing the drafts submitted as the third edition of the Code: 19 for, 2 against. One late set of votes was received. Four voting papers were not returned. The Editorial Committee is now considering the comments sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers. It is hoped to conclude this phase so that the two texts can be sent to the printer before the end of the year. The date of publication and price will be announced as soon as possible. INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF THE BULLETIN The price of the Bulletin has been stable at £40 a year since January 1981. From January 1984, however, the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (with the agreement of the Trust) has announced that the price will be increased to £42 (US$ 85.00) a year. There will be no increase for the time being in the cost per page of authors’ reprints above the 25 free copies. The following concessionary rates are available: for regular subscribers who pay for two years in advance, a 5% discount (£79.80; US$ 161.50); for new subscribers a 35% discount for the first year (£27.30; US$55.25); for staff members of organisations whose libraries subscribe at the full rate, a personal discount of 50% (£21; US$42.50). R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature November 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 195 FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR ANOLIS DAUDIN, 1802. Z.N.(S.)1603 (see vol. 20, pp. 438-439: vol. 40, pp. 15-19) (1) By Jay M. Savage (Department of Biology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 33124) The recent comments regarding the 1963 proposal by Smith, Williams & Lazell to fix the type species of Anolis presented by Sabrosky and by Stimson & Underwood are essentially correct. However, the underemphasis on the result of fixing Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Anolis, as desig- nated by Stejneger in 1904 creates problems that are best resolved by accepting the proposal of Smith, Williams & Lazell to designate Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832 as type species, by fiat of the Commission. Etheridge, 1967, p. 171, in the interim between the Smith, Williams & Lazell proposal and those of Sabrosky and Stimson & Underwood. split Anolis into two species groups, the alpha and beta sections, based on differences in caudal vertebrae. While he did not formally recognise the groups as distinct genera, all subsequent workers on the genus recognise that the name Anolis referred to alpha anoles and Norops Wagler, 1830 (type species, by monotypy, Anolis auratus Daudin, 1802) to beta anoles. This practice, deeply embedded in the minds of students in this field, would be reversed by Sabrosky and Stimson & Underwood’s proposal. Alpha anoles would then become Deiroptyx Fitzinger, 1843 (type species, by original designation, Anolis vermiculatus Duméril & Bibron, 1837), and the betas would become Anolis. While the proposals of Sabrosky and Stimson & Underwood, had they been published and acted on earlier, are correct under strict interpretation of the rules, the intervening 20 years of custom and usage counter their arguments for stability. For these reasons I now support completely the request of Smith, Williams & Lazell, 1963, although I opposed it on the same grounds as Sabrosky and Stimson & Underwood at the time it was made. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES EITZINGER, L. J. F. 3.1843. Systema Reptilium. Vienna, 106 VI pp. WAGLER, J. 1830. Naturliches System der Amphibien ... Munich, VI 354 pp. (2) Reply by A. F. Stimson & G. L. Underwood Since 1967 workers generally have referred to Etheridge’s two groups simply as alpha anoles and beta anoles, placing both groups in the genus Anolis without formal use of subgeneric names. The only exception of which we are aware is Savage (1980, pp. 69-73: 1982, pp. 468, 475, 509, 519) who used Anolis for alpha anoles and Norops for beta anoles. We do not consider this to represent ‘20 years of custom and usage’. REFERENCES SAVAGE, J. M. 1980. 4 handlist with preliminary keys to the herpetofauna of Costa Rica. 111 pp. 196 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 ——1982. The enigma of the Central American herpetofauna: dispersal or vicariance? Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 69, pp. 464-547. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF TEIIDAE GRAY, 1827. Z.N.(S.)1920 (see vol. 38, pp. 194-196; vol. 39, pp. 157-158) By Andrew Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London) The family-group name TEIIDAE is so well entrenched in the herpeto- logical literature that there can be no doubt that the use of the plenary powers to conserve it is justified. I agree with Smith, Smith & Chiszar (vol. 39, pp. 157-158) that those powers need not be used in relation to the unavailable TUPINAMBIDAE and support their use to give TEIIDAE precedence over AMEIVIDAE. There are, however, a couple of errors in Presch’s original proposal that should be corrected. He states that the type species of Teius Merrem, 1820 is Lacerta teyou Daudin, 1802, by monotypy, and that that of Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 is Lacerta teguixin Linnaeus, 1758, also by monotypy. Since both genera originally included several nominal species neither type species can be fixed by monotypy. Teius Merrem was based on seven species regarded as valid: viz: Teius viridis sp. nov. (with Lacerta teyou Daudin, 1802 in synonymy); L. /emniscata Linnaeus; L. ameiva Linnaeus; ‘L. monitor Bonnat.’, i.e. Tupinambis monitor Daudin; Teius cyaneus sp. nov.; L. bicarinata Linnaeus; and Teius crocodilinus sp. nov. No type species was designated in the original description. In their checklist of South American lizards, Burt & Burt (1933, p. 76) gave viridis as the type species of Teius, all the other originally included species having been earlier placed in other genera. Teius viridis is without doubt a junior synonym of Teius teyou (Daudin), the only species currently recognised in this genus. Thus, while the biological type species is Teius teyou (Daudin) and that is the valid name for that species, the nominal type species should be cited as Teius viridis Merrem, 1820, p. 60, by subsequent designation by Burt & Burt, 1933, p. 76. In the genus Tupinambis Daudin a similar situation exists. The 12 orig- inally included species were: Tupinambis monitor sp. nov.; T. elegans sp. nov.; T. cepedianus sp. nov.; T. indicus sp. nov.; T. maculatus sp. nov.; Lacerta nilotica Linnaeus; T. stellatus sp. nov.; T. bengalensis sp. nov.; T. albigularis sp. nov.; T. variegatus sp. nov.; Lacerta exanthematica Bosc.; and T. lacertina sp. nov. The first-mentioned of these, T. monitor, contained among its cited synonyms Temapara tupinambis Ray, 1693, p. 265. Thus the type species of Tupinambis Daudin, 1802, p. 5 is Tupinambis monitor Daudin, 1802, p. 20, by absolute tautonymy through Temapara tupinambis Ray. This is the only one of the originally included species remaining in the genus. T. monitor is generally regarded as a synonym of T. teguixin (Linnaeus) sensu Boulenger (1885, p. 335), i.e. T. rufescens Giinther sensu Presch (1973, p. 743) although Presch (p. 741) placed it in the synonymy of T. teguixin sensu Presch, i.e. T. nigropunctatus Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 197 Spix sensu Boulenger (1885, p. 337). Although the type specimen(s) appears to be lost (Guibé, 1954), it is clear that Daudin’s concept of T. monitor was a broad one. He cites several Seba and Merian plates that between them depict examples of both T. teguixin (sensu Boulenger) and T. nigropunctatus. Thus, until a lecto- type or neotype is designated, T. monitor should be regarded as a composite. This does not prevent this nominal species adequately serving as the type of the genus. The two component species are closely related and no worker has ever Suggested, or is likely to suggest, that they do not belong to the same genus-group taxon. REFERENCES BURT, C. E. & BURT, M. D. 1933. A preliminary checklist of the lizards of South America. Trans. Acad. Sci. St Louis, vol. 28, pp. 1-104. GUIBE, J. 1954. Catalogue des types de lézards du Muséum national d ‘Histoire Naturelle. 119 pp. (Paris). PRESCH, W. 1973. A review of the tegus, lizard genus Tupinambis (Sauria: Teiidae) from South America. Copeia, 1973, pp. 740-746. RAY, J. 1693. Synopsis methodica animalium quadrupedum et Serpentini generis, 336 pp. (London). COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF DENDROBATES WAGLER, 1830 AND DENDROBATIDAE COPE, 1865S. Z.N.(S.)1930 (see vol. 39, pp. 264-278) (1) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands) I do not agree with M. Dubois that Dendrobates is a replacement name for Hylaplesia merely because H ylaplesia was cited in the synonymy of Dendro- bates when the latter was established. Wagler nowhere stated that he intended to replace the name Hylaplesia, neither did he say that Dendrobates covered all of Hylaplesia. Actually he said that he knew of two species of Hylaplesia. An example of an often-used kind of synonymy in a newly established name is (a fictitious‘ case): ‘Macrobrachium nov. gen. (=Palaemon Fabricius, 1798: Astacus Fabricius, 1775; Cancer Linnaeus, 1758)’. The author of the new name only wants to indicate that the species that he brings into the new genus were placed by Linnaeus, 1758, in Cancer, by Fabricius, 1775, in Astacus, and later removed to his genus Palaemon (1798). This cannot be taken to mean that Macrobrachium is intended as a replacement name for the other three. Another example: take a genus A-us Jones, 1850, type species A-us albus Jones, 1850, by monotypy, to which A-us niger Smith, 1875 and A-us ruber Baker, 1900 are later referred. If I discover that 4-us Jones, 1850 is preoccupied by A-us Carpenter, 1800, I may erect a new genus B-us with the same three species but designate ruber Baker as the type species with A-us Jones non Carpenter in synonymy. B-us is then not a new replacement name (nomen novum) for A-us Jones because its genus has a different type species. 198 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Hence the type species of Dendrobates is Rana tinctoria Cuvier by sub- sequent designation by Duméril & Bibron and there is no need to use the plenary powers to attain this end. As to the authorship of the names proposed in Schlegel, 1826 and 1827, this is in both cases Schlegel, not Boie in Schlegel. The text of both papers (of which the second is a German translation of the first) is by Schlegel except that some of Boie’s names are cited with indications sufficient to make them available. None of the descriptions in Boie’s much longer MS (which is at Leiden) is quoted. Hylaplesia Schlegel, 1827 is not an emendation of Hysaplesia Schlegel, 1826 but an incorrect subsequent spelling. It may well be that Hysaplesia is a lapsus for Hylaplesia, but as this is not obvious from the original publication alone, it cannot be taken into account here. As Dendrobates is not a replacement name for Hysaplesia, whatever type species is fixed for Dendro- bates is not automatically the type species of Hysaplesia. Hence Stejneger’s 1937 selection of Hyla punctata Daudin as type species of Hysaplesia must stand. Hysaplesia thereby becomes a junior subjective synonym of Hyla Laurenti, 1768 and there is no need to suppress this name. Nor is there any need to suppress the unavailable name Hylaplesia Schlegel, 1827. Personally, I am not impressed by the arguments for giving DENDRO- BATIDAE precedence over PHYLLOBATIDAE. I should like to see proposal (1) dropped, (4) taken without the endorsement, and all mention of the plenary powers removed from (5) and (6). Hysaplesia should not be placed on the Official Index. (2) By Alain Dubois (Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France) I disagree with HOLTHUIS (1983) on the status of the generic name Dendrobates, which I persist to consider as a strict replacement name for Hylaplesia. This opinion is based on a careful examination of WAGLER’s texts, rather than on general statements or principles, or on fictitious or idealised examples. We have given elsewhere arguments to show that application of the Code to old, ‘pre-Code’ texts, ‘must be made with care, understanding and intelligence’ (BOUR & DUBOIS, 1983). In the present case, and although WAGLER (1830) did not use the words ‘replacement name’ (a phrase which did not exist in his times), a careful examination of his 1830 text clearly shows that, as explained before (DUBOIS, 1982b), names like Asterodactylus, Dendro- bates, Enydrobius or Systoma were introduced by him strictly as replacement names for names considered by him, for some reason, as inappropriate. Instead of discussing this in detail in this Bulletin, I think it simpler and more convincing to refer the readers to WAGLER’s (1830) original text itself. Other arguments could also be found by studying the other publications of WAGLER. For example, WAGLER (1827) presented his new name Asterodactylus as follows: ‘(Asterodactylus m. Pipa Auctor.)’, which confirms the interpretation of Astero- dactylus as a replacement name for Pipa already presented (DUBOIS, 1982b). 2. SCHLEGEL’s paper (1826, reprinted 1827) is not based on personal observations of SCHLEGEL, but on the study of manuscripts by BOIE (and also by KUHL & VAN HASSELT). SCHLEGEL had not seen the species he refers Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 199 to, and the short diagnostic indications he gives are drawn from the original manuscripts. I feel therefore that BOIE ‘is alone responsible both for the name and the conditions that make it available’ (Art. 50) and is to be considered as the author of the names Hysaplesia and Hylaplesia. 3. Finally, it seems clear to me that in BOIE and SCHLEGEL’s manu- scripts the latter name must have been spelled Hy/laplesia and that the misspell- ing Hysaplesia was due to the publishers of the Bull. Sci. nat. Géol., but that the same mistake was not made by those of /sis von Oken. Since the spelling Hylaplesia has been widely used by various authors since its creation (while the spelling Hysaplesia remained ignored until STEJNEGER’s (1937) paper), this name, on which is based the family-group name HYLAPLESIDAE, is better considered as having an independent status in nomenclature (for more detailed discussions of other similar cases, see DUBOIS, 1982a). It seems therefore appropriate to consider Hysaplesia as the ‘correct original spelling’ of the name in the sense of the Code, and Hylaplesia as an unjustified emendation of the latter (DUBOIS, 1982b). 4. In conclusion, I see nothing to change in my previous application (DUBOIS, 1982b). REFERENCES BOUR, R. & DUBOIS, A. 1983. Nomenclatural availability of Testudo coriacea Vandelli, 1761: a case against a rigid application of the Rules to old well-known zoological works. J. Herpetol., vol. 17, no. 4. DUBOIS, A. 1982a. Le statut nomenclatural des noms génériques d’Amphibiens Anoures créés par Kuhl & Van Hasselt (1822): Megophrys. Occidozyga et Rhacophorus. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., (4), vol. 4 (A), pp. 261-280. — 1982b. Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and Dendrobatidae Cope. 1865 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 39, pp. 267-278. SCHLEGEL, H. 1826. Notice sur l’erpétologie de l’ile de Java; par M. Boie (Ouvrage manuscrit). Bull. Sci. nat. Géol., vol. 9, pp. 233-240. — 1827. Erpetologische Nachrichten. [sis von Oken, vol. 20, col. 281-294. STEJNEGER, L. 1937. Designation of genotype for Hylaplesia Boie. Copeia, 193°75,p..139. WAGLER, J. 1827. Footnote. Jn: H. Boie an Wagler. Isis von Oken, vol. 20, col. 726. — 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classifica- tion der Sdugethiere und Vogel. Miinchen, Stuttgart & Tiibingen, Cotta: i-vi+ 1-354 pp. 200 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 OPINION 1262 CANCER VOCANS MAJOR HERBST, 1782 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): NEOTY PE DESIGNATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, the lectotype of Gela- simus platydactylus Milne Edwards, 1837 designated by Holthuis, 1979, p. 251 and mentioned by Crance, 1975, p. 601, is hereby designated as the neotype of Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782 (see entry No. 2019 in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology). (2) The specific name tangeri Eydoux, 1835, as published in the binomen Gelasimus tangeri, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2873. (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) platydactylus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Gelasimus platydactylus (a junior objective syn- onym of Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782, through the neotype designation made under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name Number 1125); (b) wka Shaw & Nodder, 1803, as published in the binomen Cancer uka (a junior objective synonym of Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782) (Name Number 1126). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2235 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a neotype for Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782, was first received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) on 19 October 1977. It was sent to the printer on 18 July 1978 and published on 31 May 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 248-252. 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 eight general serials and one specialist serial. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)30 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 248-252. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 201 Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Uéno, Willink, Sabrosky, Corliss, Halvorsen, Schuster, Kraus, Brinck, Alvarado, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Dupuis, Starobogatov, Bayer, Heppell, Cogger, Welch, Ride Negative Vote — Savage. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. Savage commented: ‘It seems to me that the best solution here is to suppress the name major and conserve the names fangeri and platydactylus. Dr Holthuis himself points out this solution in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 249. Gelasimus platycephalus would have to be designated the type species of Uca as well. I oppose the application.’ 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: platydactylus, Gelasimus, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust., voliZ; pro tangeri, Gelasimus, Eydoux, 1835, Mag. Zool. Paris, vol. 5 (7), unnumbered page uka, Cancer, Shaw & Nodder, 1803, Naturalist’s Miscellany, vol. 14, pl. 588. The following is the original reference to the proposition of a neotype designation ratified by the ruling given in the present Opinion: for Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782 by Holthuis, L. B. 1979, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 251. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1982)30 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. 1262. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 August 1983 202 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 OPINION 1263 PROTOTOMUS VIVERRINUS COPE, 1874 (MAMMALIA): REFUSAL TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—{1) The request to use the plenary powers to desig- nate a neotype for the nominal species Prototomus viverrinus Cope, 1874, is hereby refused. (2) The specific name viverrinus Cope, 1874, as published in the binomen Prototomus viverrinus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2874. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1631 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a neotype for Prototomus viverrinus Cope, 1874 was first received from Dr Leigh Van Valen on 9 January 1964. After exchanges of correspon- dence, a revised application was sent to the printer on 3 March 1967 and published on 27 April 1967 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, pp. 93-94. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the prescribed publi- cations. An objection to the proposal was received from Dr E. Lindsay (Department of Geology, University of Arizona). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 April 1969 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)17 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, p. 94. At the close of the voting period on 3 July 1969 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—three (3) received in the following order: China, Bonnet, Starobogatov Negative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Holthuis, Evans, Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Obruchev, Melville, Brinck, Mayr, do Amaral, Jaczewski, Sabrosky, Forest, Uchida, Eisenmann, Ride, Mertens, Binder. Alvarado returned a late affirmative vote and Kraus a late nega- tive vote. No votes were returned by Munroe and Tortonese. The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘The application is very incomplete. No author or date is given for the generic names Sinopa and Stypolophus, so that one Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 203 cannot make out whether these are senior or junior synonyms of Proto- tomus. Nothing is said of the usage of the various names.’ Vokes: ‘The type specimen, though damaged, 1s still extant and certainly should reveal significant diagnostic characters. While it is true that most students of fossil mammals have come to rely almost entirely on dentition, to state that the snout and dentition are the “only diagnos- tic parts” seems rather far fetched.’ Melville: ‘In view of Dr Lindsay’s comment I think this appli- cation is premature. A ruling by the Commission should not be asked for until topotypes of P. viverrrinus have been collected and examined.’ Brinck: ‘The name should be suppressed or left alone until adequate collecting from the type horizon clears the case. This is one of numerous cases in palaeontology. I should be reluctant to start solving them in the way proposed by the applicant.’ Ride: ‘The author claims, but does not demonstrate, a chaotic nomenclatural situation; he merely demonstrates uncertainty about allocating a small quantity of apparently rare material. He does not demonstrate that allocating any of the type material to any of the poss- ible taxa will cause upset and I do not think that a case has been made for action under the plenary powers.’ ‘Has AMBLOCTONIDAE been used? Will upset be caused by its replacing PALAEONICTIDAE? A separate case might be made for this.’ Kraus: ‘I partially vote against the proposal; I agree with the pro- posals on the family-group names in question.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference to a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: viverrinus, Prototomus, Cope, 1874, Ann Rep. Chief Engineers (U.S.), Appendix FF (not seen). NOTE ON THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN THIS CASE Although the proposal to place viverrinus, Prototomus, on the Official List ‘as interpreted by the neotype’ was rejected, an entry in the Official List is the only way in which the fact can be recorded that that specific name has been considered by the Commission. The reasons for the delay in publishing this Opinion cannot now be ascertained. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(69)17 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 204 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 been rejected, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1263. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 September 1983 POSTSCRIPT Dr Philip Gingerich (University of Michigan) has shown in J. Mamm. vol. 63, pp. 706-709, 1982, that, while the missing type speci- men may have belonged to one of two orders (Creodonta, Carnivora), Dr Van Valen’s proposed neotype is certainly of the order Condylarthra, and hence in any case belongs in a different order from Prototomus viverrinus. R.V.M. November 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 205 CAEPARIA STAL, 1877 (INSECTA, DICTYOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2284 By Louis M. Roth (U.S. Army Research & Development Command, Natick, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) and Ashley B. Gurney (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A. c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., U.S.A.) Application is hereby made for official designation of a type species of Caeparia Stal, 1877 to preserve long-standing usage. This case of a misidentified type species is being referred to the Commission in accordance with Article 70(a) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. i 2. Stal in 1877 (Of. Sv. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl. vol. 34 (10), p. 37) erected the subgenus Caeparia including the single species, Panesthia mandarinea Saussure. P. mandarinea was first described by Saussure in 1863 (Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. nat. Genéve, vol. 17, p. 168) and again in 1869 (ibid., vol. 20, p. 286); the former specimen was from China and the latter was from India. In 1876 Wood-Mason (J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, vol. 45, p. 190) reported that Saussure in 1869 had been confused about the sexes of the two specimens identified as mandarinea and that Saussure had placed two different species under the single name; Wood-Mason, in the same 1876 paper, renamed Saussure’s 1869 species Panesthia saussurii. Stal’s 1877 diagnosis of Caeparia included characters pertaining to Panesthia mandarinea as Saussure described it in 1869 rather than in 1863. 3. Usage has varied and has produced a confusion of names and generic interpretations since 1877. Brunner in 1893 (Rev. Syst. Orth., Ann. Mus. Stor. nat. Genova (2), vol. 33, p. 88) accepted the genus Cae- paria, with type-species C. mandarinea; it is evident from the locality that mandarinea in Brunner’s usage was that of Saussure, 1869. Saussure in 1895 (Rey. suisse Zool, vol. 3, p. 305) followed Wood- Mason’s 1876 interpretation of two species being confused under P. mandarinea, and he referred to Caeparia saussurei Wood-Mason as type species of Caeparia. 4. Because Saussure apparently had one species under P. man- darinea in 1863, and another in 1869, the name can correctly refer only to the 1863 one. This left the 1869 species without a name, and Wood- Mason’s P. saussurii applies. Kirby in 1904 (Syn. Cat. Orth., vol. 1, p. 201) and Hanitsch in 1932 (Ann. Mus. civ. Genova, vol. 56, p. 86) both accepted the name Caeparia saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876, thus recog- nising the type species in the sense of Saussure’s 1869 species. 5. Caudell, 1924 (Philipp. J. Sci., vol. 24, p. 646), who regarded Caeparia as a junior synonym of Panesthia, is virtually the only specialist to adopt the interpretation of P. mandarinea Saussure, 1863 206 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 as the type species of Caeparia. His action apparently resulted from his interpretation of the priority of the name mandarinea Saussure, regard- less of the misidentification that was made by Stal in 1877. Princis, 1950 (Opusc. Entomol. vol. 15, p. 165, footnote 1) corrected this error. 6. Roth, 1979 (Aust. J. Zool., Suppl. Ser. No. 69) published a monograph of the PANESTHIINAE, which recognises Caeparia as a valid genus within the tribe CAEPARIINI. He also summarised the complex synonymy of Caeparia saussurii. 7. Acceptance of Stal’s (1877) designation of P. mandarinea Saussure, 1863 as the type species of Caeparia would validate the action of Caudell (1924) and that of Brunner (1893) insofar as he cited mandar- inea as type species of Caeparia (but was clearly looking at saussurii!). The usage of Saussure (1895), Kirby (1904), Hanitsch (1932) and Roth (1979), all of whom accepted saussurii as the type species of Caeparia, would be disregarded. Brunner’s (1893) acceptance of Caeparia would also be disregarded. We reject this view because it is not in the best interests of stability of nomenclature. 8. On the other hand, acceptance of saussurii as the type species of Caeparia would achieve greater stability of nomenclature, in that all the actions of Caudell would be invalidated, while those of Brunner would be valid with respect to his use of the generic name Caeparia, but invalid in his generic assignment of the species mandarinea. 9. The spelling of saussurii has differed; saussurii was used by Wood-Mason in 1876 and several subsequent authors, including Princis, 1950 (Ark. Zool. (2), vol. 1, p. 204). Saussure, 1895 used saussurei. However, Princis, 1965 (Orth. Cat., vol. 7, p. 328) regarded saussurii as a lapsus calami and emended it to saussurei. We reject saussurei under Article 33(a) (ii) of the Code because saussurii is a latinised form of patronymic such as was used by various ‘old-time’ classical scholars. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species made prior to the present Ruling for the nominal genus Caeparia Stal, 1877, and, having done so, to designate Panesthia saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876, as the type species of Caeparia Stal, 1877; (2) to place the generic name Caeparia Stal, 1877 (gender: femi- nine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Panesthia saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876, as published in the binomen Panesthia saussurii (specific name of type species of Caeparia Stal, 1877) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 207 PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THE FIRST DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENERIC NAME MEGILLA FABRICIUS, 1805, AND TO PLACE MACROPIS KLUG, 1809, ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES (HYMENOPTERA, APOIDEA). Z.N.(S.)2401 By Charles D. Michener (Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A.) The generic name Megilla Fabricius, 1805, p. 328, was proposed to include 33 species now assigned to diverse families of bees. Among these species were Apis acervorum Linnaeus, 1758, and Megilla labiata Fabricius, 1805. 2. Westwood, 1840, p. 158 designated Megilla labiata Fabricius, 1805, as the type species of Megilla. 3. A second designation of a type species for Megilla was by Richards, 1935, p. 172, who selected Apis acervorum Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species. 4. The first type species designated, Megilla labiata Fabricius, is also the type species by monotypy of Macropis Klug, 1809, no. 109, fig. 16, a well known genus of the bee family MELITTIDAE. Thus strict application of the Rules would result in replacement of Macropis as a junior objective synonym of Megilla, a step not yet taken by any author. 5. The name Megilla was used by several authors as a generic name for bees of various families during the period 1805 to 1810. There- after it was used only rarely (about five times), always in the sense of Anthophora Latreille, 1803, apparently the last significant usage being by Dalla Torre & Friese, 1895. Since that date the name Megilla seems not to have appeared in the literature except in synonymies, literature references, and the like, with the exception of Strand’s 1916 usage of it when replacing a homonym. The only current function of the name Megilla is as a root for names such as Amegilla, Aframegilla, Paramegilla, and Zonamegilla; all these taxa are close relatives of Anthophora. 6. The second designation of a type species for Megilla is in accordance with the usage of the nineteenth century, Apis acervorum Linnaeus being the type species of Anthophora Latreille, 1803 [Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775 = Apis acervorum Linnaeus, 1758, designated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1944).] With this type species for Megilla, this name becomes a junior synonym of Anthophora. 7. Macropis has been and is in regular use, and has provided the root for family group names. Since Fabricius’ work in 1805, no species of Macropis has been referred to the genus Megilla. As strict application of the rules would result in replacement of Macropis by the almost unused name Megilla, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 208 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species made for the nominal genus Megilla Fabricius, 1805, prior to the designation by Richards, 1935, of Apis acervorum Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of that genus; (2) to place the name Macropis Klug, 1809 (type species, by monotypy, Megilla labiata Fabricius [1805]) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. It may be noted that essentially these same requests were made by Benson, Ferriére & Richards, 1937, 1947, but appear never to have been ruled upon by the Commission. Finally, it is worth noting that although Macropis is of no economic importance it has been of some special interest because it is perhaps the only pollinator of Lysimachia (Primulaceae) and because it collects oil rather than nectar from Lysimachia flowers. A list of ten references to Macropis, by five different authors with- in the last fifty years, is held in the Commission’s Office. REFERENCES BENSON, R. B., FERRIERE, C. & RICHARDS, O. W. 1937. The generic names of British Insects, pt. 5, The generic names of the British Hymen- optera Aculeata, with a check list of British species, pp. 79-149. R. Entomol. Soc. London. — 1947. Proposed suspension of the Regles for Macropis (Klug MS.) Panzer, [1806-1809], and Megilla Fabricius, [1804-1805]. Bull. Zool. Nomen., vol. 1, p. 210. DALLA-TORRE, C. G. DE & FRIESE, H. 1895. Synonymischer Katalog der europdischen Sammelbienen. Entom. Nachr., vol. 21, pp. 21-80. FABRICIUS, J. C. [1805]. Systema Piezatorum, Brunsvig, xiv +440 + 30 pp. [See Richards, 1935, for comment on the date. ] HEMMING, F. 1944. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Antho- phora Latreille, 1803. Opinions and declarations rendered by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Opinion 151, pp. 169-177. KLUG, J. C. F. in PANZER, G. W. F. 1809. Faunae Insectorum Germaniae Initiae. Heft. 107, Nurnberg. LATREILLE, P. A. 1803. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle [Déter- ville], vol. 18, p. 168, Paris. RICHARDS, O. W. 1935. Notes on the nomenclature of the aculeate Hymen- optera, with special reference to British genera and species. Trans. r. Entomol. Soc. London, vol. 83, pp. 143-176. STRAND, E. 1916. Ubersicht der in Gistel’s “Achthundert und zwanzig neue oder unbeschriebene wirbellose Thiere’ (1857) behandelten Insekten. Archiv Naturgeschichte, vol. 82, Abt. A, Heft 5, pp. 75-100. WESTWOOD, J. O. 1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects . vol. 2, Synopsis of the genera of British Insects, London, 585 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 209 BOIGA FITZINGER, 1826 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2404 By Jens B. Rasmussen (Zoologisk Museum, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark) and Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD) Boiga Fitzinger (1826, pp. 29, 60, type species Coluber irregularis Merrem in Bechstein, 1802, p. 239 by subsequent designation of Cope, 1860, p. 264) was overlooked by all eighteenth century authors (with the single exception of Cope) until Stejneger, 1902, p. 15, pointed out that it was a senior subjective synonym of Dipsadomorphus Fitzinger (1843, p.27, type species by original designation Coluber trigonatus Schneider in Bechstein, 1802, p. 156). 2. For the next twenty years Stejneger’s observation was largely ignored, but since 1922 Boiga has been in constant use, Dipsado- morphus being used almost exclusively by those few authors who believed the two genera to be distinct. In fact, during the last 50 years Dipsado- morphus has appeared in the primary zoological literature as a valid name only once, whereas Boiga has been used in over 175 scientific pub- lications including the important faunal lists and taxonomic revisions of Pope, 1935, p. 327; Bourret, 1936, p. 308; Bogert, 1940, p. 60; Smith, 1943, p. 344; Tweedie, 1954, p. 74; Kuntz, 1963, p. 49; Taylor, 1965, p. 865; Worrell, 1965, p. 104; Underwood, 1967, p. 111; Pitman, 1974, p. 124; Villiers, 1975, p. 127; Cogger, 1979, p. 364 and Rasmussen, 1979, p. 97. 3. Ibiba Gray (1825, p. 209), type species by monotypy Coluber irregularis Merrem in Bechstein, 1802, p. 239) is a senior objective synonym of Boiga. To the best of our knowledge the name Jbiba has not been used as a senior synonym since its original description. 4. Strict application of the Law of Priority would result in the well-established name Boiga being replaced by the virtually unknown Tbiba. 5. To prevent this undesirable nomenclatural change the Com- mission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name [biba Gray, 1825 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation Coluber irregularis Merrem in Bechstein 1802, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name irregularis Merrem in Bechstein, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber irregularis (specific name of type species of Boiga Fitzinger, 1826) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 210 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 (4) to place the generic name /biba Gray, 1825, as suppressed in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BECHSTEIN, J. M. 1802. Herrn de la Cepéde’s Naturgeschichte der Amphibien, oder eyerlegenden vierftissigen Thiere und der Schlangen. Fortsetzung von Buffon’s Naturgeschichte. Aus dem franzésischen tibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen und Zusdtzen versehen. Weimar. Vol. 4. xx +298 pp. BOGERT, C. M. 1940. Herpetological results of the Vernay Angola Expedition. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 77, pp. 1-107. BOURRET, R. 1936. Les serpents de Il'Indochine. Toulouse. Vol. 2. 505 pp. COGGER, H. G. 1979. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia. Revised edition. Sydney, Wellington and London. 608 pp. COPE, E. D. 1860. Catalogue of the Colubridae in the Museum of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, with notes and descriptions of new species. Part 2. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad., pp. 241-266. FITZINGER, L. 1826. Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren natiirlichen Verwandtschaften. Vienna, 66 pp. ——1843. Systema Reptilium. Vienna. 106+ vi pp. GRAY, J. E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and amphibia, with a description of some new species. Ann. Phil., vol. 10, pp. 193-217. KUNTZ, R. E. 1963. Snakes of Taiwan. Taipei. 80 pp. PITMAN, C. R. S. 1974. A guide to the snakes of Uganda. Revised edition. Codicote. 290 pp. POPE, C. H. 1935. The reptiles of China. Natural History of Central Asia. New York. Vol. 10. 604 pp. RASMUSSEN, J. B. 1979. An intergeneric analysis of some boigine snakes— Bogert’s (1940) group XIII and XIV (Boiginae, Serpentes). Vidensk. Medadr. dansk naturh. Foren., vol. 141, pp. 97-155. SMITH, M. A. 1943. The fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, including the whole of the Indo-Chinese sub-region. Reptilia and Amphibia. London. Vol. 3. Serpentes. xii+ 583 pp. STEJNEGER, L. 1902. A new opisthoglyph snake from Formosa. Proc. biol. Soc. Wash., vol. 15, pp. 15-17. TAYLOR, E. H. 1965. The serpents of Thailand and adjacent waters. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. vol. 45, pp. 609-1096. TWEEDIE, M. W. F. 1954. The snakes of Malaya. Singapore. 139 pp. UNDERWOOD, G. L. 1967. A contribution to the classification of snakes. London. 179 pp. VILLIERS, A. 1975. Les serpents de l’Ouest africain. Jnit. afr., vol. 2 (3rd edition). 195 pp. WORRELL, E. 1963. Reptiles of Australia. Sydney, London, Melbourne and Wellington. 207 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 a4 GLOSSODORIS EHRENBERG, 1831, HYPSELODORIS STIMPSON, 1855 AND CHROMODORIS ALDER & HANCOCK, 1855 (GASTROPODA, OPISTHOBRANCHIA): PROPOSED CLARIFICATION AND CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2432 By W. B. Rudman (Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W., Australia 2000) The purpose of the present application is to clarify and conserve certain genus-group names in the CHROMODORIDIDAE (Gastro- poda, Opisthobranchia) by the suppression under the plenary powers of Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 and Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831. 2. In 1831 Ehrenberg erected three new subgenera of Doris Linnaeus and distinguished them on gill morphology. Within these three subgenera he described five new species on the basis of shape and coloration as follows: Subgenus Glossodoris, sign. f Doris xantholeuca, sign. f Doris erythraea, sign. f Subgenus Actinodoris, sign. g Doris sponsa, sign. g Subgenus Pterodoris, sign. g Doris picturata, sign. g Doris brachyphylla, sign. g No illustrations and no information on the internal anatomy were included and no investigation of the type material has been undertaken until recently (Rudman, 1983) to correctly identify these species, all from the Red Sea. 3. In 1847, p. 164, Gray designated D. xantholeuca as type species of Glossodoris and D. picturata as type species of Pterodoris. D. sponsa 1s the type species of Actinodoris by monotypy. 4. In 1855 Stimpson, pp. 388, 389, conditionally erected the genus Hypselodoris for Goniodoris? obscura Stimpson, 1855, p. 388, which became the type species of the genus by monotypy. 5. Also in 1855, Appendix, p. xvii, Alder & Hancock erected the genus Chromodoris with Doris magnifica Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, p. 270 as the type species by monotypy. 6. All these genera belong to one family, the CHROMODORI- DIDAE, erected by Bergh, 1892, p. 1103, the most prolific worker on opisthobranch taxonomy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Apart from a few aberrant species he considered all the species in the family to belong to one genus for which he used the name Chro- modoris (Bergh, 1875, 1878). When he became aware of Ehrenberg’s names he studied Ehrenberg’s types (Bergh, 1877), but only externally, and rejected the names: ‘I have shown that the genera Glossodoris, Actinodoris, and Pterodoris, established by Ehrenberg in 1831 should be dropped, being founded on non-essential and inconstant characters of 212 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 the branchial leaflets... The name given by Alder and Hancock (Chro- modoris) must be conserved for this genus’ (Bergh, 1879, p. 108). He repeated this sentiment later (1884, pp. 64-65). In all of his later work in which he described over 50 species of Chromodoris s.1. and recorded over 100 species, Bergh used the name Chromodoris. 7. Sir Charles Eliot, a contemporary of Bergh’s, also used Chro- modoris but felt that the contained species should perhaps be split into a number of genera (Eliot, 1904, pp. 382-386) but ‘I have not done so out of deference to the high authority of Professor Bergh’. 