(é Layee Cae ath et fe eit AM Maa yess thea i * UE MO Oe 8 le hee Remy CORT A ANC it rt i) ol An i Fae W THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 41 LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature d an 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 1984 (All rights reserved) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements : Contacts with representative organisations; R. V. Melville Shh Cardium californiense Deshayes, 1839 (Mollusca, Cardiidae). D. Heppell & R. V. Melville ; Opinion 1264. Oscinis plumigera Loew, 1860 (Insecta, Diptera). Opinion 1265. Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 (Araneae, Salticidae).. Opinion 1266. Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 (Amphibia, Salientia) Opinion 1267. Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838 (Aves, Muscica- pidae) . : Opinion 1268. Simia Ieucaphhen F Cuvier, 1807 (Mammalia, Primates) . Opinion 1269. METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda) . . Opinion 1270. Chrysomela flavicornis and C. tibialis. Suffrian, 1851 (Insecta, Coleoptera). . Oe easier Opinion 1271. Polynoe Savigny, 1818 (Annelida, Polychaeta) Opinion 1272. Sciaena nibe Jordan & Thompson, 1911 (Pisces) . Opinion 1273. Anaspis, Luperus, Lampyris and Clerus (Insecta, Coleop- tera) Opinion 1274. Nbtonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Hemiptera) Opinion 1275. Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 and Ammonites macro- cephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) Opinion 1276. Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Insecta, Plecoptera) . Direction 114. Herrera, 1899, ‘Sinonimia vulgar y cientifica de los principales vertebrados mexicanos’ . Direction 115. MEROPIDAE (Aves): attributed to ‘Rafinesque, 1815. Heliconius erato Aurivillius, 1882 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). J. R. G. Turner Curculio picirostris Fabricius, 1787 and Tychius stephensi Schonherr, 1836 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). W. E. Clark Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). C. van ‘Achterberg . Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia). R. L. Cifelli & M. F. Soria . . Status of the names ‘Callionyi mus s sagitta Pallas, 1770 and Callionymus filamentosus Valenciennes, 1837 ene Callionymidae). R. Fricke . : . Proposed conservation of Siphonosoma cumanense Keferstein, 1867 0 over Siphonosoma edule (Pallas, 1774) (Sipuncula). E.B. Cutler. . . Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879 (Pisces). P. J. P. Whitehead & G. Nelson A s Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements On the proposals concerning Astacilla Cordiner, 1793. a3 7” Holthuis On the proposed conservation of Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 and Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855.J.D. Holloway . . Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828] ere Lepidoptera) C. M. Naumann & W. G. Tremewan . Nal Il Page IV Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Reptomultisparsa ie 1853 (Bryozoa, Cyclostomata). P. D. Paylor.« "7: GOERIDAE Ulmer, 1903 versus TRICHOSTOMATIDAE Rambur, 1842 (Insecta, Trichoptera). The Secretary . Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera, Simuliidae). I. “A. Rubtsov, with comment by R.W.Crosskey . . ees Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (Artiodactyla). R. M. Schoch & S. G. Lucas : Centrurus limpidus Karsch, 1879 and Centruroides ornatus Pocock, 1902 (Arachnia, Scorpiones). O. F. Francke . ; Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 (Insecta, Homoptera, Diaspididae). E. M. Danzig &I.M.Kerzhner . . Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 (Spiriferida, Brachiopoda). N. Ww. “Arch- bold & G. A. Thomas. CAECILIIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera). H. M. Smith & Je hPolhemus 20.) a Laspeyresia Hubner. [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). V. 1. Kuznetsov & IeMeKerzhner)- ae Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794 (Coleoptera, " Byrrhidae). M. Mroczkowski . . Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 ‘Coleoptera, Colydidae) M. Mroczkowski . . ; Capys Hewitson (1865) (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). A. Penrose. : Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia). J. D. Lynch & W. E. Duellman Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (Diptera, Calliphoridae). The Secretary Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements. On the type species of Anolis Daudin, 1802. E. E. Williams & H. M. Smith; A. F. Stimson . : On the proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the holotype and to designate a neotype for Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 (Primates, Galagidae). W. F.H. Ansell . On the proposed designation of a type species for Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida). M. R. Siddiqi; Q. H. Baqri On the proposal to emend Z.N.(S.)2401 by designating Apis pilipes as type species of Megilla Fabricius. C. D. Michener : Explication du vote sur le projet de la troisiéme édition du Code Inter- national de Nomenclature Zoologique. C. Dupuis International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: amendment proposed to third edition. Proposal concerning Article Slc. R. J. Gagné & F.C. Thompsonand L. V. Knutson . International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: proposed amendment to third edition: Article 59b. Z. Boucek . Request for a declaration clarifying the meaning of the expressions ‘Sup- pressed for Nomenclatural Purposes’ and ‘Rejected for Nomen- clatural Purposes’ and the status of information in works that are rejected under Articles 8 and 9 of the Code, L. B. Holthuis, W. D. L. Ride and C. W. Sabrosky A proposed amendment to Article 70b of ‘the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature on misidentified type species. C. W. Sabrosky . See ay. ee) Oeencamtcnt a 151 152 156 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Comment on Dr Sabrosky’s proposed amendment to Article 70. The Secretary . Williamia Monterosato, 1884 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed c conser- vation. H. B. Rehder . Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926 (insecta, Hemiptera, Homoptera): proposed conservation by the suppression of Tibicen Berthold, 1827. R. V. Melville and R. W. Sims , Arguments pour la suppression du nom de genre Tibicen et de st ses dérivés dans la nomenclature de la superfamille des CICADOIDEA. M. Boulard . Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877 and Bieutheradaen tins richmondi Stejneger, 1904 (Amphibia, Salienta): proposed conservation. The Secretary . Hypocryphalus mangiferae (Stebbing, 1914), (Insecta, Coleoptera): pro- posed conservation under the plenary powers. S. L. Wood. ; Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Financial Report for 1983 . International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Third Edition Capys Hewitson,1865 (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). C.F. Cowan. : Heliconius erato Aurivillius, 1882 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). J.R.G. Turner. Sternotherus Gray, 1825 and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia, Testudines). R. Bour & A. Dubois F Gnathodus Pander, 1856 and Polygnathus bilineatus Roundy (Con- odonta). The Secretary . . . . CAECILIIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera). Tt E. Moore . Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia). R.M. Schoch. Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804, D. C. Curry; T. K. Crosby 5 Opinion 1277. Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 and Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera). . . ies Opinion 1278. Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829 (Pisces) ‘ Opinion 1279. Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Opinion 1280. Rafinesque, C.S., 1822 ‘On the Turtles of the United States’: suppressed : Opinion 1281. Acmaea limatula Carpenter, 1864 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) Opinion 1282. Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Opinion 1283. LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] precedence over ORGYTIDAE Wallengren 1861, and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) : Opinion 1284. Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (Hemiptera, Heteroptera) : Opinion 1285. Barbus altianalis Boulenger, 1900 and Barbus rueppelli Boulenger, 1902 (Pisces, Cyprinidae). ; Opinion 1286. Chermes fusca Zetterstedt, 1828 (Insecta, Homoptera). Opinion 1287. Sesia andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801 (Insecta, Lepidop- (ed) WC Ness eo hase) Sole ae THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 and PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838 (Aves). E. Eisenmann Sa: E. Mayr & K.C. Parkes. Cricetodon minus [sic] Lartet, 1851 (Mammalia, Rodentia). The Secretary . . Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825]. (Insecta, Lepidoptera). The Secretary 2 Octolasion Orley, 1885; Octolasion (Octodrilus) Omodeo, 1956; Octolasion ( Incolore ) Omodeo, 1952 and Octolasion (Purpureum) Omodeo, 1952 (Annelida, Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). R.W. Sims . VI Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Leptosia Hubner, 1818 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). C.F.Cowan. . Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859; Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841 (Ascidiacea). F.W.E.Rowe . . Drymus ryeii Douglas & Scott, 1865 (Hemiptera, Lygaeidae). B Jessop . Aphodius rufus Moll, 1782; Aegialia rufa Fabricius, 1792 & Aphodius scybalarius Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z. Stebnicka . PYGOPIDAE (Brachiopoda). F.A. Middlemiss Delphinus truncatus Montagu, 1821; Delphinus nesarnack Lacépéde, 1804 (Mammalia, Cetacea). D.W. Rice Index to Authors . Pee? List of Decisions in this volume Site Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in | Decisions published i in this volume . Index to Key Names. Corrigenda. . . j Particulars of the dates of ‘publication of the several parts i in which ‘the present volume was published . Instructions to Binder . moO 2 29 March 1984 Volume 41 Part 1 pp. i-ii, 1-66 ISSN 0007-5167 The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ey MUSEUM BRITISH croRy) ce APR W904 PSY LIBRARY © 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 PUI 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 (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk. ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 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 Tromso, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD) (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 (Jnstitut 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. Prof. C.B. Cox, T.D. 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 Pan sRosewiiD: 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. 41, pt 1, March 1984 | BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 41, part | (pp. i-11, 1-66) 29 March 1984 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): Heliconius erato Aurivillius, 1882 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1759. J.R.G. Turner. (2) Curculio picirostris Fabricius, 1787 and Tychius stephensi Schonherr, 1836 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2266. W.E. Clark. (3) Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): pro- posed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2312. C. van Achterberg. (4) Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia): pro- posed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2430. R.F. Cifelli & M.F. Soria. (5) Status of the names Callionymus sagitta Pallas, 1770 and Callionymus filamentosus Valenciennes, 1837 (Teleostei, Callionymidae) and request to make an exception from Article 75c (4) and (5) for designating a neotype for Callio- nymus sagitta Pallas, 1770. Z.N.(S.) 2435. R. Fricke. *(6) | Siphonosoma cumanense Keferstein, 1867 proposed con- servation over Siphonosoma edule Pallas, 1774 (Sipun- cula). Z.N.(S.) 2379. E.B. Cutler. (7) Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879 (Pisces): proposed replacement of lectotype. Z.N.(S.) 2445. P.J.P. Whitehead & G. Nelson. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 40(4) on 30 December Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 1983 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b.): (1) *(2) (3) *(4) (5) Trioxycanus Dumbleton, 1966 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Hepialidae): misidentification. Z.N.(S.) 2462. JS. Dugdale. Antispila Hiibner, [1925] (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Heliozeli- dae): proposed conservation of existing usage. Z.N.(S.) 2463. E.S. Nielsen & I.W.B. Nye. Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Berytidae): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2464. W.R. Dolling. Zonosaurus Boulenger, 1887 (Reptilia, Sauria) and Aspi- dosaurus Broili, 1904 (Amphibia, Labyrinthodonta): pro- posed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2465. E.R. Brygoo. Stenoderna tolteca Saussure, 1860 (Mammalia, Chirop- tera): request for invalidation of neotype and validation of the rediscovered holotype. Z.N.(S.) 2466. L. de Roguin & C. Weber. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE RESIGNATION The Commission deeply regrets to announce that ill health has compelled Professor H.E. Welch to resign. He was elected in 1976. His valuable services will be greatly missed. FINANCIAL SUPPORT Since the last list of donors to the Appeal Fund was published in volume 40, part 4 on 30 December 1983 donations have been received from: The Royal Society; The Agricultural Research Council; The Natural Environment Research Council; Science and Engineer- ing Research Council (all U.K.); Lt.-Col. F.J. Griffin; Dr C.G. Adams; Dr G.A. Brett, Dr J.E. Cooper; Dr D.E. Bignell; Lt.-Col. C.F. Cowan; Professor J.D. Gillett; Dr J. Smart; Mr F.G. Browne; Mr G.A. Brett; Dr J.A. Raybould; Mr J.A. Reid; Dr A. Marshall; Dr A. Pittaway; Royal Geological Society of Glas- gow; Mr W.H. Ansell; Dr T.B. Larsen; the Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology; the Entomological Society of Japan; the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 3 Arachnological Society of East Asia; Ito Foundation for the Ad- vantage of Fishery; and the Biogeographical Society of Japan; Professor Imamura; and Dr Homma, with other researchers in Ichthyology at Niigata University of Japan. The following have kindly signed Deeds of Covenant: Mr H.E. Chipperfield; Pro- fessor A. Macfadyen; Dr E.P. Rose; Dr E.T. Burtt; Mr M. Birch; Mr P.M. Miles; Dr C.P. Haines; Dr J. Brady; Lt.-Col. Eliot; Dr M. Hull; Dr L.G. Higgins; Dr A. Bedford Russell; Sir Cyril Clarke, FRS; Miss J.J. Rowe; Mr E.S. Lewis; Mr R.M. Gambles and Mr J.A. Reid. Second annual payments have been received on a number of covenants. This method of payment enables the Trust to gauge more accurately part of the yearly income towards the target of £70,000 to set the secretariat on a sound financial footing and ensure the continued provision of the necessary level of scientific service for Zoological Nomenclature. Many of these donors have responded to a direct-mail approach to fellows of the Royal Entomological Society of London and the Trust is most grateful to Professor Van Emden, FRS, President of the Society, and to the Council for permission to make this approach. The donations from Japanese Societies were coordinated by Dr Syoziro Asahina, Presi- dent of the Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology, and our warmest thanks are offered to him and all others who have and continue to sup- port the Commission. The total amount received as a result of the Ap- peal (including the grossed up value of the covenants) is over £80,000. The balance in the account at 18 January 1984 was over £56,000. The Trust and Commissioners extend warmest congratulations to one of the Patrons of the Appeal: Professor Sir Richard Southwood, FRS, on his knighthood in the New Year’s Honours List. Sir Richard has generously given much support to the Appeal and the Trust greatly appreciates his help. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature March 1984 CONTACTS WITH REPRESENTATIVE ORGANISATIONS IN ALL FIELDS OF ZOOLOGY By R.V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) This notice has already been published in Search (the journal of science in Australia and New Zealand) vol. 14, No. 7-8, August/September 1983, pp. 178-179. It has also been sent to the Editors of Nature and of the New Scientist. 4 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature attaches particular importance to developing contacts with international rep- resentative organisations in all fields of zoology. It aims in this way to compensate for the reduction of working contacts with a wide range of zoologists formerly provided by the International Congresses of Zoology. The Commission seeks to encourage such organisations to take the initiative in establishing such contacts because it believes that that is the approach most likely to be beneficial. Any such body that desires to im- prove communications in matters of zoological nomenclature is there- fore cordially invited to approach the Commission directly, specifying its relationship with the International Union of Biological Sciences (TUBS), or another ICSU Union. The Commission is already in touch with the relevant organis- ations in mammalogy and ornithology. A contact of the kind envisaged has recently been established with the International Palaeontological Association (IPA). The present informal relationship is expected to develop on more formal lines when IPA’s reform of its constitution has been completed in 1984. At present, exchanges are expected to take the form of reference to the IPA by the Commission’s secretariat of cases with a palaeontological element, for advice to the Commission; and of approaches to the Commission by the IPA on areas of nomenclature of particular concern to palaeontologists. Opportunities for more positive forms of collaboration will no doubt arise in the future. Enquiries should be addressed to R.V. Melville, ICZN, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 5 FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO VALIDATE CARDIUM CALIFORNIENSE DESHAYES, 1839. (MOLLUSCA, CARDIIDAE). Z.N.(S.)2073 (see vol. 31, p. 238 and vol. 32, p. 204) (1) By D. Heppell (Royal Scottish Museum, Department of Natural History, Edinburgh EH1 1 JF) There are a number of aspects of this case which to me are unsatisfactory, either in the particular proposals of the application or in the general application of the Code to such cases involving subjective synonymy. In a hypothetical example involving the three nominal taxa A-us x-us Smith, 1800, A-us y-us Brown, 1810 and A-us z-us Jones, 1820, suppose authors have consistently regarded A-us y-us as a junior subjective synonym of A-us x-us. If Robinson now declares that, contrary to all previous opinion, A-us y-us is really an unused senior synonym of A-us z-us, it is neither reasonable nor logical for him to cite ten uses of A-us z-us (in compliance with Article 79b) as supporting evidence for the suppression of A-us y-us. Surely Article 79b can be invoked only in cases of unused senior synonyms where the identity of the senior name has already been accepted as a synonym of the junior name for which general usage is claimed. In the present case involving Cardium ciliatum Fabricius, 1780, C. boreale Broderip & Sowerby, 1829 and C. californiense Deshayes, 1839, C. boreale was regarded as a junior synonym of C. ciliatum by Dall, 1901, and subsequently by Grant & Gale, 1931, Clench & Smith, 1944, and Abbott, 1974. I know of no suggestion, prior to Kafanov’s application, that C. boreale might be a synonym of C. californiense. Even in Kafanov’s own taxonomic paper (1974) on Clinocardium, in which he might have been expected to present detailed evidence for such a synonymy, there is no mention of C. boreale. In the absence of type material, Kafanov’s claim for the synonymy of C. boreale with C. californiense rests solely on the basis of the original descrip- tion, particularly the words ‘numerous close-set rounded ribs’. According to Kafanov, C. ciliatum has ‘relatively sparse radial ribs’, but as the usual number is 32 to 38 they could nevertheless quite reasonably be described as numerous. A comparison of the two species as illustrated by Grant & Gale (1931, pl. 19) shows C. ciliatum (fig. 11) with about 36 ribs and an Alaskan specimen of C. californiense (fig. 16) with the same number. Habe & Ito (1965, pl. 44, figs 2, 3) illustrate Japanese specimens of the two species each with about 32 ribs, those of C. ciliatum being more closely-set than those of C. californiense. The described shape of the ribs—rounded’—does suggest C. californiense rather than C. ciliatum, although this character varies with size, age and degree of wear. In C. ciliatum the angularity of the ribs decreases considerably from anterior to posterior (Grant & Gale, 1931, pl. 19, fig. 11; Abbott, 1974, p. 487, fig. 5583). Dall (1907), when describing the related C. fucanum, comments on ‘the angulation... which is characteristic of C. ciliatum in the young stages’, implying that this is less evident in older shells. The original description states: ‘the two ends nearly equal in length, the posterior being slightly angulated’. C. ciliatum is the more equilateral of the two species. In my opinion the original description of C. boreale, with the single exception of the words ‘rounded ribs’ fits C. ciliatum at least as well as C. californiense and, from the stated dimensions 6 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 of length 1-6 inches, height 1-3 inches, is possibly even more appropriate for C. fucanum, a species known from the southern Bering Sea but not so far recorded from the area of Icy Cape. All this, however, is a matter of subjective taxonomic judgement. What concerns me is that Kafanov’s argument for the synonymy of C. boreale with C. californiense, on which his request for the suppression of C. boreale is based, has not been subjected to critical appraisal as it has not been published anywhere other than in the application itself. Is it not premature for the Commission to take any action in a case requiring the use of plenary power in which the reasons for the proposals derive, in the absence of any type material, entirely from unproven assumptions made by the applicant and which are contrary to all previous interpretations? Would not any action taken by the Commission seem to endorse Kafanov’s ‘assurance’ and so prejudice any future work on the taxonomy of Clinocardium species from an as yet poorly investigated faunal area? As to the question (if the application is accepted) of whether C. boreale Broderip & Sowerby should be suppressed for both priority and homonymy, or priority only, there is clearly a misunderstanding here. For at least as long as C. boreale Broderip & Sowerby has been accepted as a junior synonym of C. ciliatum, C. boreale Reeve, 1845, has been accepted as a junior synonym of C. groenlandicum Bruguiere, 1789. Its validity is thus not affected by any decision concerning C. boreale Broderip & Sowerby, except that if the latter were sup- pressed for homonymy as well as priority it is open for someone to resurrect C. boreale Reeve by claiming it not to be a junior synonym after all. The reply by Kafanov, in response to the question raised by Professor Mayr, that it is not his intention that C. boreale Reeve should remain invalid, is therefore mis- leading, and the Commission would avoid possible future problems by con- sidering only the original proposal to suppress C. boreale Broderip & Sowerby for priority but not for homonymy. To do otherwise would be contrary to the guiding principles concerning the use of plenary power as expressed in Article 79a(i1). (2) By the Secretary (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) This application was sent out to the Commissioners for voting on by March 1980 in V.P.79(25). Commissioner David Heppell voted against the proposal, sending in the above comment which was immediately sent to Dr Kafanov. Unfortunately, despite letters sent to him following up this additional information, we have not received a reply. I have myself had another look at the application and can see nothing in it to suggest that the synonymy of C. boreale with C. californiense is of long standing and it would appear that, although Dr Starobogatov supports Dr Kafanov in this application, no other malacologist has drawn our attention to the point. I propose, therefore, to close this case unless I hear to the contrary within six months of the publication of this Bulletin. Dr Myra Keen assures me that the citation of her name in support of Dr Kafanov must be due to a misunderstanding or a mistranslation of her. In fact she shares Mr Heppell’s view of the case. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 7 REFERENCES ABBOTT, R. T. 1974. American Seashells. 2nd edn. New York. CLENCH, W. J. & SMITH, L. C. 1944. The family Cardiidae in the Western Atlantic. Johnsonia, vol. 1(13), pp. 1-32. DALL, W.H. 1901. Synopsis of the family Cardiidae and of the North American species. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. vol. 23, pp. 381-392. — 1907. A new Cardium from Puget Sound. Nautilus vol. 20, pp. 111-112. GRANT, U. S., IV & GALE, R. H. 1931. Catalogue of the marine Pliocene and Pleistocene Mollusca of California and adjacent regions, etc. Mem. S. Diego Soc. nat. Hist., vol. 1, pp. 1-1036. HABE, T. & ITO, K. 1965. Shells of the World in colour. 1. The Northern Pacific. Osaka. KAFANOV, A. I. 1974. Sostav, sistematika i istoriya razvitiya gruppy Clino- cardium (Mollusca, Cardiidae). Zool. Zh. vol. 53, pp. 1466-1475. 8 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1264 OSCINIS PLUMIGERA LOEW, 1860 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): SUPPRESSION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name plumigera Loew, 1860, as published in the binomen Oscinis plumigera, is hereby suppressed for purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name plumigera Loew, 1860, as published in the binomen Oscinis plumigera, 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 1127. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2146 An application for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name plumigera Loew, 1860, was first received from Dr C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560) on 18 September 1975. It was sent to the printer on 3 July 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, 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 as well as to the statutory serials, to eight general serials and seven specialist serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)1 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 192. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Schuster, Willink, Mroczkowski, Savage, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Bayer, Binder, Corliss, Ride, Brinck, Halvorsen Negative Vote — one (1) Dupuis. Sabrosky abstained. Alvarado, Cocks, and Heppell all returned late affirmative votes. Welch was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Kraus, Bernardi, Lehtinen and Cogger. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Dupuis: ‘Je vote contre, car j’estime que nous sommes en prés- ence d’une simple homonymie secondaire. Ce qui est en cause n’est d’ailleurs pas la requéte de Sabrosky, mais la définition tout a fait mauvaise de l">homonymie dans le Code.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 9 ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: plumigera, Oscinis, Loew, 1860, Ofvers. K. Vetenskaps-Akad. Forh., vol. 17, p. 95. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1983)1 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. 1264. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 November 1983 10 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1265 BELLOTA PECKHAM & PECKHAM, 1892 (ARANEAE, SALTICIDAE): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. —(1) All designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 are hereby set aside and the nominal species Bellota peckhami Galiano, 1978 is designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bellota peckhami Galiano, 1978, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2203. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) peckhami Galiano, 1978, as published in the binomen Bellota peckhami (specific name of the type species of Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892) (Name Number 2875); (b) formicina Taczanowski, 1879, as published in the binomen Chirothecia formicina (Name Number 2876). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2294 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892, was first received from Dr Maria Elena Galiano (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’, Ay. Angel Gallardo 470, Buenos Aires, Argentina) on 24 November 1978. It was sent to the printer on 8 May 1979 and published on 18 February 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 236-238. 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 specialist serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)2 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 237-238. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Starobogatov, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 11 Trjapitzin, Uéno, Schuster, Bayer, Sabrosky, Binder, Dupuis, Corliss, Ride, Brinck, Halvorsen Negative Vote — none. Welch was on leave of absence. Alvarado, Cocks, and Heppell all returned late affirmative votes. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Kraus, Lehtinen, Savage and Cogger. No comment was received. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892, Occas. Pap. nat. Hist. Soc. Wisconsin vol. 2, p 67 peckhami, Bellota, Galiano, 1978, Rev. peruana Entomol., vol. 21(1), p27) formicina, Chirothecia, Taczanowski, 1879, Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou vol. 53(4), pp. 367-368. CERTIFICA FE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1983)2 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. 1265. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 December 1983 12 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1266 COPHIXALUS BOETTGER, 1892 (AMPHIBIA, SALIENTIA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. — (1) All designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 are hereby set aside and the nominal species Sphenophryne verrucosa Boulenger, 1898 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) Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sphe- nophryne verrucosa Boulenger, 1898 (Name Number 2204); (b) Oreophryne Boettger, 1895, (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Oreophryne senckenbergiana Boettger, 1895 (Name Number 2205). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) verrucosa Boulenger, 1898, as published in the binomen Sphenophryne verrucosa (specific name of type species of Cophixalus Boettger, 1892) (Name Number 2877); (b) moluccensis Peters & Doria, 1878, as published in the com- bination Microhyla achatina var. moluccensis (the currently valid name for the type species of Oreophryne Boettger, 1895) (Name Number 2878). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2298 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Cophixalus Boettger, 1892, was first received from Dr J. I. Menzies (Biology Department, National University, Roma, Lesotho); Dr M. J. Tyler (University of Adelaide, South Australia); and Dr R. G. Zweifel (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.) on 20 March 1979. It was sent to the printer on 12 April 1979 and published on 18 February 1980 in Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 231-235. 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 specialist serials. The proposals were supported by Dr W. Ronald Heyer and Dr George R. Zug who comprise the Nomenclature Committee—Herpeto- logy, American Society of Icthyologists and Herpetologists. No other comments were received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 13 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)3 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 233-234. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Schuster, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Savage, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Schuster, Bayer, Sabrosky, Binder, Corliss, Ride, Brinck, Halvorsen and Cogger Negative Vote — one (1) Uéno. Welch was on leave of absence. Dupuis abstained. Alvarado, Heppell and Cocks returned late affirmative votes. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Kraus and Lehtinen. Ride commented: ‘While I have no objection to placing the name Oreophryne moluccensis Peters & Doria 1878, on the Official List I must ask that the erroneous statement in 11(3)(b) of the application be avoided. A type species is a nominal species, not a taxonomic species, hence it cannot have a “valid name”’’. Dupuis commented: ‘Je m’abstiens car j’estime que l’on demande un vote de nomenclature alors que le probleme proprement taxinom- ique n’est pas éclairci— ou présenté — de maniére telle que l’on sache s'il faut un ou deux genres taxinomiques pour classer les especes en cause.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Cophixalus, Boettger, 1892, Katalog der Batrachier-Sammlung im Museum der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft im Frankfurt-am—Main. (Knauer, Frankfurt), p. 24 Oreophryne Boettger, 1895, Zool. Anz., vol. 18(472), p. 135 verrucosa, Sphenophryne, Boulenger, 1898, Annali Mus. Genova (2), XVill, p. 707 moluccensis, Microhyla achatina var. Peters & Doria, 1878, Ann. Mus. civ. Stor. nat. G. Doria, vol. 13, p. 428. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1983)3 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 14 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1266. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 6 December 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 15 OPINION 1267 MUSCICAPA RUFICAUDA SWAINSON, 1838 (AVES, MUSCICAPIDAE): NEOTY PE DESIGNATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the holotype of the nominal species Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1868, is hereby set aside and the female specimen ‘a’ cited by Sharpe, 1879, p. 457, is designated as neotype of that species. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) ruficauda Swainson, 1838, as published in the binomen Muscicapa ruficauda, with an endorsement that the holo- type has been set aside by use of the plenary powers, and that specimen numbered 45.1.10.47 in the British Museum (Natural History) as cited by Sharpe, 1879, p. 457, has been designated as neotype of that species (Name Number 2879); (b) unicolor Blyth, 1843, as published in the binomen Cyornis unicolor (Name Number 2880). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.)2270 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a neotype for Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838, was first received from the late Mr C. W. Benson (Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, England) on 30 June 1978. It was sent to the printer on 17 May 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 180-186. 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 ten specialist serials. Com- ment was received from Dr H. E. Walters which was published, together with a reply from the author of the application, in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 136-137 (September 1980). No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)4 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 184. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Savage, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Schuster, Bayer, Binder, Corliss, Ride, Brinck, Halvorsen 16 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 Negative Vote — two (2) Sabrosky and Dupuis. Welch was on leave of absence. Alvarado, Cocks and Heppell returned late affirmative votes. No votes were returned by Lehtinen, Kraus, Bernardi and Cogger. Sabrosky commented: ‘Swainson’s holotype was in a readily available collection, and the name was apparently used correctly by immediately succeeding authors (Blyth 1847, et al.). Sharpe could certainly have consulted the holotype.’ Dupuis commented: ‘Il est au dessus de mes forces de donner raison, contre un parfait holotype existant, a tous les auteurs, si nombreux soient-ils, qui se sont trompés dans le sillage de Sharpe. Une erreur est toujours une erreur, et la qualité de “‘prestigious work” ne con- stitue pas un critére supérieur d’availability.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ruficauda, Muscicapa, Swainson, 1838, The Naturalists’ Library, Fly- catchers, p. 251 unicolor, Cyornis, Blyth, 1843, J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, vol. 12, p. 1007. The following is the original reference to the proposition of a neo- type-designation ratified by the ruling given in the present Opinion: for Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838 by Benson, C. W., 1979, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 184. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1983)4 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. 1267. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 7 December 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 17 OPINION 1268 SIMIA LEUCOPHAEA F. CUVIER, 1807 (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES): SUPPRESSION OF TWO SENIOR SYNONYMS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) sylvestris Link, 1795, as published in the binomen Simia sylvestris; (b) silvestris Schreber, [1800], as published in the binomen Simia silvestris. (2) The following specific names, both as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) sylvestris Link, 1795, as published in the binomen Simia sylvestris (Name Number 1128); (b) silvestris Schreber, [1800], as published in the binomen Simia silvestris (Name Number 1129) HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2303 An application for the suppression of two further senior synonyms of Simia leucophaea F. Cuvier, 1807 (already protected against four such synonyms in Opinion 935, when it was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2420) was first received from Mrs P. H. Napier (British Museum (Natural Hist- ory), London) and Dr C. P. Groves (Australian National University, Canberra) on 23 March 1979. It was sent to the printer on 1 August 1979 and published on 18 February 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 239-240. 