8. O’Donoghue, 1924, pp. 553-554, discussed the history of the names and stated: ‘Thus in spite of the common usage of the generic designation Chromodoris, there is no doubt that Ehrenberg’s names have considerable priority. The question as to which name should be employed is easily settled, for while they were published at the same time, Glossodoris comes first in order, and the first species is given as G. xantholeuca, which Gray designated as type species. Bergh, in a paper where he re-examines Ehrenberg’s types, states, in our opinion rightly, that G. xantholeuca is D. pallida Riippell & Leuckart, and that all species of Glossodoris are congeneric. The genus then stands as Glosso- doris with the type species G. pallida (Riipp. et Leuckart)’. (O’Donoghue in this paper acted as first reviser under Article 24 as between Ehren- berg’s three subgeneric names; but this is irrelevant in terms of today’s taxonomy, as will emerge below.) Ifall these species are congeneric, then O’Donoghue is correct in taxonomic terms but his paper illustrates the causes of further confusion that followed. Although Bergh did examine the external features of the preserved specimen of D. xantholeuca there was no external character that he could use to equate that species with D. pallida of Riippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831, p. 33, pl. 10, fig. 1. 9. Odhner, 1931, pp. 30-35, considered that there were two dis- tinct radula types within the ‘Chromodoris-Glossodoris’ genus group and proposed splitting the group into two genera. Based on two species available to him he decided that two genera could be established: (a) with hamate teeth, the innermost one denticulate on both margins, the others serrate on their external edge only; (b) with bicuspid teeth. However, at that time, no information was available on the type of radula possessed by Chromodoris magnifica and Glossodoris xantho- leuca, the type species of their respective genera. Eliot, 1904, pp. 385, 397, reported that a species he tentatively identified as C. magnifica (but which is quite different in colour) had bicuspid teeth. Odhner, on the basis of Eliot’s tentative identification, placed the one of his two species with bicuspid teeth—C. valenciennesi (Cantraine, 1841)—in Chromo- doris. He retained Glossodoris for C. punctilucens Bergh, 1890, in which the teeth are hamate and denticulate, simply on the basis that this second type of radular morphology needed a genus-group name. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pt 4, December 1983 213 10. In 1934 Pruvot-Fol examined the type of Doris magnifica and found that the teeth are hamate and denticulate. Both Pruvot-Fol and Odhner (1957, in admitting his 1931 error) considered that Eliot had misinterpreted a statement of Alder & Hancock (1864, p. 123) con- cerning the radula of C. magnifica and talk of ‘the error of Eliot’. Here is perhaps an appropriate place to correct the record. Eliot made no error in describing the bifid radula of the species he tentatively identified as C. magnifica. We now know that the species he was describing was not C. magnifica—and he specifically stated that ‘identification [with C. magnifica] is uncertain in the absence of information as to the radula of that species’. The error, then, was of Odhner, not Eliot, and Odhner’s ‘clarification’ (1931) only confused the situation further. 11. Winckworth, 1946, considered that Glossodoris should be used for those species with hamate and denticulate teeth, with ‘Actino- doris and its exact synonym Chromodoris belonging to the same group’. He considered that Pterodoris could be used for forms with bicuspid teeth with Hypselodoris as a synonym. This decision was based on unfounded synonymies of Ehrenberg’s species with other species of which the radular morphology was known. At that time, although the radular morphology of Chromodoris magnifica and Hypselodoris obscura, the type species of their respective genera, was known, that of all Ehrenberg’s species was not. 12. During the same period Baba, 1949, considered all species with these two radular morphologies to be Glossodoris and Pruvot-Fol, 1951, in a work listing all described species of this group, placed them all in Glossodoris. 13. Odhner, 1957, pp. 250-253, recognised his earlier error and considered that Chromodoris should be used for all species with hamate and denticulate teeth and Hypselodoris for species with bicuspid teeth. He stated that: ‘Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, should be abandoned as unsettled.’ In a footnote to that paper Odhner reported that he had dis- covered the whereabouts of Ehrenberg’s types and ‘as soon as possible I shall report on this’. He did not report on the types before his death. 14. Since that time some workers have continued to use Glosso- doris for both groups of species but most workers have followed Odhner in using Chromodoris for species with hamate and denticulate and Hypselodoris for species with bicuspid teeth. All major workers on the family since that date, including Bouchet, Bertsch, Edmunds, Kay & Young, Marcus & Marcus, Rudman and Thompson have followed this usage (see Appendix 2). It should be noted that the 100-year debate on Ehrenberg’s names has been based totally on conjecture and supposition and a total lack of evidence concerning the identity and anatomy of Ehrenberg’s species. It is also important to realise that the debate has mainly centred around the use of the names Glossodoris, Chromodoris and Hypselodoris. Apart from Winckworth, 1946, the names Actino- doris and Pterodoris have not been seriously considered (see Appendix 214 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 1). A summary of the usage of generic names as reviewed in paragraphs 1 to 14 is presented in Appendix 3. 15. In preparing a revision of the CHROMODORIDIDAE I have obtained from the Zoological Museum, Berlin, Ehrenberg’s types of Glossodoris xantholeuca, Actinodoris sponsa and Pterodoris picturata. The material is not suitable for detailed anatomical studies but radula mounts were made (Rudman, 1983) and the following conclusions reached: (a) Glossodoris xantholeuca, with hamate and denticulate teeth, (b — is identical with Doris pallida Riippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831, and this latter name is older. The radular teeth are hamate and denticulate but differ from those of Chromodoris in having numerous fine denticles rather than a few coarse ones, and in having a very narrow radular ribbon in which the number of teeth in a transverse row is approximately one-half the number of rows of teeth in the ribbon, whereas in a comparable species of Chromodoris the number of teeth in a row would be approximately twice the number of rows. From my studies of further specimens of Glossodoris pallida from East Africa and the Red Sea, this species belongs to a genus within the CHROMODORIDIDAE distinct from Chromodoris and Hypselodoris. Junior synonyms would in- clude Casella H. & A. Adams, 1854 (type species C. gouldi H. & A. Adams, 1854), Doriprismatica d’Orbigny, 1839 (type species Doris atromarginata Cuvier, 1804) and Chromolaichma Bertsch, 1977 (type species Casella sedna Marcus & Marcus, 1967). Actinodoris sponsa has hamate and denticulate teeth, typical of Chromodoris. It has traces of white and black lines on the dorsum of the holotype. It has usually been considered a synonym of Doris quadricolor Riippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831, but the detailed radular morphology is quite different (Rudman, 1977, 1982). As I have discussed in those two papers, there are a number of distinct but similarly coloured species. From the original description and the radula, it is not possible to identify A. sponsa confidently with any known species. (c) Pterodoris picturata has bicuspid radular teeth typical of the genus Hypselodoris. It also has distinctive epithelial mantle glands posteriorly, another characteristic of the genus. It has been considered a synonym of Doris infucata Riippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831, but as with the preceding species there is a group of similarly coloured species and the radula is not distinctive enough to identify the species positively. At this point Ehrenberg’s other two species should be con- sidered. No specimens of Glossodoris erythraea exist (Bergh, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 215 1877) and Pterodoris brachyphylla cannot be recognised from the brief description. 16. If the Law of Priority is followed, then (a) Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (type species G. xantholeuca=D. pallida Riippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831) is retained with Casella, Doriprismatica and Chromolaichma as junior synonyms. Although Casella has usually been used for this genus, its replacement by G/ossodoris would not greatly upset modern usage because the genus is small and not often mentioned in the literature. Also the type species of Casella, C. gouldi (by mono- typy), is based on a colour illustration and the species has never been found since. Many modern authors (e.g. Thompson, 1972; Bertsch, 1977) consider Doris atromarginata Cuvier to be the type species, but this cannot be so since it was not originally included in the genus. The conclusion appears in any case to be based on an unfounded decision of Bergh’s (1888, p. 838) to synonymise the two names. The latter species is well known and differs considerably in colour and external form from the illustration of C. gouldi. Casella, then, is based on a type species of which we have no anatomical information and that has not been rediscovered since its original description. (b) Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (type species A. sponsa) would replace Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855. This would greatly upset the usage of the last twenty years which has stabilised after forty years of confusion. It would also mean replacing a name in use for over 100 years and one on which the family name is based by one that has seldom been used and is based on a species which, although recognisable at the generic level, is unre- cognisable at the specific level. (c) Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (type species P. picturata) would replace Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855. As with the previous case, this would greatly upset present usage and again the name of a genus with a well known type species would be replaced by the name of a genus based on a type species that is unrecognisable at the specific level. 17. I therefore request the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic names (a) Actino- doris Ehrenberg, 1831 and (b) Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Gray, 1847, Doris (Glossodoris) xantholeuca Ehrenberg, 1831; (b) Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Doris magnifica Quoy & Gaimard, 1832; (c) Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotopy, Goniodoris? obscura Stimpson, 1855; 216 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pallida Riippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831, as published in the binomen Doris pallida (the valid name at the time of this appli- cation of the type species of Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831); (b) magnifica Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, as published in the binomen Doris magnifica (specific name of type species of Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855); (c) obscura Stimpson, 1855, as published in the binomen Gonio- doris? obscura (specific name of type species of Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name CHROMODORIDIDAE Bergh, 1892 (type genus Chromo- doris Alder & Hancock, 1855); (5) to place the following names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831; (b) Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831. Appendix | Usage of names Actinodoris and Pterodoris Apart from the discussions of Bergh (1877, 1879, 1884) and Winckworth (1946), already mentioned in the preceding submission, the names Actinodoris and Pterodoris have seldom been used in the literature. Listed below are all other primary uses of the names by early workers, mainly in uncritical generic compi- lations. 1. GRAY, J. E., 1847 (a) designates D. xantholeuca as type of Glossodoris (b) designates D. picturata as type of Pterodoris (c) lists D. sponsa as type of Actinodoris 2. ADAMS, H. & ADAMS, A., 1854 (a) The ‘type of the genus Actinodoris’ is given incorrectly as Doris flammulata Quoy & Gaimard, a species which belongs to the genus Hexabranchus. Fourteen species are listed in the genus including all those mentioned by Gray (1857) and including also D. sponsa but not as type species. (b) Glossodoris is incorrectly typified as having a tuberculate mantle, leading to the error of Gray (1857) and G. bertheloti d’Orbigny, which is not a chromodorid, is given as a typical example. The seven species listed include D. picturata (the type of Pterodoris) and D. xantholeuca (the type of Glossodoris), but Doris pallida Rippell & Leuckart (a senior synonym of D. xantholeuca) is listed in the separate genus Doriprismatica. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 217 3. GRAY, J. E., 1857 (a) under Glossodoris, he lists three species with tuberculate mantles, none of which are chromodorids. (b) under Actinodoris, he lists eleven species, none of which are chromo- dorids, and which today would be placed in a number of genera including Hexabranchus, Discodoris, Platydoris and Dendrodoris. 4. ANGAS, G. F., 1864 (a) Uses the genus Actinodoris for a new species Actinodoris australis, which is most probably a species of Dendrodoris. No explanation of the use of the name Actinodoris is given. 5. ABRAHAM, P. S., 1877 (a) The genus Chromodoris is listed with Doriprismatica, d’Orbigny; Goniodoris, Gray (in part); Goniobranchus Pease and Hemidoris Stimpson as synonyms. Ehrenberg’s D. xantholeuca and D. erythraea are considered to belong to Chromodoris and D. brachyphylla, D. picturata and D. sponsa as tentatively belonging to that genus. Ehren- berg’s generic names Glossodoris, Actinodoris and Pterodoris are ignored although the three type species are listed under Chromodoris. 6. TRYON, G. W., 1883 (a) Chromodoris is listed (p. 370) with Abraham’s (1877) generic synonyms, but Ehrenberg’s names are ignored. ICAI S193) (a) Glossodoris is listed with Actinodoris, Pterodoris, Chromodoris and Goniobranchus as synonyms. Appendix 2 Usage of names Chromodoris, Hypselodoris, Glossodoris, Casella As an indication of modern usage of the names under consideration the opisthobranch literature of the last twenty years (1962-1982) was searched. In 85 papers by 35 authors in which species belonging to the Chromodorididae were included: Chromodoris was used in 59 papers, Hypselodoris was used in 54 papers, Glossodoris was used in 14 papers, Casella was used in 12 papers. (a) All uses of Chromodoris and Hypselodoris followed Odhner’s (1957) definition of the two genera and in the usage this submission hopes to stabilise. (b) 13 usages of Glossodoris, followed Pruvot-Fol (1951) and Baba (1949), in using it as a broad generic concept including both Chromodoris and Hypselodoris. This usage was restricted to two authors from Japan and China and three authors from the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of Europe. (c) One use of Glossodoris is inconsistent with any usage (Abbott, 1974). Glossodoris is considered a senior synonym of Chromodoris, and Hypselodoris to be a subgenus. The type of Glossodoris is incorrectly identified as Doris gracilis Rapp, 1827. (d) In all but one case, Casella is used in conjunction with one species, Casella atromarginata (Cuvier, 1804). 218 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Appendix 3 Usage of generic names as outlined in paragraphs 1-14 Ehrenberg, 1831 Glossodoris Actinodoris Pterodoris H. & A. Adams, 1854 Casella — — Stimpson, 1855 — — Hypselodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 — Chromodoris — Bergh (many papers)! Casella §$ ———————Chromodoris O’Donoghue, 1924? — ———_ Glossodoris ———_————_ Odhner, 19313 —_— Glossodoris? Chromodoris Winckworth, 19464 — Glossodoris Pterodoris Baba, 19495 Casella § ————————Glossodoris Pruvot-Fol, 19515 —_ SSS G/OSSOdOns Odhner, 19576 — Chromodoris Hypselodoris This proposal Glossodoris Chromodoris Hypselodoris Notes: 1. Chromodoris=Glossodoris, Pterodoris, Actinodoris, Hypselodoris. 2. Glossodoris=Pterodoris, Actinodoris, Chromodoris. 3. Odhner incorrectly assumed that the Hypselodoris radula morpho- logy was typical of Chromodoris and that hamate and denticulate radular morphology was typical of Glossodoris. Although the species he had available was by chance a true Glossodoris his 1957 ‘correc- tion’ showed that his placement of it in Glossodoris was a guess. . Glossodoris = Actinodoris, Chromodoris. Pterodoris = Hypselodoris. . Glossodoris = Actinodoris, Chromodoris, Pterodoris, Hypselodoris. . Reversed his earlier decision and considered Glossodoris should not be used until understood anatomically. The names as used by Odhner (1957) have been accepted usage by most subsequent authors (Appendix 2). Nuns REFERENCES ABBOTT, R. T. 1974. American seashells. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold. ABRAHAM, P.S. 1877.A revision of the anthobranchiate nudibranchiate Moll- usca, with descriptions of forty-one hitherto undescribed species. Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1877, pp. 196-267. ADAMS, H. & ADAMS, A. 1854. The genera of the recent Mollusca, vol. 2, part XVII, pp. 29-60. London, Van Voorst. ALDER, J. & HANCOCK, A. 1855. Monograph of the British nudibranchiate Mollusca, Appendix. London, Ray Society. — & ——1864. Notice of a collection of nudibranch Mollusca made in India by Walter Elliot, Esq. Trans. zool. Soc. London, vol. 5, pp. 113-147. ANGAS, G. F. 1864. Description d’espéces nouvelles ... mollusques nudi- branches des environs de Port Jackson (Nouvelles-Galles du Sud). J. Conchyliol., (3) vol. 12, pp. 43-70. BABA, K. 1949. Opisthobranchia of Sagami Bay. Tokyo, Iwanami Shoten. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 219 BERGH, R. 1875. Neue Nacktschnecken der Siidsee, 3. J. Mus. Godeffroy, vol. 3 (8), pp. 72-78. —— 1877. Kritische Untersuchung der Ehrenberg’schen Doriden. Jahrb. deutsch. malakoozool. Gesellschaft, vol. 4, pp. 45-76. —— 1878. Neue Nacktschnecken der Siidsee, 4. J. Mus. Godeffroy, vol. 5(14), pp. |-3. —1879. On the nudibranchiate gasteropod Mollusca of the north Pacific Ocean, with special reference to those of Alaska, part 1. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia for 1879, pp. 108-109. ——1884. Report on the Nudibranchiata. Challenger Reports (Zool.), vol. 10 (26), pp. 64-72. —— 1889. Malacologische Untersuchungen, in Reisen im Archipel der Philip- pinen von Dr C. Semper, Sect. 2, vol. 3(16), p. 838. ——1892. Malacologische Untersuchungen, in Reisen im Archipel der Philip- pinen von Dr C. Semper, Sect. 2, vol. 3(18), p. 1103. BERTSCH, H. 1977. The Chromodoridinae nudibranchs from the Pacific coast of America, part 1. Veliger, vol. 20, p. 113. EHRENBERG, C. G. 1831. Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones animalium evertebratorum sepositis insectis quae ex itinere per Africam borealem et Asiam occidentalem. Decas 1, Mollusca. ELIOT, C. N. E. 1904. On some nudibranchs from East Africa and Zanzibar, part 3. Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. | for 1904, pp. 382-386. GRAY, J. E. 1847. A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1847, pp. 164-168. —1857. Guide to the systematic distribution of Mollusca in the British Museum, Part 1, pp. 208-212. London, Taylor & Francis. ODHNER, N. H. 1931. Beitrége zur-malakozoologie der Kanarischen Inseln. Arkiv for Zoologi, vol. 23, pp. 1-116. —1957. Chromodoris contra Glossodoris, a systematic nomenclatorial contro- versy. Proc. malacol. Soc. London, vol. 32, pp. 250-253. O’DONOGHUE, C. H. 1924. Report on Opisthobranchia from Abrolhos Is., Western Australia, with description of a new parasitic copepod. J. linn. Soc. London, vol. 35, pp. 553-554. ORBIGNY, A. D’ 1839. Mollusques, échinodermes, foraminiféres et polypiers, recueillies aux Iles Canaries par MM. Webb et Berthelot et décrits par Alcide d’Orbigny. Hist. nat. Iles Canaries, vol. 2, part 2, Mollusca 5, pp. 39-40. PRUVOT-FOL, A. 1934. Les opisthobranches de Quoy & Gaimard. Arch. Mus. Hist. nat. Lyon, vol. 11(6), pp. 13-89. — 1951. Révision du genre Glossodoris Ehrenberg. J. Conchyliol., vol. 91, pp. 76-164. QUOY, J. R. C. & GAIMARD, J. C. 1832. in Voyage de I’Astrolabe, Zool., vol. 2, Mollusques, p. 270. RUDMAN, W. B. 1977. Chromodorid opisthobranch Mollusca from East Africa and the tropical West Pacific. Zool. J. linn. Soc. London, vol. 61, pp. 351-397. — 1982. The Chromodorididae (Opisthobranchia, Mollusca) of the Indo West Pacific: Chromodoris quadricolor, C. lineolata and Hypselodoris nigro- lineata colour groups. Zool. J. linn. Soc. London, vol. 76, pp. 183-241. — 1983. The Chromodorididae (Opisthobranchia, Mollusca) of the Indo West Pacific: a revision of the genera. Zool. J. linn. Soc. London. (In press). 220 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 RUPPELL, E. & LEUCKART, F. S. 1830 or 1831. Neue wirbellose Thiere des rothen Meeres, in Riippell, E., Atlas zu der Reise im nérdlichen Afrika, p. 33, pl. 10, fig. 1. STIMPSON, W. 1855. Descriptions of some new marine invertebrates. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 7 (10), pp. 388-389. THIELE, J. 1931. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, p. 431. Jena, Fischer. TRYON, G. W. 1883. Structural and systematic conchology, vol. 2, p. 370. Philadelphia, Tryon. THOMPSON, T. E. 1972. Chromodorid nudibranchs from eastern Australia (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia). J. Zool., vol. 166, pp. 391-409. WINCKWORTH, R. 1946. Synonyms of Glossodoris. Proc. malacol. Soc. London, vol. 26, pp. 153-154. Comments on the above Application Dr Rudman’s application is supported by Dr Malcolm Edmunds (Preston Polytechnic, Preston, U.K.), Dr Hans Bertsch (/nstituto de Investigaciones Ocean- ologicas, Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, Mexico), Dr P. Bouchet (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France), Dr Eveline Marcus (Department of Zoology, University of Sdo Paulo, Brazil), Dr M. C. Miller (Department of Zoology, University of Auckland, New Zealand) and Dr Bernard E. Picton (Ulster Museum, Belfast, U.K.). Dr Edmunds fears that the replace- ment of Casella by Glossodoris following the Law of Priority could cause some confusion, but favours Dr Rudman’s proposal because the type species of Casella remains unknown and would require redesignation. Dr Marcus looks forward to the removal of the confusion of over 100 years. All are in favour of the suppression of Actinodoris and Pterodoris. R.V.M. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 221 RHINOCLAMA DALL & SMITH, 1886 (MOLLUSCA, SEPTIBRANCHIA): PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE CUSTOMARY USAGE. Z.N.(S.)2151 By David Heppell (Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh) and Rhona E. Morgan (University Marine Biological Station, Millport, Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland) Adams (1864, p. 207) in his list of the Japanese species of Neaera [= Cuspidaria] established the new subgenus Rhinomya. He provided a short, but diagnostic, description and included two species, R. philipp- inensis Hinds and R. rugata Adams. The generic name was twice pre- occupied, first in Diptera and then in Birds. 2. Adams recorded the first species from two localities, Kino-O- Sima, 25 fathoms, and Uraga, 21 fathoms. Specimens of Adams’s origi- nal material from Uraga are in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History), reg. no. 1878.1.28.416. Adams identified this species with Neaera philippinensis Hinds, 1843, but provided no further description. 3. A short description was given for R. rugata but the species has not subsequently been recognised from Japan. A specimen from Port Jackson, identified as this species, is in the British Museum (Natural History) but the species is not recorded in Iredale & McMichael’s (1962) check-list of the marine Mollusca of New South Wales. 4. Smith (1885, p. 37) subdivided Neaera into ‘sections’. His sec- tion G is equivalent to Rhinomya Adams and included only N. rugata Adams and ‘N. philippinensis A. Adams (nec Hinds)’. N. philippinensis Hinds is the sole included species in Smith’s section H. Smith did not provide descriptions of these species. He indicated that he had not seen specimens of N. rugata, from which we may conclude that Adams’s types of that species were not in the British Museum at that time; their present whereabouts is unknown. Smith’s separation of ‘N. philip- pinensis Adams’ from N. philippinensis Hinds must have been based on the evidence of the specimens in the British Museum. He logically, though invalidly, associated Adams’s name Rhinomya with the speci- mens Adams had misidentified with Hinds’s species. 5. Dall & Smith in Dall (1886, p. 300) proposed Rhinoclama as a new section of the subgenus Leiomya. As they synonymised Rhino- clama with Rhinomya Adams non [Robineau-] Desvoidy nec Geoffroy, and with sections F and G of Smith, it must be considered that Rhino- clama was validly proposed as a replacement name for the preoccupied Rhinomya. Dall & Smith cite as type species ‘N. philippinensis (A. Adams) E. A. Smith’. As shown in paragraph 4 above, Smith’s use of this name to represent a taxon distinct from Hinds’s species of the same name was based only on specimens, not on a description. As a nomen nudum it is unacceptable for a type species. 222 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 6. Stoliczka (1871, p. xv), presumably unaware of Adams’s mis- identification, had already validly designated N. phillipinensis [sic] Hinds as type of Rhinomya. This designation is upheld by Keen in Moore (1969, p. N854). If accepted this would have the effect of trans- ferring the applicability of the name Rhinoclama from Smith’s section G to his section H. Luzonia Dall & Smith in Dall, 1890, would become a junior objective synonym of Rhinoclama Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886 (quite contrary to those authors’ intentions when establishing these taxa as separate subgenera), and leaving Rhinoclama auctt. without a name. Keen’s action in accepting the taxonomic consequences of Stoliczka’s type designation has already confused at least one subsequent author. Habe (1977, p. 322), in contrast to his earlier synonymy of 1952 (see next paragraph), synonymised Luzonia with Rhinoclama but included in that genus only ‘Rh. adamsi Thiele, 1934’ (with ‘synonym’ Neaera philippinensis Hinds non A. Adams!) and ‘Rh. rugata (A. Adams, 1868) [sic] (nom. oblitum)’. 7. Although it is clear under the Code that N. philippinensis Adams has no nomenclatural status other than as a usage of N. philip- pinensis Hinds and that, as the latter is type by subsequent designation of Rhinomya [= Rhinoclama] and type by original designation of Luzo- nia, those genus-group names cannot be other than objective synonyms, it is evident that this interpretation is not in accordance with general usage. Apart from Stoliczka and Keen, the usage of Rhinomya or Rhino- clama has consistently been in the sense of Adams’s misidentified and undescribed specimens in the British Museum (Natural History). For instance, Prashad (1932, p. 328, footnote) states: ‘with the authors of the subgenus, I have given C. (R.) philippinensis as its type, but this species has never been described, and I have not seen any specimens of it.’ Thiele (1934, p. 948), aware that the subgenera Luzonia and Rhino- clama both had the same nominal species as type, proposed the new name Cuspidaria adamsi for philippinensis Adams non Hinds. As this was not accompanied by any description, this is, unfortunately, just as much a nomen nudum (in the sense of a name not available for the material associated with it) as the original name. Kuroda & Habe (1952, p. 18) cited the species as ‘adamsi Thiele’ [their quotes] in their check list of recent marine Mollusca of Japan, while Habe (1952, p. 276) listed ‘Rhinoclama adamsi (Thiele) (nomen nudum)’, and gave as a synonym ‘Neaera philippinensis (A. Adams, 1864) Smith, 1885 (name only), non Hinds, 1843’. This species was described for the first time by Morgan & Heppell, 1981, in an Appendix to Allen & Morgan (1981, p. 546). As no purpose would have been served by substituting any other name, the specific name adamsi was retained; the species is believed to be distinct from all other published nominal species. 8. In order to set aside the type-designation of Neaera philipp- inensis Hinds by Stoliczka, 1871, it is proposed that the plenary powers be used to designate Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi Morgan Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 223 & Heppell, 1981, based on a specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) misidentified by Adams as Neaera philippinensis Hinds, as type species of Rhinoclama Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use the plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for Rhinoclama Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886, and to designate Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi Morgan & Heppell, 1981, as type species of that genus— group taxon; (2) to place the following genus-group names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Rhinoclama Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886 (gender: femi- nine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above: Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi Morgan & Heppell, 1981; (b) Luzonia Dall & Smith in Dall, 1890 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation: Neaera philipp- inensis Hinds, 1843: (3) to place the following species-group names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) adamsi Morgan & Heppell, 1981, as published in the binomen Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi (specific name of type species of Rhinoclama Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886); (b) philippinensis Hinds, 1843, as published in the binomen Neaera philippinensis (specific name of type species of Luzonia Dall & Smith in Dall, 1890); (4) to place the species-group name adamsi Thiele, 1934, as published in the binomen Cuspidaria adamsi (a nomen nudum), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ADAMS, A. 1864. On the species of Neaera found in the seas of Japan. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3), vol. 13, pp. 206-209. ALLEN, J. A. & MORGAN, R.E. 1981. The functional morphology of Atlantic deep water species of the families Cuspidariidae and Poromyidae (Bival- via): an analysis of the evolution of the septibranch condition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., (B), vol. 294, pp. 413-546. DALL, W. H. & SMITH, E. A. in-DALL, W. H. 1886. Reports on the results of dredging ... by the U.S. coast survey steamer ‘Blake’ ... XXIX.— Report on the Mollusca. Part I. Brachiopoda and Pelecypoda. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Hary., vol. 12, pp. 171-318. —1890. Scientific results of explorations by the U.S. Fish Commission steamer ‘Albatross’. VII. Preliminary report on the collection of Mollusca and Brachiopoda obtained in 1887-1888. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 12, pp. 219-362. 224 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 HABE, T. 1952. Genera of Japanese Shells. Pelecypoda No. 3, pp. 187-278. —1977. Systematics of Mollusca in Japan: Bivalvia and Scaphopoda. HINDS, R. B. 1843. Descriptions of new species of Neaera, from the collection of Sir Edward Belcher, C.B., made during a voyage round the world, and from that of Hugh Cuming, Esq., obtained during his visit to the Philip- pines; with notices of the synonymy. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (11), pp. 75-79. IREDALE, T. & McMICHAEL, D. F. 1962. A reference list of the marine Mollusca of New South Wales. Mem. Aust. Mus., vol. 11. KEEN, A. M. in MOORE, R. B. (ed.). 1969. Superfamily Poromyacea Dall, 1886. Treatise on invertebrate Paleontology N (Mollusca 6: Bivalvia). KURODA, T. & HABE, T. 1952. Check list and bibliography of the recent marine Mollusca of Japan. Tokyo. PRASHAD, B. 1932. The Lamellibranchia of the Siboga Expedition. Siboga- Exped., vol. 34. Mollusca D. Lief. 53c. SMITH, E. A. 1885. Report on the Lamellibranchiata collected by H.M.S. Challenger. Rep. Sci. Res. Challenger (Zoology), vol. 13(1). STOLICZKA, F. 1871. The Pelecypoda, with a review of all known genera of this class, fossil and recent. Palaeont. Indica (5), vol. 3. THIELE, J. 1934. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 2(1). Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 225 CHELYDRA OSCEOLA STEJNEGER, 1918 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2282 By Hobart M. Smith and Rozella B. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.) and David Chiszar (Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.) In 1918 Stejneger described and named a taxon of snapping turtles from peninsular Florida as Chelydra osceola. Since then the name has with rare exceptions been accepted in dozens of works as valid at the specific or subspecific level; repeated revisionary studies have demonstrated its validity beyond doubt (Richmond, 1958; Feuer, 1971; Medem, 1977, are the most outstanding examples). The name has been popularised in very widely-used handbooks adopted not only by the general public but as required texts in college and high school courses (Conant, 1958 and 1975, and Blair et al, 1957 and 1968, are the most conspicuous examples). The several guides to the fauna of Florida have also made the name widely known among biologists of the state (e.g., Carr & Goin, 1955; Carr, 1940). Other widely popular books on turtles in particular (e.g. Carr, 1952; Ernst & Barbour, 1972; Pritchard, 1967) use the name. 2. At a different level, within primarily the realm of herpeto- logical specialists, the name has been firmly established by the widely- respected, authoritative checklists of the North American herpetofauna (Stejneger & Barbour, 1923, 1933, 1939, 1943; Schmidt, 1953) and of the turtles of the world (Mertens & Wermuth, 1955; Wermuth & Mertens, 1961, 1977). In addition to these broadly synoptic, highly influential works a dozen or two more specialised accounts of osceola have appeared in the literature; a perusal of the last 56 issues of the Zoological Record (1924-1979) reveals 12 citations, and certainly more exist. 3. It is thus clearly evident that the name osceola has been deeply entrenched in the literature for over 50 years and should therefore not be permitted to be changed for any except the most compelling reasons. 4. A serious threat to this history of nomenclatural stability does exist, however, in the form of two names proposed by Hay in 1916 for Pleistocene fossils from Florida: Chelydra laticarinata and Chelydra sculpta. Both antedate Stejneger’s Chelydra osceola (1918) and have been concluded in all probability to be synonymous with it by Richmond (1958), Feuer (1971) and Mlynarski (1976), among others. All these authors have refrained from making the nomenclatural change resulting from that conclusion, however, partly because of reluctance to 226 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 disturb the long-established stability of the name osceola, and partly because of the uncertainty of definitive allocation inherent in nomen- clatural disposition of poorly representative fossils in the context of an extant fauna. 5. Nevertheless the threat to the security of Chelydra osceola Stejneger remains despite the admirable constraint exercised by these particular authors. Yet the names for Hay’s fossils have seldom been used—very likely not more than a couple of dozen times. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use the plenary powers to rule that the specific name osceola, as published in the combination Chelydra osceola Stejneger, 1918, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the following specific names whenever either of them is considered to be a synonym of it: /aticarinata Hay, 1916 and sculpta Hay, 1916, both published in binomina with Chelydra Schweigger, 1812; (2) to place the specific name osceola Stejneger, 1918, as pub- lished in the binomen Chelydra osceola Stejneger, 1918, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over /aticari- nata Hay, 1916 and sculpta Hay, 1916, both published in binomina with Chelydra Schweigger, 1812, whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of them. (3) to place the specific names (a) /aticarinata Hay, 1916 and (b) sculpta Hay, 1916, as published in combination with the generic name Chelydra Schweigger, 1812, on the Offi- cial List of Specific Names in Zoology with endorsements that neither is to be given priority over Chelydra osceola Stejneger, 1918 when it is considered to be a synonym of that name. REFERENCES BLAIR, W. F., BLAIR, A., BRODKORB, P., CAGLE, F. R. & MOORE, G. A. 1957. Vertebrates of the United States. New York, McGraw-Hill, ix, 819 pp. ——1968. Vertebrates of the United States. Second Edition. New York, McGraw-Hill, ix, 616 pp. CARR, A. F. 1940. A contribution to the herpetology of Florida. Univ. Florida Publ. biol. Sci. Ser. vol. 3(1), pp. i-iv and 1-118. — 1952. Handbook of turtles: the turtles of the United States, Canada and Baja California. Ithaca, New York, Comstock Publ. Assoc., xviii, 542 pp. CARR, A. F. & GOIN, C. J. 1955. Guide to the reptiles, amphibians and fresh- water fishes of Florida. Gainesville, Florida, Univ. Florida Press, ix, 341 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 227 CONANT, R. 1958. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of the United States and Canada east of the 100th meridian. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, xv, 366 pp. ——1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, xviii, 429 pp. ERNST, C. H. & BARBOUR, R. W. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Lexington, Kentucky, Kentucky Univ. Press, x, 347 pp. FEUER, R. C. 1971. Intergradation of the snapping turtles Chelydra serpentina (Linnaeus, 1758) and Chelydra serpentina osceola Stejneger, 1918. Herpetologica, vol. 27(4), pp. 379-384. HAY, O. P. 1916. Descriptions of some Floridian fossil vertebrates, belonging mostly to the Pleistocene. Ann. Rep. Florida State geol. Surv., vol. 8, pp. 39-76. MEDEM, F. 1977. Contribucion al conocimiento sobre la taxonomia, distri- bucién geografica y ecologia de la tortuga ‘bache’ (Chelydra serpentina acutirostris). Caldasia, vol. 12(56), pp. 41-101. MERTENS, R. & WERMUTH, H. 1955. Die rezenten Schildkroten, Krokodile und Briickenechsen. Eine kritische Liste der heute lebenden Arten und Rassen. Zool. Jb., Abt. Syst. Okol. Geogr., vol. 83(5), pp. 323-440. MLYNARSKI, M. 1976. Handbuch der Palaeoherpetologie. Part 7. Testudines. Stuttgart, Gustav Fischer, iv, 130 pp. PRITCHARD, P. C. H. 1967. Living turtles of the World. Neptune City, New Jersey, TFH Publs, 288 pp. RICHMOND, N. D. 1958. The status of the Florida snapping turtle Chelydra osceola Stejneger. Copeia, vol. 1958(1), pp. 41-43. SCHMIDT, K. P. 1953. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press, viii, 280 pp. STEJNEGER, L. H. 1918. Description of a new snapping turtle and a new lizard from Florida. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 31, pp. 89-92. STEJNEGER, L. H. & BARBOUR, T. 1923. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Second edition. Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, x, 171 pp. — 1933. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Third edition. Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, xiv, 185 pp. — 1939. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Fourth edition. Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, xvi, 207 pp. — 1943. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Fifth edition. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 93(1), pp. i-xix and 1-260. WERMUTH, H. & MERTENS, R. 1961. Schildkréten, Krokodile, Briicken- echsen. Jena, Fischer, xxvi, 422 pp. —1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Das Tierreich, vol. 100, pp. i-xxvii and 1-174. 228 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 BAINELLA RENNIE, 1930 (ARTHROPODA, TRILOBITA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS BY SUPPRESSION OF ANCHIOPELLA REED, 1907. Z.N.(S.)2368 By M. R. Cooper (National Museum, P.O. Box 240, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe) In discussing the Bokkeveld trilobites, Reed (1907) noted that the ‘phacopids’ could be divided into two species groups. For Phacops caffer Salter, Ph. impressus Lake, Ph. ocellus Lake and Ph. callitris Schwarz he suggested the name Metacryphaeus whilst noting that *. . . the remain- ing Phacopidae from the Bokkeveld Beds seem to fall into another group which in many respects resembles that containing Da/manites anchiops, Green ... I would refer this whole set of species to a special subgroup of D. anchiops characterised (1) by fewer (typically 8) segments in the pygidium, only 5 pairs of ribs being present as a rule on the lateral lobes; (2) by the presence of median spines on the axis of thorax and pygidium; (3) by small, instead of stout and long, genal spines . . .; (4) by less pro- nounced coalescence of first and second lateral lobes of glabella. (Nom. prop. Anchiopellay (p. 169). 2. The only species specifically referred to by Reed (1907) as belonging to this ‘special subgroup’ were Ph. cristagalli (Woodward), Ph. arbuteus Lake, Ph. acacia Schwarz and Ph. africanus Salter and, in the first subsequent revision of these species, Reed (1925a, p. 127) stated that ‘...the name Anchiopella was suggested by the author in 1907 for the subgenus of Dalmanites, comprising D. cristagalli, D. acacia (=africanus Salter sens. restr.) and D. arbuteus.’ 3. However, in the same year, whilst discussing certain Silurian species, Reed (1925b, p. 75) noted that *... the Lower Devonian sub- genus Anchiopella possesses more of their characters, and Hall particu- larly mentions the usual absence of ‘duplication’ (= pleural furrows) on the pygidial pleurae of the type species Dalmanites anchiops, .. .’. 4. In 1927, Reed categorically stated that *.. . the type which was chosen for this special group [Anchiopella] and exemplified by Dalma- nites anchiops Green, was Ph. cristagalli (Woodw.), with Ph. africanus Salt., Ph. arbuteus Lake and Ph. acacia Schwarz as other members of the group’ (p. 310). 5. Rennie (1930) discussed the nomenclatural problems sur- rounding Anchiopella and concluded that since the first reference to a type species of Anchiopella was that of Reed (1925b, p. 75), who cited D. anchiops (Green), *... Anchiopella must fall or stand on an inter- pretation of that species’ (p. 333). Consequently, Rennie (1930) trans- ferred all those species assigned by Reed (1925a) to Dalmanites (Anchio- pella) to his new genus Bainella, type species Bainella bokkeveldensis Rennie, 1930. 6. Rennie’s (1930) treatment has generally been followed and Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 229 Bainella has become a widely accepted (Harrington et al., 1959; Baldis, 1967; Eldredge & Branisa, 1980) and distinctive genus of calmoniid trilobite. On the other hand, Anchiopella is an obscure genus which has not been used for the Calymene anchiops Green group in any of the major studies of this plexus (Delo, 1935 and 1940; Howell, 1951; Stumm, 1954; Lespérance & Bourque, 1971). 7. Lespérance & Bourque (1971) again discussed the nomen- clatural problems surrounding Anchiopella. They pointed to the fact that this taxon had been created for a ‘special subgroup of D. anchiops’, which was diagnosed by opposition to the group of Calymene anchiops Green and hence could not possibly include the latter species. They concluded that Anchiopella was a valid taxon whose type species was Phacops cristagalli (Woodward). 8. It is now clear that: (1) Anchiopella Reed, 1907 was created for what was believed to be a special subgroup of Calymene anchiops Green, typi- fied by the species Ph. cristagalli (Woodward), Ph. arbuteus Lake, Ph. acacia Schwarz and Ph. africanus Salter; (2) this subgroup was referred (Reed, 1907, p. 169) to as ‘the cristagalli group’ and was diagnosed by contradistinction to the group of Calymene anchiops Green; (3) the diagnosis of Anchiopella specifically excludes Calymene anchiops Green; (4) Anchiopella is a valid taxon whose type species, by the sub- sequent designation of Reed (1927), is Encrinurus cristagalli Woodward, 1873; (5) the genus Bainella Rennie, 1930 is a junior subjective synonym of Anchiopella Reed, 1907. 9. The name Anchiopella has not been applied to the species group for which it was originally created since 1927 and hence may rightfully be considered a forgotten name. If stability in the nomen- clature is to be maintained, the genus Anchiopella Reed, 1907 should be suppressed in favour of Bainella Rennie, 1930. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Anchiopella Reed, 1907, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Bainella Rennie, 1930 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Bainella bokkeveldensis Rennie, 1930, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name bokkeveldensis Rennie, 1930, as published in the binomen Bainella bokkeveldensis (specific name of type species of Bainella Rennie, 1930) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 230 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 (4) to place the generic name Anchiopella Reed, 1907, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BALDIS, B. 1967. Some Devonian trilobites of the Argentine Precordillera, pp. 789-796 in OSWALD, D. H. (Ed.), International Symposium on the Devonian System (Calgary, Alberta Society for Petroleum Geologists). DELO, D. M. 1935. A revision of the phacopid trilobites. J. Paleont., vol. 9, pp. 402-420. — 1940. Phacopid trilobites of North America. Spec. Pap. geol. Soc. Am., vol. 29, pp. 1-135. : ELDREDGE, N. & BRANISA, L. 1980. Calmoniid trilobites of the Lower Devonian Scaphiocoelia Zone of Bolivia, with remarks on related species. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 165, pp. 181-290. HARRINGTON, H. J. et al. 1959. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part 0, Arthropoda | (Boulder, Geol. Soc. of America and Univ. Kansas Press). HOWELL, B. F. 1951. The Vogdes Collection of trilobites. Trans. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist., vol. 11, pp. 257-328, LESPERANCE, P. J. & BOURQUE, P.-A. 1971. The Synphoriinae: an evolu- tionary pattern of Lower and Middle Devonian trilobites. J. Paleont., vol. 45, pp. 182-208. REED, F. R. C. 1907. The fauna of the Bokkeveld Beds. Geol. Mag., n.s., vol. 4, pp. 165-171, 222-232. —1925a. Revision of the fauna of the Bokkeveld Beds. Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. 22, pp. 27-225. —1925b. Some new Silurian trilobites. Geol. Mag., vol. 62, pp. 67-76. —1927. Recent work on the Phacopidae. Geol. Mag., vol. 64, pp. 308-322, 337-353. RENNIE, J. V. L. 1930. Some Phacopidae from the Bokkeveld Series. Trans. R. Soc. s. Afr., vol. 18, pp. 327-360. STUMM, E. C. 1954. Lower Middle Devonian phacopid trilobites from Michigan, southwestern Ontario and the Ohio valley. Contrib. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Michigan, vol. 11, pp. 201-221. WOODWARD, H. 1873. On a new trilobite from the Cape of Good Hope. Q. JI geol. Soc. Lond. vol. 29, pp. 31-33. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 231 CRINODES HERRICH-SCHAFFER, 1855 AND PERO HERRICH-SCHAFFER, !855 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. N.Z.(S.)2436 By D. S. Fletcher & I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.) In the interest of maintaining existing usage, the Commission is asked to rule, by the use of its plenary powers, that Crinodes Herrich- Schaffer, 1855 and Pero Herrich-Schiffer, 1855, are to be treated as the names of independent genera and not as objective replacement names for previously named genera. (1) Tarsolepis Butler, 1872 and Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 2. Crino Hubner, [1821] 1806, Sammi. exot. Schmett., vol. 2, pl. [197], was established as a monotypic genus for Crino sommeri Hiibner, [1821] 1806, ibidem, vol. 2, pl. [197], a species of NOTODONTIDAE from Asia. Crino Hiibner, [1821], is a junior homonym of Crino Lamarck, [1798], in Virey, J. Phys. Chim. Hist. nat., vol. 4 [47], p. 429—Vermes. Crino sommeri, the type species of Crino Hiibner, [1821], is, however, a senior subjective synonym of Tarsolepis remicauda Butler, 1872, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4), vol. 10, p. 125, pl. 8, the type species, by original designation, of Tarsolepis Butler, 1872, ibidem, vol. 10, p. 125. Tarsolepis is therefore available for use as a subjective replacement name for Crino Hiibner, and has been used as the valid name for that Old World genus since the two names were synonymised by Kirby, 1892, Synonymic Catalogue Lepidoptera Heterocera, vol. |, p. 616. 3. Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, Syst. Bearbeitung Schmett. Europa, vol. 6, p. 91, was established in the form ‘Crinodes m. (Crino HV [Hibner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmett.] schon vergeben)’ for three species, of which Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780, in Cramer, Uitlandsche Kapellen (Papillons exot.), vol. 4, p. 32, pl. 305, fig. F, was designated as type species by Kirby, 1892, Synonymic Catalogue Lepi- doptera Heterocera, vol. 1, p. 616. This is a New World species of NOTODONTIDAE from Surinam, and since 1892 Crinodes has had universal usage in the relevant New World literature in this sense. With one exception (Strand, 1910, p. 199) all authors have hitherto used Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer to denote a New World genus distinct from Tarsolepis Butler (=Crino Hiibner), an Old World genus. 4. These interpretations have had general usage in the literature of NOTODONTIDAE during the last ninety years, including the fol- lowing widely used works: Old World usage of Tarsolepis: Kirby, 1892, p. 616; Hampson, 1896, p. 126; Semper, 1896, p. 409; Griinberg, 1912, p. 284; Marumo, 232 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 1920, p. 286; Gaede, 1930, p. 607; 1933, p. 173; 1934, p. 4; Roepke, 1944, p. 80; Inoue, 1956, p. 405; 1958, p. 53; Kiriakoff, 1967, p. 14; 1968, p. 18; Watson, Fletcher & Nye, 1980, p. 189; Inoue, 1982, vol. 1, p. 604, vol. 2, p. 322. New World usage of Crinodes: Kirby, 1892, p. 616; Schaus, 1901, p. 276; Holland, 1903, p. 301; Dyar, [1903], p. 258; Packard, 1905, p. 90; Barnes & McDunnough, 1917, p. 96; Draudt, 1932, p. 924; Gaede, 1934, p. 218; McDunnough, 1938, p. 134; Forbes, 1939, p. 263; Watson, Fletcher & Nye, 1980, p. 46. 5. It has, however, been brought to our attention recently that there is a possible alternative interpretation, namely that Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer was established as an objective replacement name for Crino Hubner. Further, we understand that it is intended to adopt this interpretation in a forthcoming check list of North American Lepi- doptera. Such an interpretation would result in Tarsolepis, which has been in general use in the Old World for the past 90 years, being replaced by Crinodes, which has had universal use in the New World for over 100 years for a different genus. New World species currently included in Crinodes would then be placed in Astylis Boisduval, 1872, a name that has been in the synonymy of Crinodes for over ninety years. (2) Gonodontis Hiibner, [1823], and Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 6. Gonodontis Hiibner, [1823] 1816, Verzeichniss bekannter Schmett., p. 287, was established for three species of which Phalaena clelia Cramer, 1780, Uitlandsche Kapellen (Papillons exot.), vol. 3, pp. 172, 174, pl. 288, figs B, C was designated as type species by Warren, 1893, Proc. zool. Soc. London, for 1893, p. 398. This is a species of GEOMETRIDAE from India. 7. Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, Syst. Bearbeitung Schmett. Europa, vol. 6, pp. 108, 121, was established in the form ‘Pero m. der Name Gonodontis ist langst vergeben’ for two species, of which Gono- dontis rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, [1855] 1850-1858, Samml. neuer oder wenig bekannter aussereur. Schmett., vol. 1 (1), wrapper, pl. 58, fig. 325, was designated as type species by Poole, 1970, A revision of the American moth genus Pergama (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), p. 3. This is a species of GEOMETRIDAE from Brazil. 8. Gonodontis is not a junior homonym and is currently in general use as the valid name for a small Old World genus. Pero has been in general use in the New World for over 100 years for a different genus, represented only in the New World and now containing about 300 species. 9. These interpretations have had general use in the literature of the GEOMETRIDAE, including the following widely used works published during the last 100 years: Old World usage of Gonodontis: Warren, 1893, p. 398; Swinhoe, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 233 1900, p. 248; Holloway, 1976, p. 75; 1979, p. 333; Fletcher, 1979, p. 92. New World usage of Pero: Herrich-Schaffer, 1870, p. 184; Moschler, 1882, p. 400; Grossbeck, 1910, p. 359; Barnes & McDunnough, 1917, p. 123; Cassino & Swett, 1922, p. 137; Kaye & Lamont, 1927, p. 98; McDunnough, 1938, p. 170; Schaus, 1940, p. 317; Forbes, 1948, p. 82; McDunnough, 1949, p. 1; Rindge, 1955, p. 1; McGuffin, 1963, p. 1159; Fletcher, 1979, p. 159. 10. If Crinodes in the NOTODONTIDAE is to be treated as an objective replacement name, then Pero in the GEOMETRIDAE must be treated similarly. Pero, currently in general use as the valid name for a large genus of some 300 species in the New World, would then become a junior objective synonym of the Old World generic name Gonodontis and the species currently included in Pero would be placed in Pergama Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, a genus-group name synonymised with Pero by Prout, 1910, pp. 311, 312. We understand, however, that in contrast with the treatment of Crinodes it is intended to retain the general current usage of Pero in the forthcoming check list of North American Lepidop- tera. We can see no justification for this difference of treatment and wish to ensure that stability is maintained in the Old World and the New World in both cases. 11. In order to conserve the long-accepted names Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, and Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, in their accustomed meanings, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genera Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 and Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 and to designate the following species as their type species: (a) for Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780; (b) for Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, Gonodontis rectisec- taria Herrich-Schaffer, [1855]; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780; (b) Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Gonodontis rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, [1855]; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) bellatrix Stoll, 1780, as published in the binomen Phalaena bellatrix (specific name of type species of Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855); (b) rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, [1855], as published in the 234 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 binomen Gonodontis rectisectaria (specific name of type species of Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855). REFERENCES BARNES, W. & McDUNNOUGH, J. H. 1917. Check List of the Lepidoptera of boreal America, viii+392 pp. Illinois. CASSINO, S. E. & SWETT, L. W. 1922. Some new Species of the Genus Pero. Lepidopterist, vol. 3, pp. 137-144. DRAUDT, M. & SEITZ, A. 1913-1940. In Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde, vol. 6 (American Fauna), vili+ 1452 pp., 185 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Notodontidae, 1931-1934, pp. 901-1070). DYAR, H. G. [1903] 1902. A List of North American Lepidoptera. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 52, xix+723 pp. FLETCHER, D. S. 1979. In Nye, Generic Names of Moths of the World, vol. 3, xx +243 pp., 2 pls. London. FORBES, W. T. M. 1939. The Lepidoptera of Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Hary., vol. 85(4), pp. i-vii, 97-322, 8 pls. —1948. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring States, part II. Mem. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn. Memoir 274, 263 pp., 255 figs. GAEDE, M. & SEITZ, A. 1907-1930. In Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde, vol. 10 (Indo-Australian Fauna), iv+909 pp., 104 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Notodonti- dae, 1930, pp. 605-655). — 1930-1934. Jn Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde, vol. 2 (Supplement) (Palaearctic Fauna), vii+315 pp., 16 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Notodontidae, 1933, pp. 173-186). GAEDE, M. 1934. Jn Strand, Lepidopterorum Catalogus, part 59 (Notodonti- dae), 351 pp. Berlin. GEYER, C. See Hiibner, J. GROSSBECK, J. A. 1910. Studies of the North American Geometrid Moths __ of the Genus Pero. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 38, pp. 359-377, 4 pls. GRUNBERG, K. & SEITZ, A. 1906-1913. In Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde, vol. 2 (Palaearctic Fauna), vii+479 pp., 56 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Notodontidae, 1912, pp. 281-319.) HAMPSON, G. [1893] 1892. Fauna Br. India (Moths), vol. 1, xxiv+527 pp., 333 text-figs. London, Calcutta, Bombay, Berlin. (Notodontidae, pp. 124-177, text-figs 72-109.) HERRICH-SCHAFFER, G. A. W. 1850-[1858]. Sammi. neuer oder wenig bekannter aussereur. Schmett., vol. 1, 84 pp., Series I (Heterocera), 96 col. pls. Regensburg. (For dates of publication, see Fletcher, 1979, p. xiii.) — 1851-1856. Syst. Bearbeitung Schmett. Eur., vol. 6 (Nachtrag zum ersten Band), 178 pp. Regensburg. —1870. Die Schmetterlinge der Insel Cuba. Geometrina (part). KorrespBl. zool.-min. Ver. Regensburg, vol. 24, pp. 180-190. HOLLAND, W. J. 1903. The Moth Book, xxiv+479 pp., 263 text-figs, 48 col. pls. New York. HOLLOWAY, J. 1976. Moths of Borneo with special reference to Mount Kinabalu, x +264 pp., 727 +383 figs. Kuala Lumpur. —1979. A Survey of the Lepidoptera, Biogeography and Ecology of New Caledonia, xii+ 588 pp., 153 text-figs, 87 pls. The Hague. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 235 HUBNER, J. 1816-[1826]. Verzeichniss bhekannter Schmett., 431 pp.+ Anzeiger, 72 pp. Augsburg. —1823. Zutriige Samml. exot. Schmett., vol. 2, [1]+ [40] pp., pls [36]— [69]. Augsburg. —— 1832. (Geyer, in Hiibner), Ibidem, vol. 4, [1}48 pp., pls [104}-[137]. —— 1837. (Geyer, in Hiibner). Ibidem, vol. 5, [I} 52 pp., pls [138}1 72]. INOUE, H. 1956. Check List Lepidoptera Japan, part 4, pp. 365-429. Tokyo. INOUE, H. et al. 1958. Icones Heterocerorum Japonicorum, vol. 22, vi+ 303 pp., text-figs, col. pls 65-136. Osaka. —1982. Moths of Japan, vol. 1, 966 pp.; vol. 2, 552 pp., 392 pls. Tokyo. KAYE, W. J. & LAMONT, N. 1927. A Catalogue of the Trinidad Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths). Mem. Dep. Agric. Trin., vol. 3, viii+ 144 pp., 2 pls. KIRBY, W. F. 1892. Synonymic Cat. Lepidoptera Heterocera, vol. 1, 951 pp. London, Berlin. KIRIAKOFF, S. G. 1967. Jn Wytsman, Genera Insectorum, vol. 217 (B), 238 pp., 136 text-figs., 8 pls. Anvers. ——1968. In Wytsman, ibidem, vol. 217 (C), 269 pp., 195 text-figs, 11 pls. Anvers. MARUMO, N. 1920. A Revision of the Notodontidae of Japan, Corea and Formosa. J. Coll. Agric. imp. Univ. Tokyo, vol. 6, pp. 273-359, 18 pls. McDUNNOUGH, J. 1938. Check List of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America. Mem. sth. Calif. Acad. Sci., vol. 1, 272 pp. ——1949. Critical Notes on certain Pero Species (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Am. Mus. Novit., number 1393, 11 pp. McGUFFIN, W. C. 1963. The immature Stages of the Canadian Species of Pero Herrich-Schaffer (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Can. Ent., vol. 95, pp. ._ 1159-1167, 12 figs. MOSCHLER, H. B. 1882. Beitrage zur Schmetterlings-Fauna von Surinam IV. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 3] (Abh.), pp. 393-442, 2 pls. PACKARD, A. S. 1905. Monograph of the Bombycine Moths of North America (2). Mem. natn. Acad. Sci., vol. 9, 149 pp., 61 pls. POOLE, R. W. 1970. 4 Revision of the American Moth Genus Pergama (Lepi- doptera: Geometridae), iv +729 pp., 1116 figs. University Microfilms International. Michigan, U.S.A. & London, England. PROUT, L. B. 1910. On the Geometridae of the Argentine Republic. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond, vol. 1910, pp. 204-345, | pl. RINDGE, F. 1955. A Revision of some Species of Pero from the western United States (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). 4m. Mus. Novit., number 1750, 33 pp., 20 figs. ROEPKE, W. 1944. On the Genera Dudusa Walk. and Tarsolepis Butl. in the Dutch East Indies. (Lepidopt. Het., fam. Notodontidae.) Tijdschr. Ent., vol. 86, pp. 77-83. SCHAUS, W. 1901. A Revision of the American Notodontidae. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond., vol. 1901, pp. 257-343, 2 pls. ——1940. Insects of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Scient. Surv. P. Rico, vol. 12(3), pp. 291-417. SEMPER, G. 1896-1902. Die Schmetterlinge der Philippinischen Inseln. Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen von Dr G. Semper, (2) vol. 6 (Abt. 2), pp. 381-728, 36 pls. Wiesbaden. (Notodontidae pp. 409-416.) STRAND, E. 1910. Schmetterlinge aus Zentral- und West-Sumatra. Dt. ent. Z. Tris, vol. 24, pp. 190-208. 236 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 SWINHOE, C. 1900. Catalogue east. and Aust. Lepidoptera Heterocera Colln Oxf Univ. Mus., vol. 2, 630 pp., 8 pls. Oxford. WARREN, W. 1893. On new Genera and Species of Moths of the Family Geometridae from India in the Collection of H. J. Elwes. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., vol. 1893, pp. 341-434, pls 30-32. WATSON, A., FLETCHER, D. S. & NYE, I. W. B. 1980. In Nye, Generic Names of Moths of the World, vol. 2, xiv+228 pp., | pl. London. POSTSCRIPT Since this case was submitted to the Commission the check list of North American Lepidoptera containing the changes referred to in paragraphs 5 and 10 above has been published under the title: HODGES, R. W. et al. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico, xxiv +284 pp., London. I.W.B.N. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 21 NASSARIIDAE IREDALE, 1916 (GASTROPODA): REVISED PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)1987 By David Heppell (Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh) An application for the conservation of the family name NASSARIIDAE (type genus Nassarius Duméril, 1806) was presented to the Commission by Mr W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, New Zealand) in 1972 (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 29, pp. 62-63). He provided additional details in 1974 (vol. 31, pp. 212-214). His case required the grant to NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 of nomenclatural precedence over four older family-group names. The resolution of the problem depends on the status, and hence the type species, of Nassarius. Mr Cernohorsky treated it as a new name for a nominal genus of its own with type species Buccinum arcularia Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent monotypy by Froriep, 1806, p. 167. Iredale, on the other hand, treated it as a new name for Nassa Lamarck, 1799, non [Roding], 1798. In that case the type species of Nassarius would be Buccinum mutabile Lin- naeus, 1758. This view was strongly upheld by Dr Myra Keen (Stanford University, California). The basic facts are as follows. 