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 statu- tory journals, to seven general and two specialist journals. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)5 for or against the proposals set out in pp. 239-240 of vol. 36 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Schuster, Willink, Mroczkowski, Savage, Hahn, 18 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Bayer, Uéno, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Brinck. Corliss Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Alvarado and Cocks. Heppell abstained. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus and Lehtinen. The following comments were returned with their voting papers by members of the Commission. Ride: ‘No evidence is given of usage of the names it is proposed to suppress. My vote may be counted in the affirmative if the Secretary satisfies himself that there is none. [Mrs Napier searched the literature at my request and assured me that she could find no use of either of the names concerned as a presumably valid name. R.V.M.] ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: silvestris, Simia, Schreber, [1800], Satigethiere, Abt. 5, legend of plate 8C sylvestris, Simia, Link, 1795, Beytrage Naturges. vol. | (2), p. 61. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes on V.P.(83)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. 1268. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 7 December 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 19 OPINION 1269 METRIDIIDAE CARLGREN, 1893 (ANTHOZOA) AND METRIDIIDAE SARS, 1902 (COPEPODA): A RULING TO ELIMINATE THE HOMONYMY RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the stem of the generic name Metridia Boeck, 1865 (Copepoda) for the purposes of Article 29 is hereby ruled to be METRIDIN-. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Metridium Blainville, 1824 (Anthozoa) (gender: neuter), type species, by monotypy, Actinia dianthus Ellis, 1768 (Name Number 2206); (b) Metridia Boeck, 1865 (Copepoda) (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Sars, 1902, Metridia armata Boeck, 1865 (Name Number 2207). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) senilis Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Priapus senilis (specific name of the senior subjective synonym of Actinia dianthus Ellis, the type species of Metridium Blainville, 1824) (Name Number 2881); (b) longus Lubbock, 1854, as published in the binomen Calanus longus (specific name of the senior subjective synonym of Metridia armata Boeck, 1865, the type species of Metridia Boeck, 1865) (Name Number 2882). (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) METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (type genus Metridium Blainville, 1824) (Anthozoa) (Name Number 557); (b) METRIDINIDAE Sars, 1902 (type genus Metridia Boeck, 1865) (Copepoda) (Name Number 558). (5) The family-group name METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (type genus Metridia Boeck, 1865) (Copepoda) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 497. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2263 An application for the use of the plenary powers to eliminate the homonymy involving METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda), was first received from Dr Daphne Fautin Dunn (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, California 20 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A.) and Dr Kuni Hulsemann (Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Palmaille 9, 2 Hamburg 50 BRD) on 24 April 1978. It was sent to the printer on 16 February 1979 and published on | July 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 53-56. 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 three specialist serials. Additional infor- mation, which was verified by the Secretary, was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 156-157. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)6 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 55. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Schuster, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Savage, Starobogatov, Trjaptzin, Uéno, Bayer, Sabrosky, Binder, Dupuis (in part), Corliss, Ride, Brinck, Halvorsen Negative Votes — none (0). Dupuis voted partly against the pro- posals; on placing Metridia Boeck, 1865 (Copepoda) (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Sars, 1902, Metridia armata Boeck, 1865, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; and against placing the family-group name METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (type genus Metridia Boeck, 1865) (Copepoda) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Welch was on leave of absence. Alvarado, Cocks, and Heppell returned late affirmative votes. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Kraus, Lehtinen and Cogger. Dupuis commented: ‘Je vote pour le résultat souhaité, c’est a dire l’emploi des noms METRIDIIDAE Gosse 1858 (Anthozoa) et METRI- DINIDAE Sars 1902 em. CINZ (Copepoda), mais je vote contre la pro- cédure 2(b) et 4(b), c’est a dire l’étymologie dd METRIDINIDAE fondée sur Metridia Boeck. Jestime, en effet, que l’usage des pleins pouvoirs permet de valider l’émendation de Norman, 1878 et de déclarer qu’ il existe validement un genre Metridina Boeck, 1865 em. Norman, 1878, Metridia allant a l’index des incorrect original spellings. Si Sars avait, dés 1902, adopté l’émendation de Norman, |">homonymie des deux noms de familles ne se serait pas produite. Ceci prouve que les anciens auteurs, qui considéraient comme homonymes les noms de méme étymologie, faisaient du bon travail. En tout état de cause, valider une émendation me parait plus logique que de fabriquer une fausse étymologie en laissant subsister une synonymie inutile Metridia- Metridina.” Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 21 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: Metridium Blainville, 1824, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 30 (Mell-Mez), F. G. Levrault, ed. Paris, p. 470 Metridia Boeck, 1865, Forh. Videnskabs-Selsk. Christiania for 1864, p. 237 senilis, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna svecica, 2nd ed. Laur. Salvii, Holmiae, {xlvi], p. 510 longus, Calanus, Lubbock, 1854, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. ser. 2, vol. 14, p. METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893, K. svenska Vetenskapsakad. Handl., vol. 25(10), p. 101 METRIDINIDAE Sars, 1902, An account of the Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4, parts [IX and X, p. 110. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting paper (1983)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1269. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 December 1983 22 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1270 CHRYSOMELA FLAVICORNIS AND C. TIBIALIS SUFFRIAN, 1851 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name flavicornis Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Chrysomela flavicornis, and all uses of that name prior to its use by Suffrian, 1851, are hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (b) the specific name tibialis Duftschmid, 1825, as published in the binomen Chrysomela tibialis, and all uses of that name prior to its use by Suffrian, 1851, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) flavicornis Suffrian, 1851, as published in the binomen Chrysomela flavicornis (Name Number 2883); (b) tibialis Suffrian, 1851, as published in the binomen Chrysomela tibialis (Name Number 2884). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) flavicornis Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Chrysomela flavicornis, and all uses of that name prior to its use by Suffrian, 1851, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above (Name Number 1130); (b) tibialis Duftschmid, 1825, as published in the binomen Chrysomela tibialis, and all uses of that name prior to its use by Suffrian, 1851, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name Number 1131). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2246 An application for the conservation of two junior primary homonyms in the Coleopteran family CHRYSOMELIDAE was first received from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki) on 16 January 1978. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 17 May 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 171-174. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin, to the statutory serials, to seven general and seven specialist serials. No comments were received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 23 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)8 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 172. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state.of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Schuster, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Starobo- gatov, Bayer, Uéno, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were received from Alvarado, Cocks and Heppell. Holthuis abstained. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen and Savage. Dr Holthuis queried the status of C. tibialis Suffrian vis-a-vis C. tibialis Duftschmid. Dr Silfverberg replied that there could be no doubt from the context of Suffrian’s description that he was describing a different species from the one described by Duftschmid. 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: flavicornis, Chrysomela, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 1, p. 73 flavicornis, Chrysomela Suffrian, 1851, Linnaea Entomol. vol. 5, p. 215 tibialis, Chrysomela, Duftschmid, 1825, Fauna Austriae, vol. 3, p. 202 tibialis, Chrysomela, Suffrian, 1851, Linnaea Entomol. vol. 5, p. 259. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast in V.P.(83)8 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 Number 1270. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 December 1983 24 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1271 POLYNOE SAVIGNY, 1818 (ANNELIDA, POLYCHAETA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, all designations hitherto made for the nominal genus Polynoe Savigny, 1818, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Polynoe scolopendrina Savigny, 1812, is designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Polynoe Savigny, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Polynoe scolopendrina Savigny, 1822, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2208. (3) The specific name scolopendrina Savigny, 1822, as published in the binomen Polynoe scolopendrina (specific name of type species of Polynoe Savigny, 1818) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2885. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2288 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Polynoe Savigny, 1818, was first received from Mr A. Muir (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) on 1 October 1978. It was sent to the printer on 16 February 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 187-190. 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 serials, to seven general serials and three specialist serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)12 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, p. 189. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Schuster, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Bayer, Sabrosky, Binder, Dupuis, Corliss, Ride, Brinck, Halvorsen Negative Vote — none (0) Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Kraus, Lehtinen, Savage, Cogger and Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were returned by Alvarado, Cocks and Heppell. No comments were received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 25 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Polynoe, Savigny, 1818, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres. Paris (Deterville & Verdiere), vol. 5, p. 308 scolopendrina, Polynoe, Savigny, 1822, In Description de l’Egypte. Paris (L’Imprimerie Impériale). Histoire naturelle, vol. 1(3), p. 25. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1983)12 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1271. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 December 1983 26 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1272 SCIAENA NIBE JORDAN & THOMPSON, 1911 (PISCES): SPECIFIC NAME NIBE CONSERVED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name brunneolus Jordan & Richardson, 1909, as published in the binomen Pseudotolithus brunneolus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name nibe Jordan & Thompson, 1911, as pub- lished in the binomen Sciaena nibe is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2886. (3) The specific name brunneolus Jordan & Richardson, 1909, as published in the binomen Pseudotolithus brunneolus, and as sup- pressed by use of 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 1 132. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2226 An application for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name brunneolus Jordan & Richardson, 1909, was first received from Dr E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London, UK) on 24 June 1977. It was sent to the printer on 3 July 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 155-157. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and one specialist serial. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)13 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, p. 157. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fourteen (14) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Schuster, Willink, Savage, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Bayer, Binder, Corliss, Ride, Brinck, Halvorsen Negative Votes—four (4) received in the following order: Mroczkowski, Hahn, Sabrosky, Dupuis. Welch was on leave of absence. Alvarado, Cocks and Heppell returned late affirmative votes. No votes were returned by Krauss, Lehtinen, Cogger and Bernardi. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 27 Dupuis commented: ‘Si le genre Atrobucca est valide “many zoologists, especially those working in applied fields and on fishery statistics” ont di, depuis 1963, changer le nom de genre! Cela ne leur coutera pas plus de revenir aujourd’hui a l’épithéte spécifique prioritaire. Dans une quinzaine d’années tout cela sera passé dans les moeurs.’ Sabrosky commented: ‘It is depressing that three decades ago in 1952 and 1956, before many of the examples cited as usage of nibe, two authors failed to apply the Rules. Hahn commented: ‘I would have voted for the “relative prece- dence procedure’, but I do not vote for complete suppression of the older synonym.’ Mroczkowski commented: ‘As the specific names brunneolus Jordan & Richardson, 1909 and nibe Jordan & Thompson, 1911 are only subjective synonyms, the Commission should, in my view, apply ”. 9° the “relative precedence procedure”’. 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: nibe, Sciaena, Jordan & Thompson, 1911, Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 39, p. 258 brunneolus, Pseudotolithus, Jordan & Richardson, 1909, Mem. Carnegie Mus., vol. 4, p. 191. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1983)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 Nol 272. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 December 1983 28 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1273 ANASPIS, LUPERUS, LAMP YRIS AND CLERUS (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): DETERMINATION OF AUTHORSHIP AND FIXATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) it is hereby ruled that the generic names Anaspis, Luperus, Lampyris and Clerus are to be attributed to Geoffroy, 1762; (b) All designations of type species for the genera named in column (i) below are hereby set aside and the species given in column (ii) are hereby designated as type species of those genera: (i) (11) Anaspis Geoffroy, 1762 Mordella frontalis Linnaeus, 1758 Luperus Geoffroy, 1762 Chrysomela flavipes Linnaeus, 1767 Lampyris Geoffroy, 1762 Cantharis noctiluca Linnaeus, 1758 Clerus Geoffroy,1762 Clerus mutillarius Fabricius, 1775 (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Anaspis Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Mordella frontalis Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2209); (b) Luperus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Chrysomela flavipes Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2210); (c) Lampyris Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Cantharis noctiluca Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2211); (d) Clerus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Clerus mutillarius Fabricius, 1775 (Name Number 2212); (e) Trichodes Herbst, 1792 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Hope, 1840, Attelabus apiarius Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2213). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) frontalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Mordella frontalis (specific name of type species of Anaspis Geoffroy, 1762) (Name Number 2887); (b) flavipes Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Chrysomela flavipes (specific name of type species of Luperus Geoffroy, 1762) (Name Number 2888); (c) noctiluca Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 29 Cantharis noctiluca (specific name of type species of Lampyris Geoffroy, 1762) (Name Number 2889); (d) mutillarius Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Clerus mutillarius (specific name of type species of Clerus Geoffroy, 1762) (Name Number 2890); (e) apiarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Aite- labus apiarius (specific name of type species of Trichodes Herbst, 1792) (Name Number 2891). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2240 An application concerning the authorship and type species of the nominal genera Anaspis, Luperus, Lampyris and Clerus was first received from Dr H. Silfverberg (University Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland) on 5 December 1977. Dr I. W. B. Nye kindly took responsibility for preparing the case, and after correspondence and personal discussions with Dr Silfverberg, prepared a draft that was sent to the printer on 8 May 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 161-166. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and seven specialist serials. Dr Silfverberg proposed that the generic names involved should be attributed to O. F. Miiller, 1764. However, Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad) and Dr F. C. Thompson (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C.) both proposed that the plenary powers should be used to attribute them to Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abr. ins. env. Paris, a work rejected in Opinion 228 because it was not consistent with the principles of binominal nomenclature. They pointed out that eleven of Geoffroy’s generic names had already been ruled to be available by the use of the plenary powers in subsequent opinions. The Secretary pointed out that the Commission could choose one of three courses: (a) to use its plenary powers to rule the names to be available from Geoffroy, 1762; (b) to accept the names from their first subsequent publication as available names (following Opinion 228); or (c) to accept the next names made available for the same taxa. The papers in the case offered a choice between courses (a) and (b) and the Secretary proposed to put these as alternatives to the Commission for a vote. All these comments were published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 6-8, February 1981. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1983)14, in Part 1 30 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 for or against the use of the plenary powers to attribute the generic names concerned to Geoffroy, 1762; and in Part 2 for or against the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate type species for those genera. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: PART 1 Affirmative Votes — fourteen (14) received in the following order: Melville, Willink, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Binder, Sabrosky, Ride, Dupuis, Corliss, Savage Negative Votes—four (4) received in the following order: Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Halvorsen, Brinck. Late affirmative votes were received from Heppell and Cocks and a late abstention from Alvarado. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus and Lehtinen. PART 2 Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Bayer, Uéno, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride, Halvorsen, Brinck, Corliss, Savage Negative Vote — Schuster. Dupuis abstained. Welch was on leave of absence. Late affirm- ative votes were returned by Heppell and Cocks, and a late abstention by Alvarado. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus and Lehtinen. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Sabrosky: ‘Part 1 should have been worded, as requested by Kerzhner & Thompson, “to make available” (they said “to validate’’) the generic names as of “Geoffroy, 1762’. Attributing the authorship to Geoffroy is a weak and imprecise way of making the names available, if indeed it does so.’ [I see no difficulty here. Article 50 of the Code says ‘The author of a name is the person who first publishes it in a way that satisfies the criteria of availability’. It follows that to rule that a given person is the author of a name is ipso facto to rule that that person made the name available. R.V.M.] Dupuis: ‘Je vote pour la partie 1 de la proposition, c’est a dire dans le sens des Opinions 281, 441, 442, 645, 681, 683 et 731. Ces Opinions indiquent que la Commission, dans son Opinion 228, avait agi avec précipitation en rejetant en bloc le travail de Geoffroy, et sur- tout qu’un rejet en bloc est toujours une mesure simpliste et dangereuse. ‘Je m’abstiens quant a la partie 2 de la proposition. D’une part dans |’attente du vote sur la partie 1, d’autre part parce que j’estime les Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 31 quatre noms comme trop importants pour voter des a present, alors qu’aucun commentaire contradictoire a leur propos n’a apparemment été recu de coléopteéristes.’ Ride: ‘If the vote in Part 1 does not achieve the necessary majority in consequence of Kerzhner’s comment, the authorship of the names should be attributed to Geoffroy in Miiller, 1764, not Miiller, 1764. Note that Part 2 also requires the use of the plenary powers.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Anaspis Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abr. Ins. env. Paris, p. 315 apiarius, Attelabus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 388 Clerus Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abr. Ins. env. Paris, p. 303 flavipes, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 601 frontalis, Mordella, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 420 Lampyris Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abr. Ins. Env. Paris, p. 165 Luperus Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abr. Ins. env. Paris, p. 230 mutillarius, Clerus, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Entomol. p. 157 noctiluca, Cantharis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 400 Trichodes Herbst, 1792, in Jablonsky, Natursyst. aller bek. in- und ausl. Ins., Der Kafer, p. 154. The following is the original reference to the designation of a type species for the nominal genus Trichodes Herbst, 1792: of Attelabus apiarius Linnaeus, 1758, by Hope, 1840, Coleopterist’s Manual, vol. 3, 137: CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast in the two parts of V.P.(83)14 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in each of those parts have been adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decisions so taken, being the decisions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, are truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1273. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 December 1983 2 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1274 NOTONECTA STRIATA LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): NEOTY PE DESIGNATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type specimens hitherto made for the nominal species mentioned below are hereby set aside, and the two specimens indicated are hereby desig- nated as their neotypes as follows: (a) For Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758: a microscope slide of a dissected male specimen in the British Museum (Natural History), (the slide bears at one end a red-bordered British Museum type label with the words ‘Corixa striata (Linnaeus, 1758), Neotype’, and at the other end a slide label reading ‘Denmark, Esrom Lake-9.1950, T. T. Macan Coll., Station 11’); For Corixa dorsalis Leach, 1817: a microscope slide of a dissected male specimen in the British Museum (Natural History), (labelled ‘Corixa lacustris Macan, 1954, Holotype. Esthwaite Lake 8.v.51, T. T. Macan’. It also bears the British Museum (Natural History) acquisition number 1954-822). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) striata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Noto- necta striata and as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in l(a) above, with the Name Number 2892; (b) dorsalis Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Corixa dorsalis and as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, with the Name Number 2893. (b — HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)640 An application to designate a neotype for Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758, was first received from Dr T. T. Macan (Stevney, Outgate, Ambleside, Westmorland, U.K.) on 3 January 1952, and first published in 1961 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 18, pp. 328-329. The present revived application for the use of the plenary powers in this case was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 October 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, pp. 111-114. 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 seven specialist serials. No comment was received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 33 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)15 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, pp. 113-114. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Schuster, Bayer, Sabrosky, Binder, Dupuis, Corliss, Ride, Brinck Negative Votes — one (1) Halvorsen. Welch was on leave of absence. Alvarado, Cocks and Heppell all returned late affirmative votes. No voting papers were returned by Savage, Kraus, Lehtinen, Cogger and Bernardi. Dupuis commented: ‘Je vote pour l’acceptation des deux néotypes simultanément, car en désigner un pour une seule des espéces considérées ne suffirait pas pour parvenir a la stabilité voulue.’ Schuster commented: ‘I feel this application will solve a very complex problem.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: striata, Notonecta, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 439 dorsalis, Corixa, Leach, 1817, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 12, p. 17. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1983)15 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. 1274. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 December 1983 34 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1275 MACROCEPHALITES ZITTEL, 1884, AND AMMONITES MACROCEPHALUS SCHLOTHEIM, 1813 (MOLLUSCA, CEPHALOPODA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LISTS RULING. — (1) The generic name Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Lemoine, 1910, Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2214. (2) The specific name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, as pub- lished in the binomen Ammonites macrocephalus (specific name of type species of Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884) as interpreted by the neotype designated by Callomon, 1971, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2894. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)401 An application aimed at resolving confusion about the type species of the ammonite genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 and about the type specimen of that species was first received from the late W. J. Arkell on 28 February 1949. The reasons why that application was never taken to a conclusion are explained in the application put forward by Professor J. H. Callomon (University College, London) on 7 June 1978. This was eventually prepared for printing and sent to the printer on 23 January 1980 and published on 19 June 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 109-113. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)16 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 112-113. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Schuster, Uéno, Sabrosky, Bayer, Binder, Ride, Halvor- sen, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Alvarado, Cocks and Heppell. Dupuis abstained. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen and Savage. Dupuis commented: ‘Je m/’abstiens car il n’est pas précisé si la solution proposée et les “different interpretations in important Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 35 revisions” entrainent des conséquences différentes quant aux usages existants’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, Handb. Palaeont., vol. 1 (2), (3), p. 470 macrocephalus, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1813, in Leonhard, Taschenb. gesamte Mineral., vol. 7, p. 70. The following is the original reference to the designation of a type species for the nominal genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884: of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, by Lemoine, 1910, Ann. Paléont., vol. 5, p. 151. The following is the original reference to the designation of a neotype for the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813: Callomon, 1971, Palaeontol., vol. 14, p. 120. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(83)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. 1275. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 December 1983 36 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 OPINION 1276 SEMBLIS MARGINATA PANZER, 1799 (INSECTA, PLECOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name marginata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Semblis marginata, and all uses of that name prior to its use by Panzer, 1799, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; it is hereby ruled that the specific name marginata Panzer, 1799, as published in the binomen Semblis marginata, 1s to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name maxima Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Phryganea maxima, by anyone who believes that both names denote the same species-group taxon. (2) The generic name Marthamea Klapalek, 1907 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Klapalek, 1923, Perla vitripennis Burmeister, 1839, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 22.15; (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) marginata Panzer, 1799, as published in the binomen Semblis marginata and as rendered nomenclaturally valid by the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above and with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name maxima Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Phryganea maxima by anyone who believes that both names denote the same species- group taxon (Name Number 2895); maxima Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Phry- ganea maxima, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over marginata Panzer, 1799, as published in the binomen Semblis marginata by anyone who believes that both names denote the same species-group taxon (Name Number 2896); (c) vitripennis Burmeister, 1839, as published in the binomen Perla vitripennis (specific name of type species of Martha- mea Klapalek, 1907) (Name Number 2897). (4) The specific name marginata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Semblis marginata, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1133. (b — (b _— Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 ay HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1799 The earlier history of this case from 1967 to 1981 was sum- marised in a report by the Secretary that was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 221-224. 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 eight specialist serials. No comments were received. DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION The Commission’s decisions in the present case were reached in two stages. On 20 August 1979 the members were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1979)10 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, pp. 246-247 as modi- fied by the relative precedence procedure: i.e., to give Semblis margi- nata Panzer, 1799 nomenclatural precedence over Phryganea maxima Scopoli, 1763. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Willink, Tortonese, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Habe, Corliss, Bayer, Cogger, Nye Negative Votes — two (2): Sabrosky, Heppell. Late affirmative votes were returned by Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Dupuis abstained. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting paper was returned by Binder. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their votes on V.P.(79)10: Dupuis: ‘Abstention. Le “wording” de la décision n’est pas donné — les faits éventuellement cités dans les documents invoqués ne sont pas fournis aux membres de la Commission.’ Heppell: ‘| vote for the application as published, with suppression of P. maxima. There seems to be a good case for burying this name altogether as its use in any sense would upset stability.’ In the course of preparing an Opinion on the basis of the above vote, the Secretary found that Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 was a junior primary homonym of Semblis marginata Fabricius, 1793. The complications arising from this discovery were explained in the report mentioned above under the history of the case. On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)17 on the measures necessary to complete this case as set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 224. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: 38 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 Affirmative Votes—fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Uéno, Schuster, Binder, Bayer, Corliss, Ride, Brinck, Halvorsen Negative Vote — Sabrosky. Late affirmative votes were returned by Alvarado, Cocks and Heppell. Dupuis abstained. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen and Savage. Dupuis commented: ‘Je suis tres heureux de m’étre abstenu lors du vote 1979(10). Je persiste dans mon abstention en soulignant que les cas anciens (soumis, par exemple, il y a plus de dix ans) devraient étre réexposés intégralement, et non pas en utilisant le systeme irritant des renvois fractionnés a des textes contradictoires.’ 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: marginata, Semblis, Fabricius, 1793, Entomol. Syst., vol. 2, p. 73 marginata, Semblis Panzer, 1799, Deutschlands Insekten, Heft 71, Abth. 3 Marthamea Klapalek, 1907, Rospr. Ceske Akad. (2) vol. 16 (16) p. 19 maxima, Phryganea, Scopoli, 1763, Entomol. Carniol., p. 269 vitripennis, Perla, Burmeister, 1839, Handb. Entomol. vol. 2 (2), pp. 11, 850. The following is the original reference to the subsequent designa- tion of a type species for the nominal genus Marthamea Klapalek, 1907: of Perla vitripennis Burmeister, 1839 by Klapalek, 1923, Colls zool. Selys Longchamps, p. 97. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)10 and V.P.(83)17 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in both those voting papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decisions so taken, being the decisions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, are truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1276. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 December 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 39 DIRECTION 114 HERRERA, 1899, ‘SINONIMIA VULGAR Y CIENTIFICA DE LOS PRINCIPALES VERTEBRADOS MEXICANOS’ PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID WORKS IN ZOOLOGY (DIRECTION SUPPLEMENTARY TO DIRECTION 32) RULING. — The following work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No. 87 and with an endorsement that the designations for animals used in that work are formulae, not names, and accordingly do not enter into zoological nomenclature: Herrera, A. L., 1899, Sinonimia vulgar y cientifica de los principales vertebrados mexicanos (Mexico, Officina Tipogrdafica de la Secretaria de Fomento, 31 pp.). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.)2133 An application for the placing of the work listed above on the Official Index was first received from Professor Hobart M. and Mrs Rozella Smith (University of Colorado) on 17 March 1975. After some bibliographical research, it was sent to the printer on 1 August 1979 and published on 18 February 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 246-248. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)10 for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 248. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Savage, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Bayer, Uéno, Schuster, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride, Halvorsen, Brinck, Corliss Negative Vote — Dupuis. Late affirmative votes were returned by Alvarado and Cocks. A late negative vote was returned by Heppell. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus and Lehtinen. Dupuis commented: ‘II n’y a pas lieu de supprimer |’ouvrage en tant que tel. Herrera est suffsamment explicite: “las abbreviaturas que preceden a los nombres genericos. ..”” pour que l’on sache que ses for- mules ne sont pas des noms génériques; elles tombent, de ce fait, automatiquement sous I’effet des dispositions prévues.’ 40 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 ORIGINAL REFERENCE The original reference to the work placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Direction is as given in the Ruling above. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast in V.P.(83)10 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is_ truly recorded in the present Direction No. 114. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 December 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 4] DIRECTION 115 MEROPIDAE (AVES): ATTRIBUTED TO RAFINESQUE, 1815 (CORRECTION TO ENTRY No. | IN THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY) RULING. — Entry No. | in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology is to be amended to read: MEROPIDAE 1 Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature (Palermo), p. 66. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2286 An application for the amendment of the author and date of the family-group name MEROPIDAE in entry No. | of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology was first received from Dr P. S. Tomkovich and Dr G. N. Kashin (Moscow) on 29 September 1978. It was sent to the printer on 8 May 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 154. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)11 for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 154. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Schuster, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Bayer, Uéno, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were received from Alvarado, Cocks and Heppell. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen and Savage. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Hahn: ‘I agree with hesitation: (1) is it certain that Rafinesque used ““Meropia” in the same sense as MEROPIDAE is used today? (2) is it certain that Rafinesque was indeed the first author op MEROPIDAE or must we expect that other, still earlier authors will be found in future?’ [The application showed that Rafinesque used ‘Meropia’ for a taxon based on Merops Linnaeus, 1758, hence with the same meaning as that now given to MEROPIDAE. Time alone holds the answer to Professor Hahn’s second question. R.V.M.) 42 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 Dupuis: ‘Je suis toujours favorable a l’amendement des auteurs et dates des noms de rang familial, car la priorité des informations de cette sorte est toujours trés délicate a établir’. ‘Dans le cas particulier, je vote donc pour. Je regrette néanmoins le caractére trop sommaire de la requéte. Pour m’assurer que Meropia avait été véritablement voulu comme taxon supergénérique par son auteur, j’ai di consulter le travail de Richmond (Auk vol. 26, 1909, pp. 37-55, 248-262). J’ai constaté (1) qu’il s’agit de “A reprint of the ornithological writings of C. S. Rafinesque” (c’est important, car l’exis- tence de ce reprint évite d’avoir a ergoter sur l’accessibilité de l’original) et (2) que Rafinesque, 1815 a créé de nombreux noms de familles et sous-familles, fondés (mais non tous) sur des noms de genres d’oiseaux (certains sont, toutefois, des nomina nuda). On y trouve, en particulier, p. 66 de Voriginal (p. 44 de Auk) “‘sous-famille Meropia. Les Méro- piens”’ avec le genre Merops L. inclus. II fallait s’assurer de la mention d’un rang supergénérique et d’un genre inclus’. ‘Jestime que la requéte aurait di apporter clairement ces précisions aux membres de la Commission et j’espere que mon commen- taire aura au moins l’avantage d’attirer l’attention sur un reprint utile et apparemment peu connu.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCE The original reference to the name that is the subject of the ruling in the present Direction is that given in the Ruling above. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast in V.P.(83)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 Direction No. 115. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 December 1983 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 43 HELICONIUS ERATO AURIVILLIUS, 1882 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)1759 By John R. G. Turner (Department of Genetics, University of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England) This case deals with two species of butterflies of the genus Helico- nius Latreille, 1804, viz. Papilio vesta Cramer, 1775 and Papilio erato Linnaeus, 1758, the names of which have been confused. For the pur- pose of the discussion it is convenient to assume that there are two species: Species A (a red, monomorphic form) and Species B (a red form, a blue form, and a green form which is not relevant to this discussion). 2. The nomenclature used for 100 years and with which the Linnean types agree is set out in: Scheme | Species A= Papilio vesta Cramer, 1775 Species B=(red form) Papilio erato Linnaeus, 1758 =(blue form) Papilio doris Linnaeus, 1771 3. From Linnaeus’ description (Syst. Nat. 1758, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 467), P. erato could be one of half a dozen species including A and B (red form). Clerck (1764, Icones 2 to 40, fig. 5) figured a fresh specimen of Species B (red form) and called it Papilio erato (presumably Linnaeus’ species). Linnaeus (1764, Mus. Lud. Ulr. p. 231) cited Clerck’s figure as P. erato. Linnaeus (1771, Mantissa Plant. Altera, Appendix) named Species B (blue form) Papilio doris. Cramer (1775, Uitl. Kapellen vol. 2, 33, p. 199 (fig. a)) illustrated Species A under the new name Papilio vesta. Linnaeus (in later editions of Syst. Nat.) cited Clerck’s and Cramer’s figures as P. erato (i.e. both A and B (red form)). 4. Aurivillius (1882, Kongl. svensk. Vet.- Akad. Handl.) declared that the very full description of P. erato in Mus. Lud. Ulr. in 1764, could not be Species B (red form), but must be Species A, and consequently designated Cramer’s figure as the type of P. erato. This designation established the arrangement set out in: Scheme 2: Species A=Heliconius erato Linn. sensu Aurivillius, 1882 (nec. L. 1758) (Synonym P. vesta Cramer 1775) Species B=(red form) Heliconius doris (L.) form delila Hiibner =(blue form) Heliconius doris (L.) typical form. This arrangement has been followed by all subsequent workers including Stichel, Stichel & Riffarth, Seitz and Neustetter. Starting in 1950 the genus Heliconius has been used extensively for biological research, including behaviour, genetics, neurology, ecology and mimicry. A list of relevant research papers is held in the Commission’s Office. In all these papers the nomenclature, following Aurivillius, is as in Scheme 2. 44 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 5. To return to the Linnean usage of Scheme | would cause the utmost confusion, especially as Species A and Species B (red) are appar- ently mimics. It is in fact doubtful if those zoologists who lack any parti- cular interest in nomenclature would ever get into the habit of using Scheme 1; even if some of them did not actively rebel, the rest would probably ignore it. The only paper of zoological interest which uses Scheme | is Bates’ classic of 1862, which is now read for historical interest only. 6. I therefore submit that the most sensible course is to follow Scheme 2, and to conserve the name H. erato sensu Aurivillius, 1882 by designating a specimen of Species A as neotype of P. erato L., 1758. The following specimen is proposed as neotype of H. erato sensu Aurivillius housed in the British Museum (Natural History): ‘Berg. en Dal. Surinam. 1898-9. Michls./erato erato Linn./866./20.20. ex coll. Riffarth/Joicey Bequest, Brit. Mus. 1934-120.’ This is very probably the specimen photographed in Stichel & Riffarth (1905, Das Tiereich, Lief. 22 Heliconiidae, p. 199). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type specimen hitherto made for Papilio erato Linn., 1758, and having done so to designate the specimen now held in the British Museum (Natural History) and as detailed in para- graph 6 above, as neotype of that species; (2) to place the following specific names (a) erato Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the binomen Papilio erato and as defined by reference to the neotype designated in (1) above, and (b) doris Linnaeus, 1771, as published in the binomen Papilio doris Linnaeus, 1771 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 45 CURCULIO PICIROSTRIS FABRICIUS, 1787 AND TYCHIUS STEPHENSI SCHONHERR, 1836 (COLEOPTERA, CURCULIONIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2266 By Wayne E. Clark (Department of Zoology—Entomology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, U.S.A.) Two native European curculionid weevils whose larvae feed on seeds of clover (Trifolium) are economic pests in areas where clover is produced as a forage crop (Muka, 1954; Yunus & Johansen, 1967). Both weevils have been introduced from Europe into America. One of the weevils, known to American as well as European workers as Tychius picirostris (Fabricius, 1787) (Mant. Ins., vol. 1, p. 101), is also called the clover seed weevil in America. Until recently, this species was known as Miccotrogus picirostris, but the name Miccotrogus Schonherr, 1825 (Isis (Oken), p. 583) has now been placed in synonymy with Tychius Germar, 1817 (Mag. Entomol. (Germar), vol. 2, p. 340) (Clark, 1976). The other weevil, known in America as Tychius stephensi Schonherr, 1836 (Gen. et sp. Curcul, vol. 3 (1), p. 412) (sometimes spelled stepheni), is the red clover seed weevil. In Europe it is called Tychius tomentosus (Herbst, 1795) (Nat. Ins. (Kafer), vol. 6, p. 278). This proposal suggests that the nomenclature used by American workers for these two weevils be ratified. So far as T. picirostris is concerned, this will be advantageous to Europeans as well as Americans. As for 7. stephensi, European workers should not be greatly inconvenienced by the replacement of T. tomentosus by this name, since the species does not appear to be of economic importance in Europe. 2. Although similar in general appearance, the two weevil species differ in the number of articles in the antennal funiculus: 6 in T. piciros- tris, 7 in T. stephensi, and in other features listed by Milliron, 1949. Nevertheless, in the first half of the present century the two species were frequently mistaken for each other by American workers. Milliron’s 1949 listing of diagnostic characters was part of an attempt to eliminate the confusion apparent in the early literature. Milliron followed European authors in using the name Miccotrogus picirostris for the clover seed weevil. He rejected the name Tychius tomentosus for the species now known as the red clover seed weevil because that name in its original combination (Curculio tomentosus) is a junior primary homonym of Curculio tomentosus Olivier, 1790 (Encycl. méth. vol. 5 (Ins.), p. 536). Milliron decided that Tychius stephensi was the correct 46 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 name for the red clover seed weevil. Since publication of his paper, the names picirostris and stephensi have been applied consistently in America (except for variation in the spelling of the latter). However, Milliron’s work has had no apparent impact upon European workers. 3. If Milliron had examined the type specimens of the species under consideration he would have seen that the nomenclature he pro- posed was incorrect. Type specimens of T. picirostris, T. stephensi, T. tomentosus and other species variously reported as synonyms have been examined (Clark, 1971). The pertinent synonymy is: (a) for the species currently known as TJ. stephensi and T. tomentosus: ?Curculio picirostris Fabricius, 1787, p. 101, pars Curculio tomentosus Herbst, 1795, p. 278 (non Olivier, 1790, p. 536) Tychius stepheni Schonherr, 1836, p. 412 Tychius stephensi Schonherr (emendation by Stephens, 1839, p. 229) (b) for the species currently known as T. picirostris: Curculio cinerascens Marsham, 1802, p. 248 Tychius (Miccotrogus) picirostris (Fabricius), Schonherr, 1825, p. 583; 1826, p. 247; 1836, p. 422, all based on a misidentification. 4. The current concept of T. picirostris (Fabricius) as a species with six antennal funicular articles stems from assignment by Germar, 1824, and Schonherr, 1825, 1826, of Rhynchaenus picirostris ‘var. b’ Gyllenhal, 1813, Ins. Suec., Coleopt. vol. 1 (3), p. 122 to genus-group taxa so characterised, followed by Schénherr’s citation (1836, p. 422) of Fabricius, 1787, as authority for Tychius (Miccotrogus) picirostris. The name picirostris was first associated with Tychius and Miccotrogus when Schonherr, 1825, p. 583, established Miccotrogus as a subgenus of Tychius Germar. Schénherr designated Curculio cuprifer Panzer, [1799], Ins. Germ., Heft 61, tab. 10 as type species of Miccotrogus and also referred to the genus ‘Sibin. picirostris Germ., Rhynch. id. var. Gyll.’, cited in 1826, p. 247 as ‘Rhynch. picirostris var. Gyllenh. Ins. Sv.’. This ‘var.’ was not the R. picirostris of Gyllenhal, 1813, p. 121, which Gyllenhal attributed to Fabricius, 1801, p. 449, Paykull, 1800, p. 253 and Herbst, 1795, pp. 278, 446. Instead it was a ‘var. b’ which Gyllenhal, 1813, p. 122, apparently considered to be the same as Curcu- lio cinerascens Marsham, 1802, Entomol. Britt., vol. 1, p. 248; and according to R. T. Thompson (British Museum (Natural History)) the type of Marsham’s species in that museum belongs to the species now known as Tychius picirostris. This ‘var. b’ was assigned by Germar, 1824, p. 291 to Sibinia, while Schonherr, 1825, p. 583 assigned the ‘var. Gyll.’ and (1826, p. 247) the ‘var. Gyllenh. Ins. Sv.’ to Miccotrogus. Sibinia Germar, 1824, p. 289 and Miccotrogus Schénherr, 1826, p. 247, were both characterised as having six antennal funicular articles, where- Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 47 as Schénherr, 1826, p. 245, described Tychius as having seven funicular articles. Thus it is clear that Germar and Schonherr considered Gyllen- hal’s picirostris ‘var. b’ to be a species with 6 instead of 7 funicular articles, although Gyllenhal made no reference to the antennal funicu- lus. It is also clear that Schonherr, 1825, 1826, considered Gyllenhal’s ‘var. b’ to be a species distinct from Gyllenhal’s R. picirostris. In 1825, p. 583, Schénherr listed R. picirostris ‘var. Ghil. (sic) in Tychius and the R. picirostris ‘var. Gyll.’ in Miccotrogus. In 1836, p. 411, he cited ‘R. picirostris alpha’ with Germar, 1813 as author, as a synonym of T. tomentosus, while on p. 422 he placed the ‘var. b’ in his 7. (Miccotrogus) picirostris. It is significant that Schonherr, 1825, 1826 and Germar, 1824, cited Gyllenhal instead of Fabricius as the author of picirostris. Later, however (1836, p. 422), by citing Fabricius as one of the authori- ties for T. (Miccotrogus) picirostris, Schonherr brought Fabricius’ name into association with Gyllenhal’s picirostris ‘var. b’, characterised as having six funicular articles. Subsequent authors have attributed the name picirostris to Fabricius, not to Gyllenhal. 5. In order to determine the identity of Gyllenhal’s R. picirostris and his R. picirostris ‘var. b’ (1813, pp. 121-122), 46 specimens ident- ified as R. picirostris from the Gyllenhal collection at Uppsala Univer- sity, Sweden, were examined (Clark, 1971). According to Lars Hedstrom (in litt., 31 January 1970) two of these were from the ‘Insecta Suecica collection’ whereas 44 form the ‘total representation of Gyllenhal’s general collection’. The 44 were sent under a general label: ‘Rhynchae- nus picirostris S. El. 2. 449. 55. Cure. id. Payk. S.3. 453. 73’. All 46 specimens are 7. stephensi (with seven funicular articles). Later, 10 specimens, which Hedstrom (in litt., 12 May 1970) says ‘were placed immediately below’ the 44 specimens in Gyllenhal’s general collection were examined (Clark, 1971). The legible portion of the label with these specimens reads: ‘Tychius tomentosus Sch. picirostris var. b Sch.’. Nine of these are 7. stephensi, the tenth is T. picirostris (with six funicular articles). These labels must have been written after 1817, when Tychius was established, so there is some question as to whether they represent Gyllenhal’s concept of his picirostris ‘var. b’. 6. The citation of Fabricius, 1787, in association with R. piciros- tris “var. b’ under the name Tychius (Miccotrogus) picirostris by Schon- herr, 1836, p. 422, appears to have been a mistake. As discussed above, both Schénherr, 1825, 1826 and Germar, 1824, considered ‘var. b’ to be a species with six funicular articles. It has since been discovered (see Clark, 1971) that Curculio picirostris Fabricius, 1787, p. 101, is repre- sented by two specimens in the Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, one in Fabricius’ own collection, the other in the collection of Sehested and Tender Lund. In 1970 B. D. Valentine (Ohio State University) examined ‘the type’ of C. picirostris at Copenhagen and determined it as T. stephensi by comparison with specimens so identified by R. T. Thomp- son. Later, however, Thompson (in litt., 3 September 1975) questioned 48 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 Valentine’s determination, noting that the original description of C. picirostris does not fit T. stephensi. Consequently, L. Dieckmann (Aka- demie der Landwirtschaftwissenschaften, Eberswalde, DDR) was asked to examine the ‘type’ of C. picirostris. He reported (in litt., 6 May 1976) that the specimen is actually a small female Tychius quinquepunctatus (Linnaeus). This was seen as a possible explanation of the discrepancy between Fabricius’ original description of C. picirostris and the ‘type’ seen by Valentine. It also brought to mind Valentine’s assertion that a specimen identified as Rhynchaenus picirostris at Copenhagen was ‘a tychiine, but larger than JT. stephensi’ (Clark, 1971, p. 13). Dr Dieckmann was next asked to investigate the possibility that there are actually two specimens of C. picirostris in the Fabrician material. A second specimen sent to him from Copenhagen proved to belong to the species known to him as T. tomentosus (the T. stephensi of Thompson and Valentine). 7. Dieckmann’s identification of the second Fabrician specimen explains Valentine’s identification of ‘the type’ of C. picirostris as T. stephensi but leaves open the question of which of the two should be considered the holotype. The 7. quinquepunctatus is in the Tonder Lund collection at Copenhagen, while the T. stephensi is in Fabricius’ own collection, originally at Kiel, but now in Copenhagen (Zimsen, 1964). S. L. Tuxen (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen) offered the fol- lowing comment on these two specimens (in litt., 11 January 1977): ‘Fabricius, 1787, p. 101, states under picirostris ““Hafniae Dom. Lund”’. When the specimen on which he (Fabricius) based his description was present in Tonder Lund’s collection he wrote “Mus. Dom. Lund”, meaning museum Domini Lundi. This he did not do here, and so the logical solution should be that Tonder Lund sent him a specimen (Valentine’s 7. stephensi) from Copenhagen (‘‘Hafniae”’) for his collec- tion; this was the reason for our showing this specimen to Valentine as the type. At the second request, 14 November 1975, almost six years later, I decided on the other possibility (having forgotten Valentine’s visit), namely that Fabricius had forgotten to write “Mus.” Dom. Lund.