2. Dumeéril, 1806, Zoologie analytique, p. xxiii, said: ‘La classe des mollusques offrira des ordres tout-a-fait nouveaux; mais ils ont été faits ou indiqués, déja par M. Cuvier lui-méme, qui a le premier séparé ces étres de la classe nombreuse des vers de Linné. Tous les savans ont adopté maintenant cette classification; et comme notre objet étoit de faire connoitre les animaux et non les coquilles qui les revétent, nous n’avons profité que dans trés-peu de circonstances des travaux de MM. Poli et Lamarck, cette partie de la science laissant encore beaucoup a désirer aux naturalistes.’ He then proposes 38 new names for molluscan genera. Each name is accompanied by a description, but no species are referred to any of the genera; and each name differs from a pre-existing available name only in being given the termination ‘-arius’. Malacolo- gists have not been unanimous in their treatment of these names, as already indicated. For that reason, any attempt to deal with them all by a single ruling would cause confusion. Some of them might well be disposed of by being treated as unjustified emendations of the earlier names they resemble. Others would then have to be dealt with as nomenclaturally valid names under the Law of Priority and accepted or suppressed as the requirements of stability would indicate in each case. Nassarius is in this latter group. 3. Iredale, 1916, Proc. malacol. Soc. London, vol. 12, p. 82, treated Nassarius as a new replacement name for Nassa Lamarck, 1799, non [Réding], 1798, but there is no evidence that Dumeril knew of the work now attributed to R6ding (the Museum Boltenianum), and the only authors he expressly cites are Cuvier, Poli and Lamarck. It is more likely that he was proposing a new name for the genus of animals that inhabit the genus of shells called Nassa by Lamarck. In that case, the 238 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 type species of the genus is determined by the action of the first author subsequently to refer one or more species to the genus. The author in question is Froriep, who later in 1806 published a German translation of Duméril’s work and referred one species to each of the genera. The species he referred to Nassarius was Buccinum arcularia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 737, and this is then the type species of the genus, by subsequent monotypy. This is the situation preferred by Mr Cernohorsky. 4. Both Nassa [R6ding] and Nassa Lamarck are derived from the French vernacular ‘les nassiers——a name given to various small carni- vorous gastropods that were attracted to ‘nasses’, i.e. lobster pots and similar basket-like fish traps. Since Duméril would no doubt have con- sidered the animals of these to be congeneric (although inhabiting a variety of shell genera) his concept of Nassarius no doubt included both Nassa [R6ding] and Nassa Lamarck. 5. Dr Keen’s concern in this case seems to arise from a fear that, if Nassarius is treated as Mr Cernohorsky would wish, then all Duméril’s generic names would have to be treated in the same way. Some of them would then become senior synonyms (objective or subjec- tive) of later generic names in uninterrupted general use since their establishment. This would cause needless confusion and a quantity of extra work for the Commission, both of which would be avoided if such names could be disposed of as unjustified emendations. It is for this reason that I have suggested that each Dumeril name should be con- sidered on its merits and that the Nassarius case be dealt with in isolation, without prejudice to any other Duméril name. The other names can then be dealt with separately, singly or in groups, as their merits indicate. There is no doubt that Mr Cernohorsky’s application represents majority usage of Nassarius, at least outside the U.S.A. 6. If Mr Cernohorsky’s application is accepted, Arcularia Link, 1807, Beschr. nat. Sammil. Univ. Rostock (3), p. 126, becomes a junior subjective synonym of Nassarius. Its type species is Arcularia coronata Link, 1807, ibid., p. 126, by subsequent designation by Morch, 1863, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1862, p. 227. Link’s species is based on refer- ences to Martini & Chemnitz, 1773, Neues syst. Conch. Cabinet, vol. 2, figs. 409-412, and to Gmelin, 1791, p. 3480. Here is found Gmelin’s account of Buccinum arcularia Linnaeus, 1758, with a primary refer- ence to Mus. Lud. Ulr., p. 608, no. 260* and 17 other references, one of which is to the same figures in Martini & Chemnitz cited by Link. ARCULARIIDAE Hedley, 1915 or 1916, likewise becomes a synonym of NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916. As its date of publication is uncertain (see Cernohorsky, 1974, p. 213) the Commission should rule that it is to be deemed a junior objective synonym of NASSARIIDAE. Sphaero- nassa Locard, 1886, Prodr. Malacol. France, Cat. gén. Moll. France, Moll. mar., pp. 132, 548, type species, by original designation (p. 548), Buccinum mutabile Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 738, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 239 is then available for the group now ranked by some authors as Nassarius 8.8. 7. Apart from ARCULARIIDAE, the family-group names senior, to NASSARIIDAE mentioned by Mr Cernohorsky are CY CLO- NASSINAE Gill, 1871, CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882, DORSAN- INAE Cossmann, 1901, and ALECTRIONIDAE Dall, 1908. To deal with these names in relation to NASSARIIDAE by the relative prece- dence procedure would be extremely cumbersome and the result might be taxonomically fragile. An alternative solution can be found which gives the pragmatic result desired. 8. The first family-group name based on Nassa is NASSINAE Swainson, 1835, Elements modern Conchology, pp. 18, 20. It contains a genus Nassa described as ‘Wrinkled, the inner lip thickened and spreading out’. This is clearly Nassa Lamarck, non [R6ding]. By 1840, Treatise Malacology, pp. 63, 69, 299, the family-group taxon had come to include a genus Nassa, clearly Lamarck’s nassariid genus, and con- taining Buccinum arcularia Linnaeus. This is the species that Mr Cernohorsky takes to be the type species of Nassarius, itself the type genus of NASSARIIDAE. The pragmatic solution to the problem of conserving that name would, therefore, be for the Commission to use its plenary powers to give NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916, the priority of NASSINAE Swainson, 1835, and to rule that it is to be cited as ‘“NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 (1835)’. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group name NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916, is to be given the same priority as the family-group name NASSINAE Swainson, 1835, and that it is to be cited as ‘NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 (1835); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Nassarius Duméril, 1806 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent monotypy (Froriep, 1806), Buccinum arcu- laria Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Sphaeronassa Locard, 1886 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Buccinum mutabile Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) arcularia Linnaeus, 1758,as published in the binomen Bucc- inum arcularia (specific name of type species of Nassarius Dumeéril, 1806); (b) mutabile Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buccinum mutabile (specific name of type species of Sphaeronassa Locard, 1886); (4) to place the family-group name NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 (type genus Nassarius Duméril, 1806) on the Official List of 240 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Family-Group Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is to be cited as ‘NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 (1835). [In view of the differing views that have been taken of the problem here presented, the Commission reminds zoologists that Article 78e applies and that no conclusions or inferences are to be drawn from the present case concerning any other generic name published by Duméril, 1806, Zoologie analytique. R.V.M.] Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 241 TRICELIA VARIOPEDATA RENIER [1807] (POLYCHAETA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF THE SPECIFIC NAME. Z.N.(S.)1093 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In Opinion 427 (1956, Ops. Decls Int. Comm, zool. Nom. vol. 14 (11), pp. 281-310) the Commission rejected the following work as not validly published: Renier, S. A. [1807], Tavole per servire alle classi- ficazione e connoscenza degli animali. Most of the generic names in that work were placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology, but a number were reserved for further consideration, including Tricelia. The late Dr Lemche in a letter to the Commission’s office dated 27 May 1955, said of this name: ‘Tricelia is a synonym of the generic name Chaetopterus Cuvier, which is in common use. There is no reason to revive Renier’s generic name, but the specific name vario- pedata Renier is a very well known name of an extremely strange poly- chaete known to most students of zoology because of its peculiar outline and strong powers of luminescence. I think it is essential to keep the specific name.’ 2. Tricelia and T. variopedata appeared in tavola vi of Renier’s work. The status of Chaetopterus is fortunately not in doubt. The genus was described by Cuvier, 1830, Régne animal (2nd ed.), vol. 3, p. 208. . The generic description applies also to the only included species (hence the type species by monotypy), C. pergamentaceus Cuvier, ibid. 3. Polychaete specialists are asked to comment on the following proposals: that the International Commission on Zoological Nomencla- ture should (a) use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name variope- data Renier, [1807], as appearing in the binomen Tricelia variopedata, is an available name; (b) place the generic name Chaetopterus Cuvier, 1830 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Chaetopterus perga- mentaceus Cuvier, 1830, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (c) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (i) variopedata Renier, [1807], as appearing in the binomen Tricelia variopedata, and as ruled under the plenary powers in (a) above to be an available name; (ii) pergamentaceus Cuvier, 1830, as published in the bino- men Chaetopterus pergamentaceus (specific name of type species of Chaetopterus Cuvier, 1830); 242 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 (d) place the generic name Tricelia Renier, [1807], a name appearing in a work ruled in Opinion 427 to be not validly published, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 243 PREAMBLE to resurrected Cases Z.N.(S.)1686, 1687 (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22 (2), pp. 102, 103) These two cases are the last remaining from several originally submitted by Francis Hemming in 1964 under the old ‘nomen oblitum rule’ (Art. 23b), and shelved when that rule was placed in abeyance. Hemming had discovered those nomina oblita during his exhaustive research of the ancient generic names for his 1967 classic ‘Generic Names of the Butterflies and their Type-Species’ (Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) Suppl. vol. 9), published three years after his death. The cases have been in suspense now for nearly 20 years; none of the older names have been adopted, and early settlement is requested in order to end present uncertainty and threats to stability. C. F. COWAN EUPHAEDRA HUBNER, [1819] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1686 (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22 (2), p. 102) By Charles F. Cowan (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over- Sands, Cumbria LAI1I 7DR, England) Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819], type species by designation by Scudder, 1875, Papilio cyparissa Cramer, [1775], is the universally known name of an unusually large and colourful genus of Nymphalid butterflies in Africa. Unfortunately, when Hiibner’s Tentamen [1806] was suppressed by Opinion 97, one of the names he had used in it became technically available in a slightly different sense, as a senior subjective synonym of Euphaedra. That name is Najas Hubner, [1807], whose type species by monotypy, Najas themis Hibner, [1807], is currently considered to be congeneric with E. cyparissa (Cramer). The name Najas in this sense was quickly abandoned by Hiibner and has never been adopted, while Euphaedra has remained in universal use for well over 100 years, ten recent examples being: Peters, 1952, pp. 63-66; van Someren & Jackson (1960), pp. 127-137, pls. 2-5; Gifford, 1965, p. 106; Pinhey, 1965, pp. 92-93; Hemming, 1967, pp. 179, 304; Cooper, 1973, p. 71; Lewis, 1973, pls. 100, 101; Laithwaite et al, 1975, p. 204, pl. 237 g; Pinhey & Loe, 1977, pp. 25, 26, 34, 36-37; Carcasson, 1981, pp. 45, 46, 165-167. 244 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 2. Euphaedra of present authors is ripe for ‘splitting’, but it so happens that the two type species involved here are very closely related (Nos. 2472, 2474 among over 80 species listed in the subgenus Euphaedra alone) and it is considered that to save Najas for any who ‘think it a genus distinct from Euphaedra’ would delay rather than assist stability. 3. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Najas Hubner, [1807], for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy and, having done SO; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819] (gender femi- nine), type-species by designation by Scudder, 1875, Papilio cyparissa Cramer, [1775], (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name cyparissa Cramer, [1775], as published in the binomen Papilio cyparissa (type-species of Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819)), (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Najas Hibner, [1807], as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above. ORIGINAL REFERENCES Euphaedra Hibner, [1819], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, p. 39 Type Designation; Scudder, 1875. Proc. Amer. Acad, Arts Sci. vol. 10, p. 172 Papilio cyparissa Cramer, [1775], Uitlandsche Kapellen etc. vol. | (4), p. 63, pl. 39 figs. D, E. Najas, and N. themis Hibner, [1807]. Sammlung exotischer Schmett- linge vol. 1, pl. [60]. RECENT REFERENCES CARCASSON, R. H. 1981. Collins’ Handguide to the Butterflies of Africa. xix, 1-100 (col. figs throughout), 101-188 pp. 8°. London. COOPER, R. 1973. Butterflies of Rhodesia, [6], 138 pp., 32 pls. 8°. (Longmans, Rhodesia), Salisbury. GIFFORD, D. 1965. List of the Butterflies of Malawi, [7], i-vi, 1-148 pp., 9 pls. 8°. (Hist. Sci. Soc. Malawi), Blantyre. HEMMING, F. 1967. The generic Names of the Butterflies and their Type- species. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol.) Suppl. vol. 9. 509 pp. LEWIS, H. L. 1973. Butterflies of the World. xvi pp., 208 pls., pp. [2], 209-312. 4°. (Harrap) London. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 245 LAITHWAITE, E., WATSON, A. & WHALLEY, P. E. S. 1975. Dictionary of Butterflies and Moths in Colour. xlvili pp., 144 pls., pp. 145-296. 4°. (Michael Joseph) London. PETERS, W. 1952. Provisional Checklist of the Butterflies of the Ethiopian Region. [7], 9-201 pp. 8°. (Classey) Feltham. PINHEY, E. C. G. 1965. Butterflies of Southern Africa. xi, 240 pp., 42 pls. 8°. (Longmans, Rhodesia) Salisbury. —— & LOE, I. D. 1977. Guide to the Butterflies of Central and Southern Africa. 106 pp., illustr. Oblong 8°. (Causton & Sons) London. VAN SOMEREN, V. G. L. & JACKSON, T. H. E. 1960. Some comments on Protective Resemblance amongst African Lepidoptera. J. Lepid. Soc. vol. 13 (1959) (3), pp. 121-150 (incl. 10 pls.). OUROCNEMIS BAKER, 1887 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)1687 (see Bull. zool. Nom. 22 (2), p. 103) by Charles F. Cowan (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over- Sands, Cumbria LA11 7DR, England) Aetheius Hibner, [1819], was a generic name introduced for three species which Hiibner placed among the Hesperiid (‘Skipper’) butterflies but which actually are all Riodinids (‘Metalmarks’). By 1875 when Scudder designated the type species, the true affiliation of two was known, so he designated the third ‘for it alone belongs to the group in which Hiibner placed this genus’; Papilio archytas Stoll, [1787]. Thereafter, the name Aetheius disappeared from the literature, being rightly ignored by Hesperiid workers and never discovered by Riodinid specialists. 2. In 1887 Baker introduced the generic name Ourocnemis for the Riodinid species Anteros axiochus Hewitson, [1867], which is now considered subjectively to be conspecific with P. archytas Stoll. To resurrect the defunct name Aetheius now, sinking Ourocnemis which has been in continual use for nearly a century, would stretch the Law of Priority to extreme length at the expense of stability and universality. Recent usages of Ourocnemis are; Lichy, 1936, p. 204, fig., & 1938, pl., fig. 4; Hall, 1940, p. 35; Forster, 1948, p. 111, no. 189; Hemming, 1967, p. 328; Ortiz, 1967, p. 14 (as “Aurocnemis’’); Zikan & Zikan, 1968, p. 55; Tello, 1968, p. 220; Lamas, 1969, p. 318; Lewis, 1973, pl. 77, fig. 14 (as ‘““Ourochnemis archytes’’); Biezanko et al, 1979, p. 16. 3. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the 246 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Aetheius Hiibner, [1819] and, having done SO; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Anteros axiochus Hewitson, [1867], (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name archytas Stoll, [1787] as published in the binomen Papilio archytas (the senior subjective synonym of Anteros axiochus Hewitson, the type species of Ourocnemis Baker, 1887), (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Aetheius Hiibner, [1819], as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above. ORIGINAL REFERENCES Aetheius Hiibner, [1819]. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge (7), Pp. 109 Type Designation; Scudder, 1875. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. vol. 10, p. 104 Papilio archytas Stoll, [1787]. Aanhangsel van ... Uitlandsche Kapellen ronGramer(l); p2e2s..pl) 5, figss Anteros axiochus Hewitson, [1867]. Illustrations of new Species of exotic Butterflies vol. 4 (63), p. [77], pl. ANTEROS I, figs 1, 2 Ourocnemis Baker, 1887. Trans. entomol. Soc. Lond. 1887, pp. 175-176, pl. 9. RECENT REFERENCES BIEZANKO, C. M., MIELKE, O. H. H. & WEDERHOFF, A. 1979. Contri- buicao ao estudo faunistico dos Riodinidae do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil (Lepidoptera). Acta biologica paranaense vol. 7 (1/4), pp. 7-22. FORSTER, W. 1948. Liste der von Pater Cornelius Vogl in Maracay und Caracas gesammelten Schmetterlinge. Bol. Entomol. Venezolana vol. 7 (3/4), pp. 91-120, 2 pls. HALL, A. 1940. Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera (Butterflies) of British Guiana. Brit. Guiana Dept. Agric. Ent. Bull. (3), 88 pp. HEMMING, F. 1967. The generic Names of the Butterflies and their Type- species. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol.) Suppl. vol. 9, 509 pp. LAMAS, G. 1969. Lista de ropaléceros (Lepidoptera) peruanos citados en la obra “Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde’? de Adalbert Seitz. Biota (Lima) vol. 7 (58), 265-328 LEWIS, H. L. 1973. Butterflies of the World. xvi pp., 208 pls., pp. [2], 209-312. 4°. (Harrap) London. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 247 LICHY, R. 1936. Dos lepidopteros nuevos para Venezuela. Bol. Soc. venezolana de Ciencias nat. vol. 3 (24), pp. 204-209, 2 figs. 1938. Lepiddpteros nuevos para Venezuela. [hid. vol. 4 (32), pp. 266-278, | pl. ORTIZ, I. 1967. Mariposas y ‘‘Taras”’ de Santiago de Leon de Caracas. Sus Inter-relaciones en Algunos Aspectos H umanos de la Salud (1567-196 /) Caracas, Sociedad Venezolana de Salud Publica. 79 pp. 38 figs. TELLO, J. 1968. Historia Natural de Caracas. Caracas, Consejo Municipal del _ Distrito Federal. 326 pp. ZIKAN, J. F. & ZIKAN, N. 1968. Inseto-Fauna do Itatiaia e da Mantiqueira. III. Lepidoptera. Pesquisa agropecuaria brasileira vol. 3, pp. 45-109. 248 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 CEROPLESIS SERVILLE, 1835 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2180 By R. C. Marinoni (Universidade Federal do Parana, Brazil) Serville, 1835 (Ann. Soc. entomol. France, vol. 4, p. 93) described the genus Ceroplesis and included four species (among them Lamia trifasciata Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Entomol. p. 174, and Lamia aethiops Fabricius, 1775, ibid.). Dejean, 1835, Cat. Coléop. Comte Dejean, livr. 4, p. 342, erected the genus Diastocera with a single species, Lamia trifasciata Fabricius, which is therefore the type species by monotypy. 2. Thomson, 1860, Essai Classif. Fam. Cérambycides, p. 92, foll- owed Dejean’s concept and, after redescribing Diastocera, stated: ‘Genre fondé sur Ceroplesis trifasciata Fabr. Syst. Eleuth. Il p. 297... Espece: D. trifasciata Fabr. (Lamia) Ent. Syst. I, 281, 55’. In the same paper, p. 95, he listed under Ceroplesis the other three species originally cited by Serville. 3. However, in 1864 Thomson (Syst. Cerambycidarum, p. 69) recognised D. trifasciata Fab. ‘(Ent. Syst. Il p. 281, no. 55, Senegal — Syst. Eleut. Il, p. 297, no. 84) as type species of Diastocera, and then designated in the next entry on the same page C-. trifasciata Fab. ‘(Syst. Eleut. Il, p. 297, no. 24) (Lamia) as type species of Ceroplesis. The bibliographic references differ only in the number cited for Fabricius’s species — Syst. Eleut. nos. 24 and 84. Thomson’s references are identical to those of Serville. This is an error. The correct number is 84, not 24. Hence the same species was indicated by Thomson as type of both Diastocera and Ceroplesis. 