— which has happened in other cases — and sent the specimen (Dieckmann’s T. quinquepunctatus) from the collection of Sehested and Tonder Lund.’ For historical reasons, then, the T. stephensi in Fabricius’ own collection seems most likely to have been the original C. picirostris of Fabricius, 1787, p. 101. The discrepancy between this specimen and the original description, however, remains unexplained. 8. The name Curculio fuscirostris, wrongly attributed to Paykull, 1792, p. 62, has also been listed as a synonym of T. picirostris (Sch6n- herr, 1836, p. 422; Klima, 1934, p. 31; Hoffmann, 1954, p. 1203). Although there is some evidence that the specimen Paykull called fuscir- ostris in 1792 was actually T. picirostris, his use of the name was based on a misidentification of C. fuscirostris Fabricius, 1775 (now Apion fus- cirostre (Fabricius), see Dieckmann, 1977, p. 58). The name cannot Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 49 therefore be attributed to him or used for either of the clover seed weevils (Clark, 1978). 9. Schonherr, 1836, p. 412, had no specimens before him when he named 7. stephensi but merely renamed the species that Stephens, 1831, p. 56, had misidentified as 7. tomentosus (Herbst) (Marshall, 1957; Clark, 1971). He repeated word for word Stephens’ diagnosis of ‘T. tomentosus’ and cited Stephens’ T. tomentosus in synonymy, while stating in a footnote ‘mihi invisus’ (unseen by me). He spelt the name ‘stepheni’. Stephens, 1839, p. 229, emended the spelling to stephensi. Since Schdnherr’s intention to name the species after Stephens is obvious, his original spelling can be considered a lapsus calami, so that Stephens’ spelling is a justified emendation. The lectotype of T. stephensi, a specimen under the name 7. tomentosus in the Stephens Collection in the British Museum (Natural History) designated by Clark, 1971, p. 10, is conspecific with the lectotype of 7. tomentosus (Herbst, non Olivier), also designated by Clark there. 10. The status of the type of Curculio cinerascens Marsham, 1802 must be clarified. According to R. T. Thompson, in litt. 12 February, 1982, ‘The specimen is a female and is virtually complete apart from the damage caused by being impaled upon a relatively mass- ive pin. In addition to the disc bearing the number 28, there is a label with the name cinerascens in an unknown hand (almost certainly not Stephens or Marsham). There are three other specimens in the series, but they are mounted on points’. It is known that when Marsham’s collection was to be sold at auction, Stephens got access to it and made up ‘a set’ which he incorporated in his own collection. With these speci- mens are numbered discs, the numbers corresponding to those given to each species in Marsham’s work. The remainder of Marsham’s collec- tion was dispersed by the sale and no trace of it survives. There is there- fore no means of knowing how many specimens of any species Marsham had. In these circumstances I agree with Mr Thompson that the sound course is to assume that he had more than one and, in the present instance, to designate the female referred to above as lectotype of the species. 11. Regardless of which of the two Fabrician specimens in the Copenhagen Museum is eventually decided to be the holotype of C. picirostris, strict application of the Law of Priority dictates that the name of the species now known as T. picirostris (Fabricius) must be changed. If the specimen of T. stephensi turns out to be the holotype, it will be necessary to transfer the name picirostris from the clover seed weevil to the red clover seed weevil to replace the names TJ. stephensi and T. tomentosus. This would cause undue confusion. The use of the name tomentosus Herbst has no justification because of its status as a junior primary homonym. It is preferable that the name stephensi be conserved as the name for the red clover seed weevil. Stability of current nomencla- ture (except for tomentosus) can be preserved by ratifying the nomencla- 50 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 ture adopted by Milliron, 1949. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside as type specimens of Curculio picirostris Fabricius, 1787, the two tychiine weevil specimens in the Fabricius and the Sehested and Tonder Lund collections at Copenhagen and designate as neotype of that species the female lecto- type of Curculio cinerascens Marsham, 1802 in the British Museum (Natural History), which has six antennal funicular articles and belongs to the species currently known as Tychius picirostris (Fabricius, 1787). (C. cinerascens was described in a work devoted exclusively to British beetles; the type locality is therefore assumed to be “Britain’); (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) the specific name picirostris Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Curculio picirostris, and as interpreted by refer- ence to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) the specific name stephensi Schénherr, 1836, as published in the binomen Tychius stepheni (sic), as interpreted by reference to the lectotype designated by Clark, 1971, p. 10; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) the specific name tomentosus Herbst, 1795, as published in the binomen Curculio tomentosus (a junior primary homo- nym of Curculio tomentosus Olivier, 1790); (b) stepheni Schonherr, 1836, as published in the binomen Tychius stepheni (an incorrect original spelling of stephensi Schonherr, 1836, in the same combination). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several persons have assisted in various ways in the preparation of this proposal. Special thanks are extended to R. E. Warner, lately of the USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Washington, D.C., who made her notes on nomenclature of the clover seed weevils available to me. Those who read various drafts of the proposal and made suggestions for its improvement include *R. Caldara (Milano, Italy), L. Dieckmann (Akademie der Landwirtschaftwissenschaften, Eberswalde, DDR), *C. A. Johansen (Washington State University, Pulman, WA), *C. W. Sabrosky (USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Washington, D.C.), *R. T. Thompson (British Museum (Natural History), London), S. L. Tuxen (Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark), *B. D. Valentine (Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio), *D. R. Whitehead (USDA System- atic Entomology Laboratory, Washington, D.C.) and *E.C. Zimmerman Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 Sil (CSIRO, Canberra, Australia). Those marked with an asterisk have signified their support. REFERENCES CLARK, W. E. 1971. A taxonomic revision of the weevil genus Tychius Germar in America north of Mexico. Brigham Young Univ. Sci. Bull. vol. 13, no. 3, 39 pp. — 1976. Review of the genus-group taxa included in the genus 7ychius Germar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomol. Scand. vol. 7, pp. 91-95. — 1978. The status of Paykull’s Curculio fuscirostris (Coleoptera: Curculio- nidae). Entomol. Scand. vol. 9, pp. 239-240. DIECKMANN, L. 1977. Beitraége zur Insektenfauna der DDR: Coleoptera— Curculionidae (Apioninae). Beitr. Entomol. vol. 27, pp. 7-114. FABRICIUS, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae, vol. 16, pt 1, 832 pp. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 1. Hafniae, 348 pp. — 1792. Entomologia Systematica, vol. 1, part 2. Hafniae, 538 pp. 1801. Systema Eleutheratorum, vol. 2. Kiliae, 687 pp. GERMAR, E. F. 1824. Insectorum species novae ... volumen primum. Coleop- tera. Halae, xxiv+624 pp. GYLLENHAL, L. 1813. Insecta Suecica. Classis 1, Coleoptera sive Eleutherata, vol. 1, para 3. Scaris, 730 pp. HERBST, J. F. W. 1795 in HERBST, J. F. W., JABLONSKY, K. G. Natursys- tem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten...der Kdfer, V1. Berlin, xxiv+520 pp. HOFFMANN, A. 1954. Faune de France, Coléoptéres, Curculionides II, vol. 59, pp. 487-1208. KLIMA, A. 1934. Curculionidae: subfamily Tychiinae. In Schenkling (ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 29, pars 138, pp. 1-69. MARSHALL, G. A. K. 1957, cited in SLEEPER, E. L. Notes on the Curculio- noidea. Ohio J. Sci., vol. 57, pp. 38-42. MARSHAM, T. 1802. Entomologia Britannica ... vol. 1, Coleoptera. London, (vii)-xxxi+ 547 +(1) pp. MILLIRON, H. E. 1949. The identity of two introduced clover seed weevils. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. New York entomol. Soc., vol. 57, pp. 109-116. MUKA, A. A. 1954. (Summary of) The biology of the clover head weevil, Tychius stephensi, with some notes on control. Dissert. Abstr. vol. 15, pp. 12-23. OLIVIER, A. G. 1790. Encyclopédie Méthodique, vol. 5, Insectes. Paris, 793 pp. PAYKULL, G. VON 1792. Monographia Curculionum Sueciae. Uppsala, (i-vili)+ 151 (152) pp. — 1800. Fauna Suecica, Insecta (pars 3). Uppsala, 459 pp. SCHONHERR, C. J. 1825. Tabula synoptica familiae curculionidum. Isis (Oken), vol. 5, pp. 581-588. — 1826. Curculionidum Dispositio methodica. Lipsiae, 338 pp. —— 1836. Genera et Species curculionidum, vol. 3, part 1, Paris, 505 pp. 52 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 STEPHENS, J. F. 1831. Jilustrations of British Entomology ... Mandibulata, vol. 4. London, 366 pp. 1839. A manual of British Coleoptera, or beetles. London, xii+443 pp. YUNUS, C. M., JOHANSEN, C. A. 1967. Bionomics of the clover seed weevil, Miccotrogus picirostris (Fabricius) in southwestern Washington and adjacent Idaho. Bull. Washington Agric. Exper. Sta., no. 53, 16 pp. ZIMSEN, E. 1964. The type material of J. C. Fabricius. Copenhagen, 656 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 53 DAPSILARTHRA FOERSTER, 1862 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2312 By C. van Achterberg (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Ramsteeg 2, Leiden, The Netherlands) The name of a small Holarctic genus of the ALYSIINAE (BRACONIDAE), Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862, is threatened by the usually incorrectly interpreted name Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833. To prevent confusion between two similar names (Gnamptodon and Gnaptodon) by the same author in one family, the suppression of the older of the two names is requested. Dapsilarthra is a rather small genus containing parasites of Dipterous larvae belonging to the AGROMYZIDAE, ANTHOMYIIDAE, TEPHRITIDAE, PSILIDAE and SCATOPHAGIDAE. Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837 is also a small genus belonging to the GNAPTODONTINAE (to the ROGADINAE, or to the OPIINAE according to some authors) within the BRACONI- DAE. This genus is widespread, and contains parasites of leaf-mining Lepidopterous larvae of the NEPTICULIDAE. 2. Gnamptodon was proposed by Haliday (1833, p. 265) with Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812] as the type species by monotypy. There is no doubt about the interpretation of Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812], despite its type being lost. It belongs to the genus Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 as it is widely accepted. 3. In 1837 (p. 204) Haliday mentioned the name Gnamptodon as a synonym of the subgenus Opius. However, later in the same paper (p. 220) he used the name Gnaptodon, instead of Gnamptodon, as a subgenus of Opius and included only one species, namely Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834, which is a _ Braconid belonging to the GNAPTODONTINAE. By so doing he formally described a new genus Gnaptodon (Articles 12 and 16(a) (v)). The name Gnaptodon may be purely a misprint, as suggested by Hincks (1943, p. 103), because Haliday himself used Gnamptodon again in 1840 (p. 61), but this time with Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834 as type. However this designation cannot stand because of his previous 1833 designation. Unfortunately he did not give a reason for changing his 1833 concept of Gnamptodon. However, judging from the characters mentioned by Haliday in 1833, he probably discovered his obvious misidentification of Bassus rufi- ventris Nees, [1812]. He also did not state in his 1840 paper that Gnaptodon was a ‘lapsus calami’ for Gnamptodon. It may well be that Gnaptodon is a ‘lapsus’ for Gnamptodon, but it is not possible to prove the misprint, and the problem about the first type designation in 1833 54 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 by Haliday remains to be solved. Since its description the generic name Gnamptodon has never been used according to its original valid type designation. 4. Until 1951 Gnamptodon was used according to the type- species designation used by Haliday in 1837 for Gnaptodon (Shenefelt, 1975, p. 1123). In 1951 Muesebeck & Walkley (p. 153) restored the name Gnaptodon to bring the type species and the generic name into agreement. This treatment has generally been accepted since then as is shown by the list of citations given by Shenefelt (1975, p. 1123). 5. Dapsilarthra as proposed by Foerster in 1862 (p. 267), with Alysia apii Curtis, 1826 as type species by monotypy, is threatened by the (only incorrectly used) generic name Gnamptodon when the valid type designation by Haliday in 1833 is accepted. 6. If the Code is strictly applied the names Gnamptodon Haliday 1833 (type species Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812]) and Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837 (type species Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834) should both be used. As both genera belong to the family BRACONIDAE (though they are placed in different, but comparatively closely related subfamilies) and as the spelling Gnamptodon has often been used in the past for Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837, combined with the uncertainty about the correct spelling of Gnaptodon, the retention of both names would give rise to a lot of confusion. This could be prevented by the substitution of the name Dapsilarthra for Gnamptodon. This solution is the more desirable as Dapsilarthra has been used consistently for the genus since 1862, viz., in at least 15 different publications by 11 different authors, whilst in the same period not a single author has used the name Gnamptodon for it (Shenefelt, 1974, p. 986). 7. To avoid the loss of such a long established and much used name as Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862, because of the priority of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 nec auct., the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Alysia apii Curtis, 1826; (b) Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) apii Curtis, 1826, as published in the binomen Alysia apii (specific name of type species of Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862); (b) pumilio Nees, 1834, as published in the binomen Bracon pumilio (specific name of type species of Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837); Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 55 (4) to place the generic name Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833, suppressed under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CURTIS, J. 1826. Br. Entomol. vol. 3, p. 141. FOERSTER, A. 1862. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Braconen. Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. vol. 19, pp. 225-288. HALIDAY, A. H. 1833. An essay on the classification of the parasitic Hymenoptera of Britain, which correspond with the Ichneumones minuti of Linnaeus. Entomol. Mag. vol. 1, pp. 259-276. — 1837. Essay on parasitic Hymenoptera. Entomol. Mag. vol. 4, pp. 203-221. 1840. Braconides, pp. 61-65. In: Westwood, J. O. An introduction to the modern classification of insects. Synopsis to the genera of British insects. Volume 2. Longman, London, pp. 1-158. HINCKS, W. D. 1943. Nomenclature notes on Braconidae and Aphidiidae (Hym.). Entomologist vol. 76, pp. 97-104. MUESEBECK, C. F. W. & WALKLEY, L. M. 1951. Braconidae, pp. 90-184. In: Muesebeck, C. F. W., Krombein, K. V. & Townes, H. K. Hymen- optera of America north of Mexico/Synoptic Catalog. Agriculture Monogr. vol. 2, pp. 1-1420. NEES von ESENBECK, C. G. D. [1812]. Hymenopterorum Ichneumonibus Affinium Monogr., 1, pp. 90-91. SHENEFELT, R. D. 1974. Hymenopterorum Catalogus (nov. ed.). Part 11. Braconidae 7. Junk, ’s-Gravenhage, pp. 937-1113. — 1975. Hymenopterorum Catalogus (nov. ed.). Part 12. Braconidae 8. Junk, ’s-Gravenhage, pp. 1115-1262. 56 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 ADIANTHUS BUCATUS AMEGHINO, 1891 (MAMMALIA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2430 By Richard L. Cifelli (Department of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. and Miguel F. Soria (H) Departmento de Paleontologia (Vertebrados), Museo Argentino de Ciencas Naturales, Avenida Angel Gallardo 470, Buenos Aires 1405, Argentina) The concept of the genus Adianthus Ameghino, 1891 (Rev. Argentina Hist. nat. vol. 1, pp. 129-167; invalidly emended in later publications to ‘Adiantus’), type species A. bucatus Ameghino, 1891, has been a matter of dispute due to confusion regarding the type specimen. Ameghino’s original description of this species (op. cit.) was based on a cheek tooth which he identified as a right upper molar. The specimen was lost or mislaid, evidently during Ameghino’s lifetime as he made no further reference to it and it has not been found in the Ameghino collection, now housed at the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales in Buenos Aires. No comparable materials have since come to light. The description and figure of this specimen (op. cit., fig. 31) are adequate, nonetheless, and Adianthus bucatus is therefore an available name. Revisory work in progress indicates that the specimen is, however, irrelevant to the entire group of ungulate mammals under consideration and belonged to a caviomorph rodent, probably a somewhat atypical dasyproctid or erethizontid. Unless a neotype is designated, new names will have to be proposed for the ADIANTHIDAE and its type-genus, Adianthus. 2. Ameghino later described (1894, Bol. acad. Nac. Cien. Cordoba vol. 13, pp. 259-452) and figured (1897, Bol. inst. Geogr. Argentino vol. 18, pp. 406-521, fig. 41) a hemimandible as pertaining to this species, and reference was made to this latter specimen, rather than to the type, in defining the ADIANTHIDAE (1894 op. cit.) and in placing in it other than new genera and species (1901, Bol. acad. Nac. Cien. Cordoba, vol. 16, pp. 349-426; 1904, An. soc. Cien. Argentina vol. 18, p. 56). This mandible, still in existence (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Ameghino Collection no. 1812), was collected from a different locality and is probably but not certainly of a different geolo- gical age than the type. It unquestionably does not belong to the same species or even order as the type, but instead represents a distinct genus and species of ADIANTHIDAE as that family is currently conceived. Some subsequent workers have taken this referred specimen as the type or neotype of Adianthus bucatus (Scott, 1910, Repts. Princeton Univ. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 es) Exped. Patagonia vol. 7(1), pp. 1-156; Soria, 1981, Rev. Mus. Argentino Cien. nat. vol. 3, pp. 1-54). On the other hand, other students have used Ameghino’s figure of the type as a basis for comparison when erecting new taxa pertaining to the family and assessing phylogenetic relation- ships of and within the group (Patterson, 1940, Geol. ser. Field Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 8, pp. 13-20; Simpson & Minoprio, 1949, Am. Mus. Novitates 1434, pp. 1-27). 3. Although the type specimen has probably been lost, the figure and descriptions of it are adequate. The referred mandible cannot be designated neotype by unilateral action as the type is probably diagnos- tic and specifically identifiable. It is likely that additional materials pertaining to this species will be recovered when the fauna from which it is derived is better known. 4. These confusing circumstances could be alleviated either by the designation of new generic and specific names for the mandible and designation of another genus as family type, or by designation by the Commission of the referred specimen as neotype. As the referred speci- men clearly represents a distinct genus belonging to the group in question and as the ADIANTHIDAE is a name established and used in the literature for nearly 100 years (Ameghino, 1894, op. cit.; Loomis, 1914, The Deseado Formation of Patagonia; Simpson et al, 1962, op. cit.; Soria, 1981, op. cit.; Quiroga, 1981, Ameghiniana vol. 18, pp. 67-71; Bond & Vucetich, 1983, Rev. Assoc. Geol. Arg. vol. 37 (in press)), this latter course is preferable in the interest of nomenclatural stability. 5. The Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the type series of Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891, and having done so to designate the hemimandible M.A.C.N. no. A1812, described and figured by Ameghino (1894, op. cit.; 1897, op. cit.) as neotype of that species; to place the generic name Adianthus Ameghino, 1891 (op. cit., p. 134) (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (ibid.) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name bucatus Ameghino, 1891, as published in the binomen Adianthus bucatus (specific name of type species of Adianthus Ameghino, 1891), as interpreted by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the family nnme ADIANTHIDAE Ameghino, 1891 (type genus Adianthus Ameghino, 1891) on the Official List of Family Names in Zoology. (2 — (3 — (4 ~~ 58 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 STATUS OF THE NAMES CALLIONYMUS SAGITTA PALLAS, 1770 AND CALLIONYMUS FILAMENTOSUS VALENCIENNES, 1837 (TELEOSTEI, CALLIONY MIDAE), AND REQUEST TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE 75c (4) and (5) FOR DESIGNATING A NEOTYPE FOR CALLIONYMUS SAGITTA PALLAS, 1770. Z.N.(S.)2435 By Ronald Fricke (Staatliches Naturhistorisches Museum, Pockelsstr. 1OA D-3300 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany) Callionymus sagitta Pallas, 1770 was originally described from a specimen from Amboina (E. Indonesia). The species was inadequately described, but an illustration was given by Pallas, from which we can see most of the important characters. 2. The holotype and only specimen of Callionymus sagitta (sensu Pallas) seems to be lost. Dr A. P. Andriashev (Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R.., Leningrad, personal communication) and Dr N. V. Parin (Oceanogr. Inst., Moscow, personal communication) informed me that the type material of Pallas was transferred to Germany at the end of the 18th century by Pallas himself, and that the holotype of C. sagitta is not available in the Soviet fish collections. The large German museums were checked (e.g. ZMB, East Berlin; ZIM, Hamburg; SMF, Frankfurt/Main), as were other European and non-European museum and university col- lections, but it was not possible to locate the specimen. Dr H.-J. Paepke (ZMB, East Berlin) informed me that the material was probably in his institution but may have been lost during the Napoleonic occupation in the early 19th century, or during World War II when parts of the col- lection were destroyed. Therefore it is most probable that the holotype of C. sagitta is lost. 3. Subsequently, many authors have used the name Callionymus sagitta for specimens distributed in areas between India and Java (W. Indonesia), the Gulf of Thailand, and China. At least 50 authors have used the name C. sagitta, as it is a common species (e.g. Valenciennes, 1837; Giinther, 1861; Day, 1875-1878; Weber, 1913; Beaufort & Chapman, 1951; Smith, 1963; Nakabo, 1982; Fricke, 1982; Fricke, 1983). 4. One junior synonym is available for C. sagitta: Calionymus serratospinosus Gray, 1835, which has never been used again in the literature. Callionymus serratospinosus was originally not described, but only illustrated with a colour drawing, from which we can see that it mostly agrees in its characters with other Indian material known under the name C. sagitta. There is no type available for C. serratospinosus, and according to information of Dr P. J. P. Whitehead and Mr A. C. Wheeler (BM(NH) London, personal communication), a type specimen was never deposited in any museum, and Gray knew the fish only from the drawing which was sent by General Hardwicke from India. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 59 5. No other junior synonyms are available for Callionymus sagitta (sensu Valenciennes, 1837; populations distributed between India and China). 6. Callionymus filamentosus Valenciennes, 1837 was originally described from two specimens from Manado, N. Celebes. These syn- types are still available (MNHN Paris A1556), and in good condition. The name C. filamentosus (a common and widely distributed species) has been used by at least 60 authors (e.g. Valenciennes, 1837; Ginther, 1861; Bleeker, 1879; Norman, 1929; Ninni, 1934; Beaufort & Chapman, 1951; Smith, 1963; Wheeler, 1973; Nakabo, 1982; Fricke, 1982; Fricke, 1983). 7. Examining the drawing of Callionymus sagitta published by Pallas, 1770, it can be considered evident that the specimen illustrated (the holotype) is not conspecific with other material sensu Valenciennes et al. from India and China. The specimen in the drawing differs in: — the shape of the preopercular spine; — the medial caudal fin filament; — the structure of the occipital region; — the preorbital length; — the colour pattern of the first dorsal fin, the second dorsal fin, and the body. The holotype of C. sagitta agrees, however, in all these features with male specimens of Callionymus filamentosus and should be treated as conspecific with that species. 8. According to Art. 23e (ii) of the International Code, Callionymus sagitta Pallas, 1770 would therefore be a senior synonym of Callionymus filamentosus Valenciennes, 1837. Furthermore, Callio- nymus sagitta from India to China (sensu Valenciennes et al.) would need a new name (since the only junior synonym, C. serratospinosus Gray, 1835 is not useful and perhaps not even identical with C. sagitta sensu Valenciennes. C. sagitta sensu Valenciennes would also need a type specimen. 9. If we treated Callionymus sagitta as a senior synonym of Callionymus filamentosus, this would be very bad for the stability of nomenclature in the Callionymidae: — the well-adapted name Callionymus filamentosus would have to be changed into Callionymus sagitta; —the well-adapted name Callionymus sagitta sensu Valen- ciennes would have to be changed into a new name; —a neotype for Callionymus sagitta (syn.: C. filamentosus) would be necessary. —a new type for the newly named species cited as C. sagitta sensu Valenciennes would be necessary. 10. I suggest an easier way which is much better for the stability of nomenclature: to continue to use the name Callionymus sagitta Pallas, 1770 for populations of C. sagitta sensu Valenciennes distri- 60 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 buted from India to China, but not for the species described in the original description (C. filamentosus), and to use the name Callionymus filamentosus Valenciennes, 1837 as valid as usual (as an exception from the rule of priority, according to Art. 23a of the International Code). I request a statement of the International Commission regarding the use of these two names. 11. If the International Commission follows my suggestion, we only need a neotype for Callionymus sagitta to clarify the identity of this name. I hereby propose the specimen of C. sagitta whose data follow, deposited in the California Academy of Sciences, Stanford University Collection, San Francisco, No. CAS—SU 41392, as neotype. (Callionymus sagitta Pallas, 1770, female, 86-1 mm SL, INDIA: mouth of River Hooghli, Sundarbans, Bengal Province, ca 21°50°N 88°00’E, S.W. Kemp, 1911.). 12. For designating this neotype, a decision of the International Commission would be necessary to make an exception from Art. 75c of the International Code (“Qualifying conditions for the designation of neotypes’’). An exception would be necessary for the following two reasons: (a) There can be no evidence that the neotype is consistent with what is known from the original type material, since this type material most probably had belonged to a different species (Callionymus filamentosus). (b) The neotype cannot come from the original type locality, since the species apparently does not occur there. In the case of rediscovery of the original Pallas holotype, it will become necessary to refer back to the Commission. 13. The Commission is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the nominal species C. sagitta is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated in paragraph 11; (2) to place the specific name sagitta Pallas, 1770, as published in the binomen Callionymus sagitta (as interpreted by reference to the neotype proposed in paragraph 11) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name filamentosus Valenciennes, 1837, as published in the binomen Callionymus filamento- sus Valenciennes, 1837, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BEAUFORT, L. F. DE & CHAPMAN, W. M. 1951. In: WEBER, M. & BEAUFORT, L. F. DE The fishes of the Indo- Australian Archipelago, 9: Percomorphi (concluded), Blennioidea. Leiden. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 61 BLEEKER, P. 1879. Révision des espéces insulindiennes de la famille des Callionymoides. Versl. Meded. Koninkl. Akad. Wet. Amsterdam, (2) vol. 14, pp. 79-107. DAY, F. 1875-1878. The fishes of India; being a natural history of the fishes known to inhabit the seas and freshwaters of India, Burma, and Ceylon. London FRICKE, R. 1982. Nominal genera and species of dragonets (Teleostei: Callio- nymidae, Draconettidae). Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, vol. 84, pp. 53-92. FRICKE, R. 1983. Revision of the Indo-Pacific genera and species of the drag- onet family Callionymidae (Teleostei). Braunschweig. GRAY, J. E. 1835. Jilustrations of Indian Zoology; chiefly selected from the __ _ collections of Major-General Hardwicke, F.R.S., vol. 2, London. GUNTHER, A. 1861. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 3, London. NAKABO, T. 1982. Revision of genera of the dragonets (Pisces: Callionymidae). Publ. Seto Mar. Biol. Lab., 27(\-3), 1982 pp. 77-131, figs. 1-30, tabs. 1-2. NINNI, E. 1934. I Callionymus dei mari d’Europa. Notas y Resumenes, Inst. Esp. Oceanogr. Madrid, (2) vol. 85, pp. 1-59, pls. 1-13. NORMAN, J. R. 1929. Notes on fishes of the Suez Canal. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 615-616. PALLAS, P. S. 1770. Spicilegia zoologica, vol. 1, fasc. 8. Petropolis. SMITH, J. L. B. 1963. Fishes of the families Draconettidae and Callionymidae from the Red Sea and Western Indian Ocean. Rhodes University, Ichthyol. Bull. vol. 28, pp. 547-564, figs. 1-8, pls. 83-86. VALENCIENNES, A. 1837. Les Callionymes. In: Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. Histoire naturelle des poissons vol. 12, Paris. WEBER, M. 1913. Die Fische der Siboga- Expedition. Leiden. WHEELER, A. 1973. Family Callionymidae. In: CLOFNAM (Checklist of the fishes of the northeastern Atlantic and Mediterranean), vol. 1. Paris. 62 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF SIPHONOSOMA CUMANENSE KEFERSTEIN, 1867 OVER SIPHONOSOMA EDULE (PALLAS, 1774) (SIPUNCULA). Z.N.(S.)2379 By Edward B. Cutler (Biology Department, Utica College of Syracuse University, Utica, New York, 13502 U.S.A.) I am hereby requesting that the Commission use its plenary powers and adopt the relative precedence procedure to conserve the widely used junior synonym Siphonosoma cumanense Keferstein, 1867, over the senior synonym S. edule, in order to avoid confusion and to preserve nomenclatural stability. This latter species was first described as Lumbricus edulis by Pallas in 1774. In 1816 Lamarck moved it to the genus Sipunculus and in 1912, when Spengel created the genus Siphonosoma, it was transferred to that group. 2. During my studies of Indo-Pacific Sipuncula, it became clear that the genus Siphonosoma has been unduly inflated with an excessive number of species names. Stephen & Edmonds (1972) reduced the number of species in the sub-genus Siphonosoma (Dasmosiphon) from six to three. In Cutler & Cutler (1979) an additional name was elimi- nated and in Cutler, Cutler & Nishikawa (1983) the case is presented to consider Siphonosoma cumanense and S. edule as conspecific, following the suggestion of Stephen & Edmonds (1972). A strict application of the Law of Priority would require that S. cumanense be submerged as the junior synonym. This would be unfortunate for the following reasons: (a) Since 1905, the name S. edule has appeared only twice in the primary literature. Sato (1939) applied it to two individuals and Halder (1975) to one worm. The few other references to it have been made in revisionary or monographic works, not in studies of new material. (b) The name cumanense has appeared at least 30 times in the primary literature since 1905 (see Stephen & Edmonds, 1972, p. 46 for records through 1965; also Christie & Cutler, 1974; Cutler, 1977; Cutler & Cutler, 1979; Edmonds, 1980; Gibbs, 1978; Halder, 1975; Murina, 1967; Rice & Stephen, 1970). (c) In Stephen & Edmonds’ monograph (1972) there are five subspecies of cumanense described in addition to the nominate form which, in that work, includes four junior synonyms. All of these would become S. edule unless this petition is granted. (d) The holotype of S. edule cannot be located. (e) Perhaps most importantly, this species is a very common, circumtropical, shallow-water form and therefore is regularly found by biologists engaged in ecological studies of coral reef and sandy habitats. To substitute the name edule for cumanense would create real and unnecessary confusion for these non-specialists and besides, any effort to make the substitution could not be successful for several decades Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 63 because many marine ecologists would continue to use the old terminology. 3. In view of the foregoing, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take the following action: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name cumanense Keferstein, 1867, as published in the binomen Siphonosoma cumanense, is to be given nomenclatural pre- cedence over the specific name edule, as originally published in the binomen Lumbricus edulis Pallas 1774, by anyone who considers that these two names denote the same taxon; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cumanense Keferstein, 1867, as published in the binomen Siphonosoma cumanense, with an endorse- ment that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Siphonosoma edulis Pallas, 1774, by anyone who considers that these two names denote the same taxon; (b) edulis Pallas, 1774, as originally published in the binomen Lumbricus edulis, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Siphonosoma cumanense Keferstein, 1867, by anyone who considers that these two names denote the same taxon. This application has been reviewed by and is supported by T. Nishikawa (Nagoya, Japan), P. E. Gibbs (Plymouth, England), and S. J. Edmonds (Adelaide, Australia). REFERENCES CHRISTIE, N. D. & CUTLER, E. B. 1974. New distribution records for two species of Siphonosoma (Sipuncula) collected using a diver-operated suction sampler. Trans. roy. Soc. South Africa, vol. 41, pp. 109-110. CUTLER, E. B. 1977. The bathyal and abyssal Sipuncula. Galathea Rep., vol. 14, pp. 135-156. — & CUTLER, N. J. 1979. Madagascar and Indian Ocean Sipuncula. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat., Paris 4e ser., vol. 1, pp. 941-990. —_., & NISHIKAWA, T. 1983. Siphonosoma cumanense and S. edule (Sipuncula): a revaluation of their separate status. Publ. of the Seto Marine Biol. Lab., vol. 27, (4/6), pp. 265-267. EDMONDS, S. J. 1980. A revision of the systematics of Australian sipunculans (Sipuncula). Records S. Australian Mus., vol. 18(1), pp. 1-74. GIBBS, P. E. 1978. Macrofauna of the intertidal sand flats on low wooded islands, northern Great Barrier Reef. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London B, vol. 284, pp. 81-94. HALDER, B. P. 1975. Sipuncula of the Indian Ocean in the collection of the zoological survey of India. Jn: Rice, M. E. & Todorovic, M. (Eds.). Proc. internat. Symp. Biol., Sipuncula and Eciura, vol. 1, pp. 51-92. KEFERSTEIN, W. 1867. Untersuchungen uber einige amerikanische Sipunculiden. Zeit. Wiss. Zool., vol. 17, pp. 53-54, pl. 6, fig. 19-24. 64 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 LAMARCK, J. P. B. A. de M. 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 3, pp. 76-79. MURINA, V. V. 1967. Report on the sipunculid worms from the sublittoral zone of Cuba and Mexico Gulf. Zool. Zhur., vol. 54, (9), 1329-1339. PALLAS, P. S. 1774. Lumbricus. Spicilegia Zoologica, vol. 10, pp. 10-12, pl. [hes 7. RICE, M. E. & STEPHEN, A. C. 1970. The type specimens of Sipuncula and Echiura described by J. E. Gray and W. Baird in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History). Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) (Zool), vol. 20 (2), pp. 49-72. SATO, H. 1939. Studies on the Echiuridae, Sipunculids, and Priapulids of Japan. Sci. Rep. Tohoku Imp. Univ. 4th ser., vol. 14 (4), pp. 339-459. SPENGEL, L. W..1912. Einige Organisationsverhaltnisse von Sipunculusarten und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Systematik dieser Tiere. Verh. deutsch. zool. Ges. (22 sten Jahresversammling zu Halle); pp. 261-272. STEPHEN, A. C. & EDMONDS, S. J. 1972. The phyla Sipuncula and Echiura. Trustees of Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London, 528 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 65 PELLONULA BAHIENSIS STEINDACHNER, 1879 (PISCES): PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF LECTOTYPE. Z.N.