4. The sense in which Ceroplesis was used by Dejean, 1835, by Thomson, 1860, and is now used, excludes L. trifasciata. The Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (a) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for Ceroplesis Serville, 1835, and having done so to designate Lamia aethiops Fabricius, 1775, as type species of that genus; (b) to place the generic name Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (a) above, Lamia aethiops Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (c) to place the specific name aethiops Fabricius, 1775, as pub- lished in the binomen Lamia aethiops, (specific name of type species of Ceroplesis Serville, 1835) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 249 RALLUS TABUENSIS GMELIN, 1789 (AVES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS BY THE SUPPRESSION OF RALLUS NIGRA (sic) MILLER, 1784. Z.N.(S.)2276 By Murray D. Bruce (10 Buckra Street, Turramurra, New South Wales 2074, Australia), D. T. Holyoak (Dept. of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England), and J.-C. Thibault (5 Rue Daubenton, Paris, 75005, France) This application is designed to preserve the long established and generally used specific name of Rallus tabuensis Gmelin, 1789, Syst. Nat. 1(2), p. 717 (based on the Tabuan Rail of Latham, 1785, Gen. Syn. Bds 3, p. 135, from Tongatabu Island), a widespread crake from the Philippines to New Zealand and south east Polynesia. It is currently placed in the genus Porzana (see Olson, 1973, Wilson Bull. vol. 85, pp. 381-416) and it is known by the English name of the Spotless Crake. 2. Sherborn & Iredale (1921, Jbis (11) vol. 3, pp. 302-309) pointed out that the name Rallus nigra Miller, 1784, Var. Sub. Nat. Hist. 9, pl. 50, from the island of Tahiti, antedates Rallus tabuensis Gmelin, 1789, but they did not know whether there might be some dif- ference between birds from Tongatabu and Tahiti. Lysaght (1956, Bull. Br. Orn. CL. vol. 76, pp. 97-98) commented that Amadon, who used the name tabuensis (1942, Am. Mus. Novit. 1175, pp. 10-11), had been unable to detect any differences between Tongatabu and Tahiti birds, which he classified in the same (nominate) subspecies as Porzana tabuensis tabuensis (Gmelin, 1789). As a result Lysaght advocated the adoption of Miller’s name, nigra, for the species. We have also examined specimens from Tongatabu, Tahiti and from other localities in the Tonga and Society Islands and found no morphological differences between them. 3. The specific name nigra, based on Rallus nigra Miller, 1784, has been used as Porzana nigra (Miller, 1784) in place of Porzana tabuensis (Gmelin, 1789) only five times (see Appendix 1). The name was originally published in the form Rallus nigra, although Rallus niger (masculine) would have been correct. Subsequent authors have not cor- rected the spelling because transferred to the genus Porzana the feminine ending becomes suitable. 4. Peters (1934, Checklist Bds World Volume 2, p. 188) tentati- vely placed Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 in the synonymy of Porzana atra North, 1908, the endemic crake of Henderson Island, which he placed in the monotypic genus Nesophylax. Lysaght (1956, op. cit.) has shown that Peters’ description of Miller’s plate was inaccurate in some import- 250 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 ant details, apparently because he examined the second edition of Miller’s plates (1796, Cimelia Physica) in which the hand-colouring is less accurate than in the first edition. More importantly, Peters evidently overlooked the locality ‘Otaheite’ [= Tahiti] given in the interleaved text when he stated that Miller gave no locality. In view of the locality, there can be little doubt that Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 is different from the endemic Henderson Island Crake, Porzana atra North, 1908, and that it is the same as Porzana tabuensis (Gmelin, 1789). 5. With the few exceptions noted in paragraph 3 above and in Appendix 1, the Spotless Crake has been known overwhelmingly, and is currently known, by the name Porzana tabuensis (Gmelin, 1789) (see Appendix 2). This name is used in the literature listed in Appendix 2, selecting publications chiefly from the last fifty years, but also including a few major older works that are or were relied on for nomenclature by zoologists. 6. While Porzana nigra (Miller, 1784), based on Rallus nigra Miller, 1784, has priority over Porzana tabuensis (Gmelin, 1789), based on Rallus tabuensis Gmelin, 1789, its adoption would disturb the stab- ility and universality of usage of Rallus tabuensis Gmelin and cause con- fusion. Peters’ (incorrect) attribution of Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 to Porzana atra North, 1908 in the generally standard Checklist of the Birds of the World would aggravate the confusion if Miller’s specific name were to replace Porzana tabuensis (Gmelin, 1789), the identity of which has not been in dispute. Article 79(b) allows a junior synonym to be conserved in the interest of promoting stability and universality of usage or avoiding confusion. Suppression of Miller’s name is prefer- able to a Ruling that Gmelin’s name should be given precedence when they are regarded as synonyms because the birds of Tahiti are now well known and it is extremely improbable that nigra could apply to some form other than the nominate tabuensis. In accordance with Article 80, Rallus tabuensis Gmelin, 1789, the currently used name, must be maintained as the valid name until the decision of the Commission is published. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name nigra Miller, 1784, as published in the binomen Rallus nigra, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name tabuensis Gmelin, 1789, as pub- lished in the binomen Rallus tabuensis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name nigra Miller, 1784, as published in the binomen Rallus nigra and suppressed under the plen- ary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 251 APPENDIX | Books and papers using the name nigra Miller, 1874 for the Spotless Crake: SHERBORN & IREDALE 1921. /bis (11) vol. 3, pp. 302-309. MATHEWS 1927. Syst. Av. Australas. vol. 1, pp. 92-93. BERLIOZ 1934. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. Nat., Paris (2) vol. 6, p. 340. LYSAGHT 1956. Bull. Br. Orn. CL. vol. 76, pp. 97-98. LYSAGHT 1959. Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Hist. ser. vol. 1, p. 302. APPENDIX 2 Recent and major books and papers using the name tabuensis Gmelin, 1789 for the Spotless Crake: GRAY 1871. Handlist Gen. Species Bds vol. 3, p. 63. SHARPE 1894. Cat. Bds Brit. Mus. vol. 23, pp. 93, 111-112. SHARPE 1899. Handlist Gen. Species Bds vol. 1, p. 102. MURPHY 1924. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 124, pp. 4-7. CAYLEY 1931. What bird is that? pp. 5, 241. PETERS 1934. Checklist Bds World vol. 2, p. 187. ADAMSON 1939. Bull. Bernice P. Bishop Mus. vol. 159, p. 64. MAYR 1941. List of New Guinea birds, p. 24. AMADON 1942. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 1175, pp. 10-11. MAYR 1945. Bds Southwest Pacific, pp. 60, 111,128, 157,179,203, 219. DELACOUR & MAYR 1946. Bds Philippines, p. 64. MAYR & GILLIARD 1954 Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. vol. 103, pp. S8326,535: GREENWAY 1958. Extinct and vanishing bds World., p. 219. WILLIAMS 1960. /bis vol. 102, pp. 61-62, 66. DELACOUR 1966. Guide des oiseaux de la Nouvelle Calédonie, p. 66. FALLA, SIBSON & TURBOTT 1966. Field guide bds New Zealand, p. 108. RAND & GILLIARD 1967. Handbook New Guinea Bads, p. 111. SOPER 1969. Notornis vol. 16, pp. 219-220. HADDEN 1970. Notornis vol. 17, pp. 200-213. DUPONT 1971. Philippine Bds, p. 69. SLATER et al. 1971. Field guide Australian Bds. Non-Passerines, p. 271. FRASER 1972. Notornis vol. 19, pp. 87-88. THIBAULT 1973. Alauda vol. 41, pp. 112, 302, 314. MACDONALD 1973. Bds of Australia, p. 138. KING 1973. Wilson Bull. vol. 85, p. 98. THIBAULT & THIBAULT 1973. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 43, p. 62. HOLYOAK 1974. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 44, p. 25. LACAN & MOUGIN 1974. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 44, pp. 231, 272. THIBAULT 1974. Cr. Acad. Sci., Paris, Sér. D. No. 278, p. 2477. HOLYOAK 1975. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 45, pp. 215, 227. PETITOT & PETITOT 1975. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 45, p. 83. CONDON 1975. Checklist Bds Australia. Vol. 1, p. 103. JOHNSON 1976. Notornis vol. 23, p. 357. RIPLEY 1977. Rails of the World, pp. 230-231. HOLYOAK & THIBAULT (in press). Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., Paris. BRUCE (in press). Checklist Bds Wallacea. 252 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 ZEUGOPHORA KUNZE, 1818 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2405 By Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, University of Helsingfors, Helsingfors, Finland) In this application it is proposed that the generally used generic name Zeugophora Kunze, 1818, in the family CHRYSOMELIDAE, be preserved by the suppression of its unused senior synonym Auchenia Thunberg, 1792. 2. The genus Auchenia was introduced by Thunberg (1792, pp. 95 and 116), who named three species as being members of it: Auchenia duodecimpunctata (Chrysomela 12-punctata Linnaeus, 1758, p. 376) on p. 95; Auchenia subspinosa (Crioceris subspinosa Fabricius, 1781, p. 155) and Auchenia melanopa (Chrysomela melanopus Linnaeus, 1758, p. 376), both on p. 116. In subsequent years some zoologists used the name Auchenia, but most did not. 3. Latreille (1829) gave a diagnosis of Auchenia, mentioning only the species Crioceris subspinosa F., but he did not call it the type, so this mention cannot be considered to be a type designation. Westwood (1838) named Chrysomela quadrimaculata Linnaeus, 1758, p. 376 as the type species of Auchenia and Hope (1840) did so as well. As C. quadrimaculata was not one of the species originally included in Auchenia by Thunberg (1792) both Westwood’s and Hope’s desig- nations were invalid under Article 69(a) of the Code. Duponchel & Chevrolat (in d’Orbigny, 1842) mentioned Crioceris subspinosa Fabricius, 1781 as the type species, and this is the valid designation. 4. The genus Zeugophora was described by Kunze (1818, p. 71) with two species included, Z. subspinosa and Z. flavicollis (Auchenia flavicollis Marsham, 1802, p. 217). Westwood (1838) designated Crio- ceris subspinosa Fabricius, 1781 as type species of this genus. 5. Auchenia and Zeugophora are objective synonyms and according to the Law of Priority Auchenia should take precedence. However Auchenia has not been used as a valid generic name for more than a century, whilst Zeugophora has been in universal use, e.g. by Crowson (1946), Lindroth (1960), Arnett (1962), Gressitt & Kimoto (1963), Medvedev & Shapiro (1965), Mohr (1966), Iablokoff- Khnzorian (1966), Berti & Rapilly (1973), Lopatin (1977) and Pope (1977). Furthermore Zeugophora is the base for the subfamily name ZEUGOPHORINAE. Replacing Zeugophora with Auchenia would definitely not be in the best interests of stability of the nomenclature. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 253 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Auchenia Thunberg, 1792, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation, Crioceris subspinosa Fabricius, 1781, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name subspinosa Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Crioceris subspinosa (specific name of the type species of Zeugophora Kunze, 1818) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Auchenia Thunberg, 1792, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ARNETT, R. H. 1962. The beetles of the United States (6). Washington, D.C., pp. 851-1112. BERTI, N. & RAPILLY, M. 1973. Contribution a la faune de I’Iran. Voyages de Mm. R. Naviaux et M. Rapilly (Col. Chrysomelidae). Ann. Soc. entomol. France (N.S.) vol. 9, pp. 861-894. CROWSON, R. A. 1946. A revision of the genera of the Chrysomelid group Sagrinae (Coleoptera). Trans. r. Entomol. Soc. London vol. 97, pp. 75-115. FABRICIUS, J. C. 1781. Species Insectorum, Vol. 1. Hamburgi et Kilonii, pp. 1-552. GRESSITT, J. L. & KIMOTO, S. 1961. The Chrysomelidae (Coleopt.) of China and Korea. Part 1. Pacific Insects Monogr. vol. 1, pp. 1-299. HOPE, F. W. 1840. The coleopterist’s manual, vol. III. London, pp. 1-191. IABLOKOFF-KHNZORIAN, S. M. 1966. Considérations sur l’édéage des Chrysomelidae et son importance phylogénique. L’Entomologiste vol. 22, pp. 115-136. KUNZE, G. 1818. Zeugophora (Jochtrager), eine neue Kafergattung. Neue Schr. naturf. Ges. Halle vol. 2(4), pp. 71-76. LATREILLE, P. 1829, in Cuvier, Le régne animal. 2 ed., vol. 5. Paris. pp. 1-556. LINDROTH, C. H. 1960 (ed.). Catalogus Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Lund, pp. 1-476. LOPATIN, I. K. 1977. Zuky-listoedy Srednej Azii i Kazahstana. Opred. faune SSSR vol. 113, pp. 1-270. MEDVEDEV, L. N. & SHAPIRO, D. S. 1965. 76. Sem. Chrysomelidae — Listoedy. Opred. faune SSSR vol. 89, pp. 419-474. MOHR, K. H. 1966. 88. Fam. Chrysomelidae, in Freude, Harde & Lohse, Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 9, pp. 95-280. 254 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 D‘ORBIGNY, C. 1842. Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle, vol. 2, Paris, pp. 1-795. POPE, R. D. 1977 in Kloet & Hincks. A checklist of British Insects (ed. 2), part 3. Coleoptera and Strepsiptera. Handb. Ident. Br. Insects vol. 11(3), pp. 1-105. THUNBERG, C. P. 1792. Descriptiones insectorum svecicorum. Nova Acta Upsala vol. 5, pp. 85-119. WESTWOOD, J. O. 1838. An introduction to the modern classification of insects, vol. 1, part 1, (Synopsis of the genera of British insects). London, pp. 148. INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Austin, A.D. 70 Bacescu, M. 58 Bailey, R.M. 167 Baird, D. . : 184 Balk, C. Lochman 70 Bolton, B. 70 Boucek, Z. , 70 Broadley, D.G. 189 Brothers, D.J. 72 Bruce, M.D. 249 Chiszar, D. 22S Clarke, B.T. 114 Coan, E.V. : 65 Cooper, M.R. pes 128 Cowan, C.F. 41,243, 245 Cutler, B. “go seemrea 0) DeBach, P. ee eae Dubois, A. 114, 198 Ferguson, N.D.M. 70 Fitton, M.G. . 70 Fitzgerald, K.T. 165 Fletcher, D.S. 231 Froeschner, R.C. 65 Gauld, I.D. oe oe 70 Guillette, L.J., Jr. 165 Gurney, A.B. 205 Groves, C.P. 117 Heppell, D. Seentet 221237) Holthuis, L.B. 56, 58, 73, 197 Holyoak, D.T. ee Rea Huddleston, T. 70 Kafanov, A.I. 122 Kensley, B 163 Lanham, U.N. 62 LaSalle, J. 74 Legrand, P. . he tee) Loveridge, A. (deceased) iy OD Marinoni,R.C. . ... . 248 Melville, R.V. (Secretary) . 15, . 19,71, 179, 204, 220, 240, 241 Muchener GD 2? te bce) 40207 Mikkola, K. 102 Mockford, E.L. 124 Page Moore, eb aei aes. ios 104 Moreresl-Ve cece. 5 4 Morgan, R.E. D3, <3 eRe Napier PE. a 2) bemeyeeerns: welt l\77; Narchi, W. Vie kienst ee RS Noyes, J.S. lek yee enc ag Nussbaum, R.A. Hae A. alos Nye ni WrB ist} eee ai Ossiannilsson, F. ee ee ie Petit, R.E. Seer omer 7/3. Pont, A.C. sie a pee ae. > 2 Sell Quednaw Weert 00) Quinlan, J. i eee 70) Rao, B.R. Subba ye mee, 70) Rasmussen, J.B. eee. 2209 Reiskind: Js o%2. 4 50r. 5... M48 Ride, W.D.L. vias ae Lc aA) Roth, L.M. Sy clue Be ie, MLDS Rudman: W-Bs . 3. .seeaeey ee? RyckmangReE:-s «canvceuys - mG SabroskyaGiwe a ne eee aS SavacenJeVit acct CSweeo hie seel95 Sietacd: ane DEAL OG te ees Silfverberg, H 2 06Te lee “ase Skevington,D. . . : 25 Smith white oe 62, 165, 225 Smith, R.B.. ae ee 2925 Southwood, T.R. E: eA) SBS StewartaDashiy .Ae9FRS 52 sGi Stimson, A.F. é Te ee igs mie te: 114, 195, 196, 209 Stroyan, H.L.G. Ve? ESS Stubblefield, C.J. Nord. 3. a7 Thibault, :-Ce see eee. 249 Thompson, R.T. FE ee al Underwoou!Gil: 32. 172195 Vechivanigern. so. oe all Vervoort, W. Eee ume Ga Whittington,H.B. . . . . 176 Aimmernan, BC. (4. 03s eS 256 Opinion 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): type species designated .. HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): added to Official List : CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 and PALAEOTHENTI- DAE Sinclair, 1906 (Mammalia): conserved Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936 (Crustacea, Isopoda): conserved Erinaceus dauuricus Sundevall, 1842 (Mammalia, Insectivora): conserved . Stethaspis Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae): ‘designation of type species ' Linyphia tenebricola Wider, 1834 (Arachnida): to be interpreted in the sense of Kulezynski, 1887 . . Herpetodryas margaritiberus Schlegel, 1837 (Reptilia, Ser- pentes): conserved ENS Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829) and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homoptera): designation of type species Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Insecta, Hemiptera): conserved Toxostoma crissale ruled to be the correct original spelling of the name first pubs as Toxostoma dorsalis Baird, 1858 (Aves) ORY os, | 2 eo ee Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819, ex Leach Ms, Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, ex Dahl and Othius Stephens, 1829, ex Leach Ms (Insecta, Coleoptera): type species designated for these genera Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (Bivalvia, Cucullaeidae): designa- tion of type species Spies Sterna cerulea Bennett, 1840 (Aves): conserved < Chromodoris californiensis Bergh, 10 May 1879 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved : Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 and Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): designation of type species Lespesia Robineau- Desvoidy, 1863 (Diptera, Tachinidae): designation of type species. Sorex dsinezumi Temminck, 1843 (Mammalia, Insectovora): ruled to be a correct original spelling Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved Ochthera exsculpta Loew, 1862 (Insecta, Diptera): placed on the Oficralulbist mbes re, cl os ss ee Ae Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854 and Ogygites Tromelin & Lebesconte, 1876 (Trilobita): conserved . . Orthunga Dohrn, 1859 (Insecta, Hemiptera): "added to the Official List F Chuangia Walcott, 1911, ‘conserved; ‘Shantungia Walcott 1905, added to Official List (Trilobita) Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782 (Crustacea, Decapoda): neotype designated under the plenary powers Prototomus viverrinus Cope, 1874 (Mammalia): refusal to designate a neotype under the plenary powers Page 25 JE 29 33 35 oa 39 PS 77 81 83 85 88 90 92 94 97 147 149 151 153 157 160 200 202 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 257 NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 40 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology adriaticus, Epiphrixus, Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932 anisotae, Achaetoneura, Webber, 1930 aratae, Palaeothentes, Ameghino, 1887 batia, Ptychoparia?, Walcott, 1905 benniworthensis, Cucullaea, Kelly, 1978 californiensis, Chromodoris, Bergh, 10 May, 1879 cerulea, Sterna, Bennett, 1840 coccus, Dactylopius, Costa, (Nov. 1829) columnaris, Decastis, Ameghino, 1891 comma, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758 crissale, Toxostoma, Baird, May 1858 curvicornu, Neokentroceras, Spath, 1922 dauuricus, Erinaceus, Sundevall, 1842 desmaresti, Ogygia, Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 dilatatus, Trilobus, Briinnich, 1781 dsinezumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1843 exsculpta, Ochthera, Loew, 1862 Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Abderites Ameghino, 1887 Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758 Caenolestes Thomas, 1895 Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936 Chuangia Walcott, 1911 Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829) Decastis Ameghino, 1891 Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 Epiphrixus Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932 Garzonia Ameghino, 1891 Gauropterus C.G. Thomson, 1869 Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819 Hesperia Fabricius, 1793 fakir, Belostoma, Gistel, [1848] ferruginea, Tipula, Fabricius, 1805 fracticornis, Staphylinus, O.F. Miiller, 1776 fulgidus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1787 fuliginosus, Hyracodon, Tomes, 1863 linearis, Staphylinus, Olivier, 1794 longispinus, Dactylopius, Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867 margaritiferus, Herpetodryas, Schlegel, 1837 meridionalis, Abderites, Ameghino, 1887 nitens, Curculio, Scopoli, 1763 primus, Epiphryxus, Shiino, 1934 punctulatus, Staphylinus, Goeze, 1777 sibiricus, Erinaceus, Erxleben, 1777 spinifera, Shantungia, Walcott, 1905 suturalis, Melolontha Fabricius, 1775 tangeri, Gelasimus, Eydoux, 1835 tenebricola, Linyphia, Wider, 1834 typica, Garzonia, Ameghino, 1891 viverrinus, Prototomus, Cope, 1874 wahlbergi, Emesa, Stal. 1855 wordiei, Prohysteroceras, Spath, 1922 Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854 Ogygites Tromelin & Lebesconte, 1876 Orthunga Dohrn, 1859 Othius Stephens, 1829 Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887 Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 Shantungia Walcott, 1905 Stethaspis Hope, 1837 Xantholinus Dejean, 1821 258 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology ABDERITINAE Ameghino, 1889 OGY GIOCARIDINAE Raymond, CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1913 1898 PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, DACTYLOPIIDAE Signoret, 1875 1906 DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893 PSEUDOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, GARZONIIDAE Ameghino, 1891 1905 HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 Official List of Available Works in Zoology O.G. Costa, Nov. 1829: Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Famiglia de’ coccinigliferi o de’ gallinsetti, Emitteri, Napoli. Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology adonidum, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1767 glauca, Chromodoris, Bergh, 31 australis, Sterna, Gmelin, 1789 March, 1879 chiametla, Coluber, Shaw, 1802 kinczumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1843 coffeae, Pediculus, Linnaeus, 1767 kinezumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1843 dorsalis, Toxostoma, Baird, May platydactylus, Gelasimus, H. 1958 Milne-Edwards, 1837 ferruginea, Tipula, Scopoli, 1763 uka, Cancer, Shaw & Nodder, 1803 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Diaprosteci Costa, 1828 Ogygia Brongniart, 1817 Epiphryxus Shiino, 1934 Ogygia Hiibner, [1821] Iccius Dohrn, 1859 Schantungia Lorenz, 1906 Tliastus Gistel, [1848] Shangtungia Walcott, 1905 Jccius, Dohrn, 1859 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology OGYGINAE Raymond, 1913 OGY GIOCARINAE Raymond, 1913 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 259 INDEX TO KEY NAMES Page Abderites Ameghino, 1887 (Opinion 1241) 5 eee 29 ABDERITINAE Ameghino, 1889 aie 1241) NST ate 30 acervorum, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 . . cre cee 1G denies 208 Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 d Bib 216 adamsi, Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama), Morgan & Heppell, 1981 : 223 adonidum, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1247) . . rare 77 adriaticus, Epiphrixus, Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932 (Opinion 1242) et Oe tar:: USE Wale rO Pe bike ee 3i3) PACTREIUSAELUD NEE. [US 9) Wiese re pelskew Wtgeo® (oo steak we ae 246 aeiniopsybamignFabncis, 1/7) .*. « « « « = 3 gees © 248 alastoroides, Odynerus, Saussure, 1853. . . . . ..... 111 albidus, Agonioneurus, Westwood, 1837 ses OP age ae 70 aldrovandi, Panopea, Ménard de la Groye, 1807 . . ... . 182 aleyrodis, Trichaporus, Mercet, 1930 . . .....2.2.~. 73 PeMUEICiuS IRIDAUL, 1948. 5 3 ss RY EM aap etek Pee, 119 Allygus Fieber, 1872 a ae eee eae ees nae 119 SIME N TREC IU) eek ts Ge ss: Gs ee SR cme 230 Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 fa jdancagaeyivs 111 anisotae, Achaetoneura, Webber, 1930 (Opinion 1255) et 97 Anolis Daudin, 1802 ; : Mera sis aate 15,195 ANUROPIDAE Stebbing, 1893 05 04 RURAL tl cer eae 58 Anuropoda Bacescu, 1980 ee ee, eee ee) ae 58 ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 Ae ee ee tT eee 58 ANUROPODINAE Calman, 1907 Wee ata. Ce ae nae 58 Anuropus Beddard, 1866 .. . Le pede dis 58 aratae, Palaeothentes, Ameghino, 1887 (Opinion 1241) = eons 29 archytas, Papilio, Stoll, [1787] . . . . ee 246 arcularia, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758 ere TSE ap ethe. come 239 Astacilla Cordiner, 1793... a ee. Moma ts G 163 atomaria, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 , en TR Ee Re oe 119 Attelabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1239) ear? FEAR uc cig ee 25 Auchenia Thunberg, 1792 toed Sep eah © 4 as ee 253 auratus, Anolis, Daudin, 1802 . . eo es 195 australis, Sterna, Gmelin, 1789 (Opinion 1252). i. eT NT 90 axiochus, Anteros, Hewitson, SO e ye Mean arto nits, 4 Ca eome 246 MEatae SING; LANNACUSs LT ISAIEe bien ceteP-RaT se -dowers Lad 117 paere-Silurus’ Tkinnacus--/66. .°. « « Fie. «lle 2 ole 167 BAGRIDAE-Bleekers S58" Myc) ss 72) oes Se ee) en ee 170 PFBOTUSHBOSCS AIS OMe sume | tS Pewee Pee o Ore 167 ininelanKennicwloS0Mere es) co ys + RSI. eae) Be 228 bajad, Silurus, Forsskal,1775 4 (SER, 167 batia, Ptychoparia?, Walcott, 1905 (Opinion 1261) wii Aa a 160 bellatrix, Phalaena, Stoll,1780 . . ere 233 benniworthensis, Cucullaea, Kelly, 1978 (Opinion 1251) 5 ton 88 260 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 betulella, Calaphis, Walsh, 1862 blumenbachii, Calymena, Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817 Boiga Fitzinger, 1826. : bokkeveldensis, Bainella, Rennie, 1930 branchiatus, Anuropus, Beddard, 1886 bullaris, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 _.. CAECILIIDAE Gray, 1825 CAECILIINI Kolbe, 1880 eae CAECILIONIDAE Kolbe, 1880 Caecilius Curtis, 1837 . . Caenolestes Thomas, 1895 (Opinion 1241) : CAENOLESTIDAE Trouessart, 1898 ae oe 1241) Caeparia Stal, 1877 foe ‘ calabarica, Pseudoplontia, Platz, 1870 CALAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1918 Calaphis Walsh, 1862 in californiensis, Chromodoris, Bergh, 10 May 1 1879 9 (Opinion 1253) CALLAPHIDINAE Borner, 1952 Callaphis Walker, 1870 Calymena Desmarest, 1817 er Calymene Brongniart, 1822 in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822. CALYMENIDAE Milne Edwards, 1840 Maré: capillaceus, Pectunculus, da Costa, 1778 capitata, Larentia, Herrich-Schaffer, 1839 carolinensis, Anolis, Voigt, 1832 3 Cataphryxus Shiino, 1936 (Opinion 1242) Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 . . . cerulea, Sterna, Bennett, 1840 (Opinion 1252) Chaetopterus Cuvier, 1830 .. . ; Chelydra Schweigger, 1812 . . . chiametla, Coluber, Shaw, 1802 (Opinion 1246) CHROMODORIDIDAE Bergh, 1892 : Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 chrysoscelis, Hyla femoralis, Cope, 1880 Chuangia Walcott, 1911 (Opinion 1261) coccus, Dactylopius, Costa, (Nov. 1829) (Opinion 1247) coffeae, Pediculus, Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1247) columnaris, Decastis, Ameghino, 1891 (Opinion 1241) comma, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1240) coracina, Phalaena, Esper, 1805 5 cordofanus, Lethocerus, Mayr, 1853 (Opinion 1248) Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 Sees crissale, Toxostoma, Baird, May 1858 (Opinion 1249) cruentus, Odynerus, Saussure, 1855 : cupratus, Eurhin, Mlliger, 1807 , curculionoides, Attelabus, Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1239) curvicornu, Neokentroceras, Spath, 1922 ad ree cyparissa, Papilio, Cramer, [1775] : Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801 15,,18,195 124 124 124 126 124 2g 29 205 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 261 Page DACTYLOPIIDAE Signoret, 1875 (Opinion 1247) eg ee 78 Dactylopius Costa, (Nov. 1829) (Opinion 1247) ...... Vi DAGCTY LOPODIINAE Mane: 1936. 2 6.0. 3 a Adee ous a1) meretvionusia NOMMats (90S). «ek tk BR hes 56 DACTYLOPUSIINAE Lang, 1936 : BS canine | dauuricus, Erinaceus, Sundevall, 1842 (Opinion 1243) mts 35 DECASTIDAE Ameghino, 1893 (Opinion 1241) th: ere 29 Decastis Ameghino, 1891 (Opinion ay eae Te eT: iat: 29 Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 . . . re to eae a 197 DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 . . . 197 desmaresti, Ogygia, Brongniart, in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 (Opinion 1259) ee cantly CIR cibebr ae: 153 Diaprosteci Costa, 1828 (Opinion 1247) Jats a de on ante Tit Dicranodonta Woods, 1899 (Opinion 1251) ee ee 88 Dictyonema Hall, 1851 ; Be Nee eee Vell 20 dilatatus, Trilobus, Briinnich, 1781 (Opinion 1259) BP eels 153 dorsalis, Toxostoma, Baird, May 1858 (Opinion ee BaP hy: 83 Dromophis Peters, 1869 . . MEATS 189 dsinezumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1843 (Opinion 1256) ae sodas 147 Epiphrixus Nierstrasz & Brender a Brandis, 1932 Bi Shit — 33 Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843 eae 114 Euphaedra Hiibner [1819] PE Rae at heey a gS 243 Eurhin illiger, 1807 . . nd Ee aCe wt Sok 5 eee Ou 45 EURHININI Lacordaire, 1866 Be Se Si: ee, Mad a = PES MMPCE PRUs ee 2 Sm apse ete. spa roa wee 50 Eurhinus Schonherr, 1825 ay | OP Bee elie Er ae Tea tinded & patted «1 49 RSVR CNUSBEINOI NSeit ie ee kk ek 49 EURHYNCHINAE Lacordaire, 1863 Ee Re ee Sere Oe Si Eurhuncus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828 DE OU ee hide 45 exoleta, Venus, Linnaeus,1758 . . . pho eee, 24 183 exsculpta, Ochthera, Loew, 1862 (Opinion 1258) Mee eRe Fs 151 fakir, Belostoma, Gistel, [1848], (Opinion 248), a ERS eS Pm 81 fascicularis, Simia, Raffles, 1821 ad SUA See 117 fenestratus, Caecilius, Curtis, 1837 art ee eee 124 ferruginea, Tipula, Scopoli, 1763 (Opinion 1257) Sok. dot: 149 Jerruginea, Tipula, Fabricius, 1805 (Opinion 1257) . ... . 149 festucae, Myzus, Theobald,1917 . . . . pte AeA 53 fimbriatus, Stellio, Schneider, 1792 Pare ik Ae 63 flabelliformis, Gorgonia, Eichwald, 1840 j ya\ne 19 fracticornis, Staphylinus, O.F. Miller, 1776 (Opinion 1250) ep! 85 francispori, Anuropoda, Bacescu, 1980. ? ste 58 fulgidus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1787 (Opinion 1250) wine 86 fuliginosus, Hyracodon, Tomes, 1863 (Opinion a) Alek ete ee 29 fuscopterus, Psocus, Latreille, 1799 Seige? +) KATES ae 125 Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 : Ae te Ree ae ale 73 Garzonia Ameghino, 1891 (Opinion 1241) é Aen 29 GARZONIIDAE Ameghino, 1891 (Opinion 1241) wy bh pom thse 30 262 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Gauropterus C.G. Thomson, 1869 (Opinion 1250) . . glauca, Chromodoris, Bergh, 31 March 1879 pur 1253) Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 : Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799 Glycimeris Lamarck, 1801 glycymeris, Arca, Linnaeus, 1758 Glycymeris da Costa, 1778 . . GLYCYMERIDIDAE Stewart, 1930 Gonophlebia Felder, June 1870 . ; grangeri, Pachycephalosaurus, Brown & Schlaikjer 1943 gulosa, Formica, Fabricius,1775 . . Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819 (Opinion 1250) hanleyanus, Donax, Philippi, 1847 Hemilucilia Brauer, 1895 fe Hesperia Fabricius, 1793 (Opinon 1240) : HESPERIIDAE Latreille, 1809 ye 1240) Heterolaophonte Lang, 1948 hirtata, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794 hilairea, Donax, Guérin, 1832 Hylambates Dumeéril, 1853 Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 Ibiba Gray, 1825 : Iccius Dohrn, 1859 (Opinion 1260) TIliastus Gistel, [1848] (Opinion 1248) irregularis, Coluber, Merrem in Bechstein, 1802 Jccius Dohrn, 1859 (Opinion 1260) juglandis, Aphis, Goeze,1778 Kassina Girard, 1853. . kinczumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1843 (Opinion 1256) kinezumi, Sorex, Temminck, 1843 (Opinion 1256) laticarinata, Chelydra, Hay, 1916 . . Lespesia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 (Opinion 1255) Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Opinion 1248) . linearis, Staphylinus, Olivier, 1794 (Opinion 1250) longicornis, Oniscus, J. Sowerby, 1805. longispinus, Dactylopius, Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867 7 (Opinion 1247) lunifrontis, Cimex, Cooper, 1870. Luzonia Dall & Smith in Dall, 1890 Macropis Klug, 1809 maculatus, Hylambates, Dumeéril, 1853 : magnificata, Doris, Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 2 margaritiferus, Herpetodryas, Schlegel, 1837 (Opinion 1246) major, Cancer vocans, Herbst, 1782 (Opinion 1262) Page 85 92 AAAI 179 183 183 179 183 41 186 44 85 188 109 Zk 2 56 102 188 114 PH | 209 157 81 209 157 60 114 147 147 226 97 81 85 163 i 65 223 207 114 216 75 200 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Megilla Fabricius, 1805 : . melleus, Trichoporus, Ashmead, 1904 : meridionalis, Abderites, Amaghino, 1887 (Opinion 1241) mixta, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 : monitor, Tupinambis, Daudin, 1802 mucronata, Hispa, Olivier, 1808 mutabile, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758 Mya Rondani, 1850 : Myrmecia Fabricius, 1804 ‘ MYRMECIDES C.L. Koch, 1851 MYRMECIIDAE Emery, 1877 , MYRMECIINAE Keyserling, (1891) Myrmecium Latreille, 1824 . . . MYRMECIUMIDAE C.L. Koch, 1851 Ee he myrmecophilum, Macrosiphum, Theobald, 1916 mytilaspidis, Aphytis, Le Baron, 1870 Najas Hiibner, [1807] . NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 Nassarius Duméril, 1806 Neadmete Habe, 1961 Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (Opinion 1254) nigra, Rallus, Miller, 1784 ate : nitens, Curculio, Scopoli, 1763 (Opinion 1239) Norops Wagler, 1830 : oaxacae, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979 obscura, Goniodoris?, Stimpson, 1855 : Ogygia Brongniart, 1817 (Opinion 1259) Ogygia Hiibner, [1821](Opinion 1259) .. . OGYGINAE Raymond, 1913 (Opinion 1259) Sh. OGYGIOCARIDINAE Jaanusson, 1959 (Opinion 1259) OGYGIOCARINAE Raymond, 1913 (Opinion 1259) Ogygiocaris Angelin. 1854 (Opinion 1259) : Ogygites Tromelin & Lebesconte, 1876 Oren 1259) okutanii, Neadmete, Petit, 1974 : orbicularis, Glycymeris, da Costa, 1778 ornatus, Tylosteus, Leidy, 1872 Orthunga Dohrn, 1859 (Opinion 1260) osceola, Chelydra, Stejneger, 1918 . . Othius Stephens, 1829 (Opinion ee otiosus, Attus, Hentz, 1846 : : Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 PACHYCEPHALOSAURIDAE Sternberg, 1945 Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 Palaeothentes Ameghino, 1887 (Opinion 1241) . . PALAEOTHENTIDAE Sinclair, 1906 (Opinion 1241) PALAEOTHENTINAE Sinclair, 1906 (Opinion 1241) pallida, Doris, Riippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831 Panope Menard de la Groye, 1807 264 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Page Panopen Menanide la Graye, 1607) Omideeget a VE) PR 179 Panaphis Kirkaldy, 1904 . . ; Bodden 60 paradoxa, Globiceps, C. & R. Felder, 15 October, 1869 ST ps 41 Paralastor Saussure, 1856 ae : PIETY 111 Pechinenion dai@ostalIGS!: Som ees WE Oh 183 Pectunculus Lamarck,1799 . . . EGS. SS Ce 183 pergamentaceus, Chaetopterus, Cuvier, 1830, nf Fb AS IP BT F 241 Pero vienien-Schailer ts55 YAS, De Os eo 231 philippinensis, Neaera, Hinds, 1843 . ......2.2.. 223 Philodendros Fitzinger, 1843 a ies 189 platydactylus, Gelasimus, H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (pinion 1262) Aoi : } AdNs 200 posticata, Phalaena, Fabricius, "1794 Ro ae ey cel pth ab 102 praeornata, Dendrophis, Schlegel, 1837 . . Aad SV AES 190 primus, Epiphryxus, Shiino, 1934 (Opinion 1242) StS OH, 33 Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 (Opinion 1254) . . ale hat 94 PSEUDOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1905 (Opinion 1247) _ See 78 Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 igen siaie elon tt haw Bes 77 Pseudopontia Plétz, 1870 Ap hes tae RIES, EE aed 41 Pterodoris Ehrenberg,1831 Phi ee Sehr cA oe | SO AME 216 pulcher, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 . . Bata ae 2, PR 19 pulcherrimus, Phidippus, Keyserling, 1884 : Pe ia a 19 punctulatus, Staphylinus, Goeze, 1777 (Opinion 1250) Stee 85 rectisectaria, Gonodontis, Herrich-Schaffer, [1855] . . .. . 233 retiformis, Gorgonia, Hall, 1843 SL USS Sp ns fort 20 Rhinoclama Wallis snith, W886. - 2 s.r 221 rujemt. Myrmecium, Latreile, 1824.0 P28 PU ee 44 sachalinensis, Mactra, Schrenk, 1862 prpmet) the LINN S: a ok eee hb wh 122 saussurii, Panesthia, Wood-Mason, 1876 ......... 206 scabrior, Eurhinus, Kirby, 1819 ty HOR Aa Sr Ges 50 Schantungia Lorenz, 1906 (Opinion 1261) fe UAL) ee 160 sculpta, Chelydra, Hay, 1916 5 Se eae 1 Oa beset 226 segmentaria, Musca, Fabricius, 1805 . . . . .... . . 109 semidiaphana, Mya, Rondani, 1850 .......... 106 Shangtungia Walcott, 1905(Opinion 1261) . . ...... 160 Shantungia Walcott, 1905 (Opinion 1261) . . . Lefont: eSeae 70, 160 sibiricus, Erinaceus, Erxleben, 1777 Opies 1243) hott PAA 35 siliqua, Mya, Spengler, 1793 Be as See ees. She ad 181 Somomya Bertoloni, 1861 bee rks te et URS Vids 106 Sphaeronassa Locard, 1886 . . ch oe ae 239 spinifcra, Shantungia, Walcott, 1905 (Opinion 1261) ORE ge 160 Stethaspis Hope, 1837 (Opinion 1244) .. . a ietey ee ere 3 Stoel: GyGlopseBalrd. Go 0 er ae ee se) ee 56 subspinosa, Crioceris, Fabricius, 1781 oP he EK Fe 253 subtranslucida, Somomya, Bertolini, 1861 . . Bib TP 108 suturalis, Melolontha, Fabricius, 1775 Tears 1244) LP) Laie 37 sybillae, Mactra, Valenciennes, 1858 . . . BOAT 2 7h 122 tabuensis, Rallus, Gmelin, 1789 Aol at BAR Me aie ee eg 249 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 tangeri, Gelasimus, Eydoux, 1835 (Opinion 1262) TEIIDAE Gray, 1827. tenebricola, Linyphia, Wider, 1834 (Gpinion 1245) tentaculata, Caecilia, Linnaeus, 1758 : teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802 : tisboides, Dactylopus, Claus, 1863 Tricelia Renier, [1807] . . : Trichaporus Foerster, 1856 Tylosteus Leidy, 1872 typica, Garzonia, Ameghino, 1891 (Opinion 1241) uka, Cancer, Shaw & Nodder, 1803 pees ee Uroplata Chevrolat, 1835 : ; UROPLATIIDAE Boulenger, 1884 Uroplatus Duméril, 1806 . . . . UROPLATINI Leng, 1920 variopedata, Tricelia, Renier [1 807] vicarius, Oeciacus, Horvath, 1912 : viridis jamaicensis, Lacertus, Catesby, 1743 viridis, Teius, Merrem, 1820 : viverrinus, Prototomus, Cope, 1874 (Opinion 1263) wahlbergi, Emesa, Stal, 1855 (Opinion 1260) . wordiei, Prohysteroceras, Spath, 1922 pro 1254) wyomingensis, Troédon, Gilmore, 1931. : Xantholinus Dejean, 1821 (Opinion 1250) Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 252 266 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pt 4, December 1983 Vol. 39, part 3 page 172, line 14 Vol. 39, part 4 page 236, line 4 Vol. 40, part 1 page 9, line 36 page 37, line 10 page 51, line 4 page 51, line 34 Vol. 40, part 2 page 83, line 24 Vol. 40, part 3 page 147, line 27 CORRIGENDA for ‘Naumov, 1860’ read ‘Naumov, 1960’ for ‘Tutzing, Switzerland’ read ‘Tutzing, Germany for ‘Articles 67b(ii)...° read ‘Articles STAC ee for ‘Name Number 2133’ read ‘Name Number 2186’ for ‘Kirby & Stephen’ read ‘Kirby & Spence’ for ‘...West Indies, the South America’ read ‘... West Indies and South America’ Under Opinion 1249, for ‘vol. 39, pp. 239-242’ read ‘vol. 35, pp. 239-242’ Under Opinion 1256, for ‘vol. 36, pp. 125-126’ read ‘vol. 35, pp. 125-126’ PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Part No. why Contents of Part Date of Publication 29 March 1983 15 July 1983 21 October 1983 30 December 1983 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: 1—266, T.P. I—VI. Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be bound in at the end of the volume. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 40 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 1983 (All rights reserved) a rth eh ves AUN Ui fa vie a ney eat Sa ae a “aN “Grote i AG A : a Vt al ar, i ty ey ea Me, Di Pet is y its Ne ied eR ; shih Garry b thes ‘€: Mein; a DRY VO22IMMOF SADT saree S$) PET Bt Mis ae te SES eae % ; oF i a a aed Oe yey) ae sot oe a hie As. ive +e. todas : 1 FO) Wy eee Lit wei 0), ae 4 ire ie Ri, se ih ae ; vt a. Pa 4 aoa coe tr Mae (ll | ’ im ~ > 7 why , "4 pa ; he , ; vie as 2 ; - pal PGs nee bart ha ye ’ f bath dei rs 3 pie 4 1 FARIS IN vier ane bal PENA iC LR Nw! AME (2) j y 4 hy / i Me i 7 my? a 3 "? Pleed in tpt 13 % cea yi rie 3 ) y' iV, i \ I / es “y j t a? i > ; BN A eit! twit haianesioalh pat Hyer: ay was HR yAOAL aes HM lenges . Ve Ee Ole [ a ie Cry aires 2a ep ay) ‘alia uit ; Naar EVA : ‘ "aa tt 78 a ott 7M , 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. CONTENTS Officers and Members ofthe Commission . . . ... . / ang Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . Vili Notices prescribed by the vga cin by aimaant : 191 vn, iasnphtak pein ge te ORR Ht ant 4 193 Comments On the proposed designation of a type species for Anolis Daudin, 1802. J.M. Savage; A.F. Stimson & G.L. Underwood 195 On the proposed conservation of TEI[DAE Gray, 1827. AP Stimson; L.B. Holthuis . . 196 On the proposed conservation of Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and _ DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865. L.B. Holthuis; A. Dubois. 197 Opinion 1262. Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782 (Crustacea, Opinion 1263. Prototomus viverrinus Cope, 1874 (Mammalia) . . 202 New and revived cases Caeparia Stal, 1877 (Insecta, Dictyoptera). L.M. Roth & A. B. Gurney 205 Megilla Fabricius, 1805 and Macropis Klug, 1809 (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). C.D. itl Cee 207 Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 (Reptilia, Serpentes). J.B. Rasmussen & A. F; Gite ee Uinta 209 Glossodoris Enrenberg, 1831, Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 and Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Gastropoda, Cutie: . branchia). W.B. Rudman 211 piults oa eae & Smith, 1886 “(Mollusca, Septibranchia), D organ 221 Cee osceola Stejneger, 1918 (Reptilia, Testudines). H. M. Smith, ere tlie Cree etic hel i ole 225 Bainella Rennie, 1930 (Arthropoda, Trilobita). M.R. Cooper 228 Crinodes Herrich-Schiffer, 1855 and Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). D.S. Fletcher & 1.W.B.Nye . . . . 231 NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916 (Gastropoda). D. Heppell . . . . 237 Tricelia variopedata Renier, [1807] (Polychaeta). The S Secretary. 241 Euphaedra Hibner, ee Lepidoptera). C.F.Cowan . . 243 Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). C.F.Cowan. . 245 Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera). R.C. Marinoni. . 248 ry tabuensis Gmelin, 1789 (Aves). M.D. Bruce, D.T. Hoek J.-C. Thibault. , 249 Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera). H. ‘Silfverberg ah 252 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset ie = - fag: re one, ee ; ; . ts La a7 AY, A Fe pea Vil es y ; site h it we Mt “ 0 a Masha eocices } } Pet y Merely? PB yekie gta Rute M avi ag ait Seserraee Rueraied eee peareo) a3 4 é MEY