(S.)2445 By Peter J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Gareth Nelson (American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th St, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.) Whitehead, 1979, Bull. br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) (Zool.), vol. 20 (1), p. 14, designated as lectotype of Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879, Sitzber. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 80, p. 181, pl. 3, fig. 2, the specimen in the Naturhistorisches Museum of Vienna NMV.2870 (69-1 mm SL) and as paralectotype the second specimen under this registration number (70-5mm SL). The species was identified as Rhinosardinia bahiensis (Steindachner, 1879). 2. These two specimens were placed in the genus Rhinosardinia Eigenmann, 1912, Mem. Carnegie Mus. vol. 5, p. 445, type species, by original designation, Rhinosardinia serrata Eigenmann, ibid., which was defined as having a retrorse spine on the maxilla (still the major diagnos- tic character). Whitehead, Joc. cit., assumed that the spine was broken off in the lectotype. 3. Steindachner had eight syntypes (to 100 mm SL). Since publi- cation of Whitehead’s lectotype designation based on an examination of two of these, another four syntypes have come to light (NMV. 76436: 1-4). In fact, the six presently known syntypes include represen- tatives of two species of two different genera, Rhinosardinia bahiensis (Steindachner) and Lile piquitinga (Schreiner-& Ribeiro, 1903) (no retrorse spine on maxilla; very distinct silver lateral stripe down flanks; pre-dorsal bones 8-9 as compared with 11-13 in R. bahiensis; pelvic fin insertion behind vertical from dorsal fin origin as compared with dis- tinctly in front in R. bahiensis). The six syntypes can now be identified as follows: R. bahiensis: NMV. 76436:1 and 4 L. piquitinga: NMV. 2870:1 and 2 (previously designated lecto- type and paralectotype respectively), 76436:2 and 3. 4. Steindachner’s description is reasonably detailed, although many of the features are shared by Rhinosardinia and Lile. He clearly notes the retrorse maxillary spine of Rhinosardinia (‘Ein ziemlich grosser, mit der Spitze nach hinten gekehrter Stachel am oberen Ende des kahnf6rmig gebogenen Oberkiefers’). On the other hand, he describes the silver lateral stripe of Lile (‘Die silbergraue Seitenbinde am Rumpfe nimmt gegen den Schwanzstiel bald an Hohe ein wenig ab, bald zu’). His description of the pelvic fin insertion is equivocal (‘bald ein wenig vor, bald unbedeutend hinter’). That his description was based 66 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pt 1, March 1984 on both species is further borne out by his figure, which shows both the retrorse spine and the distinct silver lateral stripe, while the pelvic fin insertion is exactly beneath the dorsal fin origin. 5. As first taxonomic reviser, Whitehead (loc. cit.) clearly intended to recognise Steindachner’s bahiensis as a species of Rhino- sardinia. We propose that this intention be followed by replacing Whitehead’s lectotype. If the original designation was to remain, the name bahiensis would become a senior synonym of piquitinga Schreiner & Ribeiro, 1903, a name well entrenched in the literature; and the name bahiensis, equally well entrenched in the literature as that of a valid species of Rhinosardinia, would have to be replaced by a new name. In view of Steindachner’s confusion and the nomenclatural consequences we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879, and to designate NMV. 76436:4 (a fish of 76-5mm SL, ‘Bucht von Bahia, Steindachner coll.) as lectotype of that species; (2) to place the specific name bahiensis Steindachner, 1879, as published in the binomen Pellonula bahiensis, and as interpreted by reference to the lectotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 , R. L. Cifelli & M. F. Soria Status of the names er ne sagitta Pallas, 1770 oud Calliony- mus filamentosus Valenciennes, 1837 iene Callionymi- dae). R. Fricke Proposed conservation of Siphonosoma cumanense > Keferstein, 1867 over Siphonosoma edule (Pallas, 1774) (Sipuncula). E. B. Cutler Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879 es P. J. P. Whitehead & G. Nelson ae 56 58 62 65 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 of the Commission : Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements ) Contacts with representative organisations: R. V. Melville Comments Cardium californiense Deshayes, 1839 (Mollusca, Cardiidae). D. Heppell & R. V. Melville sb petaser: Vis Reaaecs ba bate bie’ Brea Opinions Opinion 1264. Oscinis plumigera Loew, 1860 (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1265. Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 (Araneae, Saltici- dae) f ; Opinion 1266. Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 (Amphibia, Salientia) Opinion 1267. Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838 (Aves, Muscica- pidae): 25 peeth ao: eae Opinion 1268. Simia leucophaea E Cuvier, 1807 (Mammalia, Primates) : Shel garenme heer RCS Opinion 1269. METRIDIIDAE. Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda) : Opinion 1270. Chrysomela flavicornis and C. tibialis Suffrian, 1851 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Sar Opinion 1271. Polynoe Savigny, 1818 (Annelida, Polychaeta) | Opinion 1272. Sciaena nibe Jordan & Thompson, 1911 (Pisces) Opinion 1273. Anaspis, Luperus, Lampyris and Clerus (Insecta, Coleoptera) Opinion 1274. Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Hemiptera) Opinion 1275. Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 and Ammonites macro- cephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) Opinion 1276. Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Insecta, Plecoptera) Direction 114. Herrera, 1899, ‘Sinonimia vulgar y cientifica de los principales vertebrados mexicanos’ Direction 115. MEROPIDAE (Aves): attributed. to Rafinesque, 1815 New and revived cases Heliconius erato Aurivillius, 1882 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). J. R. G. Turmer Curculio picirostris Fabricius, 1787 and Tychius stephensi Schénherr, 1836 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). W. E. Clark RSA Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). C. van Achterberg SR ok aa aie ee hos Pans 5 Page 45 53 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Q10L 29 June 1984 Volume 41 Part 2 pp. iii-iv, 67-128 ISSN 0007-5167 The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature useoM one Maan 13 yy. 964 ED punch. 200L06Y + LBRARY | ; } CENTRAL SALES, COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX, FARNHAM ROYAL, SLOUGH SL2 3BN, UK. [Note: Prices are subject to change without notice] © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1984, All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copy- right owner. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD Price £10.50 (All rights reserved). so A ili € THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON CHAS RY ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE puR Y ‘alas 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. 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 Troms6, 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) (Councillor) 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, Universitat Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari Dr. SHUN-ICHI 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 Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. Per Brinck Prof. J.H. Callomon, F.R.S.C. Prof... By Coxe E:G:s: Prof: D: Curny, E:G:S. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.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, F.I.Biol. Dr. L.B. Holthuis Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. M. Luc Dr. I.W.B. Nye Dr. E.P:E: Rose; i: 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. M.E. Tollett, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. Mr. J.D.D. Smith, F.G.S. (Administrator) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 67 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 41, part 2 (pp. iii-iv, 67-128) 29 June 1984 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) Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828] (Insecta, Lepi- doptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2442. C.M. Naumann & W.G. Tremewan. (2) Reptomultisparsa D’Orbigny, 1853 (Bryozoa, Cyclosto- mata): request for the designation of a type species. Z.N.(S.) 2400. P.D. Taylor. (3) GOERIDAE Ulmer, 1903 versus TRICHOSTOMATI- DAE Rambur, 1842 (Insecta, Trichoptera): request for a ruling under Article 23d(ii). Z.N.(S.) 1456. R.V. Melville (Secretary). (4) Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera, Simu- liidae): proposed conservation in the common usage with rejection of the presumed holotype under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2393. I.A. Rubtsov. (With comment by R.W. Crosskey). (5) Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (Artiodactyla): proposed conser- vation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2407. R.M. Schoch & S.G. Lucas. *(6) Centrurus limpidus Karsch, 1879 and Centruroides ornatus Pocock, 1902 (Arachnia, Scorpiones): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2446. O.F. Francke. (7) Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 (Insecta, Homoptera, Diaspi- didae): proposed conservation by the suppression of Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Leucospidae). Z.N.(S.) 2448. E.M. Danzig & I.M. Kerzhner. 68 (8) (9) (10) *(11) *(12) (13) (14) (15) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 (Spiriferida, Brachiopoda): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2451. N.W. Archbold & G.A. Thomas. CAECILIIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera): alternative proposals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2333. H.M. Smith & J.T. Polhemus. Laspeyresia Hibner, [1825], (Insecta, Lepidoptera): pro- posed conservation by the suppression of Cydia Hubner, [1825]. Z.N.(S.) 2421. V.I. Kuznetsov & I.M. Kerzhner. Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794 (Coleoptera, Byrrhidae): proposed conservation by the suppression of Byrrhus undulatus and Byrrhus rubidus Kugelann, 1792. Z.N.(S.) 2314. M. Mroczkowski. Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 (Coleoptera, Coly- didae): proposed conservation by the suppression of Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837. Z.N.(S.) 2456. M. Mroczkowski. Capys Hewitson (1865), (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae), pro- posed conservation under the plenary powers: a restate- ment of the case. Z.N.(S.) 1748. A. Penrose. Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia): request for conser- vation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2341. J.D. Lynch & W.E. Duellman. Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (Diptera, Calliphoridae): proposed conservation by the suppression of Callitroga Brauer, 1883. Z.N.(S.) 707. R.V. Melville (Secretary). (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 41(1) on 29 March 1984 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b): (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Neodorippe Serene & Romimontarto, 1969 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed designation of type species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2467. L.B. Holthuis & R.B. Man- ning. Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Tortricidae): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2468. P.R. Seymour. Octolasion Orley, 1885 (Annelida, Oligochaeta, Lumbri- cidae): proposed validation. Z.N.(S.) 2469. R.W. Sims. Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 (Pisces): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2470. J.E. Randall, M.L. Bauchot, A. Ben-Tuvia, P.C. Heem- stra. Helminthological nomenclature. Z.N.(S.) 2471. R.S. Free- man. Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842 (Marsupalia, Dasyuri- Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 69 dae): proposed conservation via suppression of Mustela quoll Zimmerman, 1783. Z.N.(S.) 2472. J.A. Mahoney & W.D.L. Ride. (7) International Nomenclature of Diseases. Z.N.(S.) 2473. Z. Bankowski (Organisation Internationale des Sciences Meédicales). SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ELECTION TO COUNCIL The following have been elected as ordinary members of the Council of the Commission: Professor Dr Holthuis and Mr D. Heppell for terms of six years; Dr F.M. Bayer for the three remaining years in the seat vacated by Dr Ride on his election as President of the Commis- sion. FINANCIAL SUPPORT Since the last list of donors to the Appeal Fund was published in vol. 41 part 1 on 29 March 1984, we are glad to announce that the following have completed deeds of covenant to the Fund: Mr M. Edwards, Professor V.C. Wynne-Edwards, FRS, Dr R.F. Avery, Dr R.J.V. Joyce, Dr N. D. Jago, Professor D.T. Donovan, Dr H.J. Gough, Mr J. Murlis, Professor H.B. Whittington FRS, Mr C. Collingwood, Mr P. Withers and Dr A. Brindle. We have also received donations from the Malacological Society of Japan, the Ichthyological Society of Japan, the Lepidopterological Society of Japan, Dr D.S. Hill, Dr J.P. O’Connor, Mr J. Riley and Dr R.E. Blackith. Grateful thanks are expressed to all these donors and to the Academia Sinica Taiwan, the Natural Environ- ment Research Council, the Unione Zoological Italiana and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, South Africa, for further welcome grants. INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE THIRD EDITION The Trust is pleased to announce that the contract for printing the third edition of the Code has been let to H. Charlesworth & Co. Ltd of Huddersfield, Yorkshire. Copies will be delivered on 30 November 1984 and publication will take place as soon as possible thereafter. 70 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 CLOSURE OF CERTAIN FILES The backlog of several hundred unpublished files is being reviewed as time permits. A number of files are found no longer to have any meaning because the problems they present are now capable of automatic resolution. The following files have accordingly been closed: Z.N.(S.) 206 Cyrtolaelaps Berlese, 1887, and Vegaia Oudemans, 1905, status of 292 Necrophorus as emendation of Nicrophorus Fabricius, 1775 294 Bombus muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, identity of 449 Thynnus affinis Cantor, 1849 and T. affinis Guérin, 1838, relative List and Official Index, respectively 463 Rhodites Hartig, 1840 and Diplolepis Geoffroy, 1762, for Official List and Official Index, respectively 519 Saxicava Fleuriau, 1802, proposed conservation 541 A number of fish names for the Official List 584 Osleroides and Vogeloides Orlov, 1933, relative validity of names 597 Ornithorhynchus Blumenbach, 1800 for Official List 638 Suppression of five early trilobite generic names 669 Prolecanites Mojsisovics, 1882, alleged misidentified type species 671 Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799 versus Ancistrodon 692 Cyclostoma Lamarck or Cyclostoma Draparnaud? 767 Araneus patagiatus Clerck, 1757, first reviser action 769 Nassa Lamarck, 1799, proposed conservation 774 Chrysomela gemellata Fourcroy, 1785, identity of 778 Medusa beroe Linnaeus, 1758, type species of beroe . 780 Mammut Blumenbach, 1799 versus Mastodon Cuvier, 1817 781 Notification of neotypes for species of Orthoptera 982 Gephuroceras Hyatt, 1883, family name for ICSEB — III THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 1985 The Congress will be held on 4-10 July, 1985 at the University of Sussex, near Brighton, England. It is sponsored by the Royal Society, British Ecological Society, Linnean Society, Palaeontological Association and Systematics Association. The major aims of this Congress, as with its highly successful pre- decessors in Boulder, Colorado (1973) and Vancouver (1980), are to encourage and facilitate the integration of the work of biologists in adjac- ent or overlapping fields in the general area of systematic and evolution- ary biology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 71 The programme will include a number of symposia devoted to specially selected broad interdisciplinary themes, with invited speakers. The proposed subjects include: Symbiosis in Evolution; Conservation of Tropical Ecosystems; Biogeographic Evolution of the Malay Archipelago; Adaptation Aspects of Physiological Processes; Co-evolution in Ecosystems and the Red Queen Hypothesis; Angiosperm Origins and the Bio- logical Consequences; The Measurement of Rates of Evolution; Molecular Biology and Evolutionary Theory, Co-evolution and Systematics; Molecules versus Morphology in Phylogeny; Con- flict or Compromise?; Random and Directed Events in Evolution; Biochemical Innovation in Microbial Communities. There will also be a full provision for intending participants to suggest and arrange symposia of special interest to particular groupings of biologists. Other sessions will provide opportunities for the presen- tation of papers concerned with particular topics or groups of organisms. There will also be a number of poster sessions. Accommodation and meals will be available on the campus of the University of Sussex. In addition, hotels are available in nearby Brighton, an attractive historic resort town on the South Coast. Further information will only be sent to those who request it. Anyone wishing to be placed on the mailing list, or to suggest topics for Special Interest Symposia, or to contribute to any of the Congress Symposia listed above, should write to: Professor Barry Cox, c/o ICSEB Congress Office, 130 Queen’s Road, Brighton, Sussex BN1 3WE R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature June 1984 72 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING ASTACILLA CORDINER, 1793. Z.N.(S.) 2319 (see vol. 40, pp. 163-164) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, RA 2300 Leiden, Netherlands) Dr Kensley states that no type-species designation for Astacilla Cordiner is known to him. However, such a designation was made by Fowler, 1912, Rep. New Jersey State Museum, for 1911, p. 525 where, under Astacilla Cordiner it is stated: ‘Type Oniscus longicornis Sowerby, virtually designated by Stebbing, Hist. Recent Crust. (Intern. Sci. Ser. LX XIV), 1893, p. 371’. Stebbing, although he gave an extensive account of the history of the genus, did not designate a type species. He listed the known species and placed A. longicornis (Sowerby) first. I therefore believe that Fowler’s designation is the first. I regret not having provided Dr Kensley with this information before he sent in his application. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF CRINODES HERRICH-SCHAFFER, 1855 and PERO HERRICH-SCHAFFER, 1855, Z.N.(S.)2436 By J. D. Holloway (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5JR) I support the proposals of Fletcher & Nye concerning the usage of the genus-group names Jarsolepis Butler and Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer. Tarsolepis sommeri (Hiibner) and allies are frequently referred to in economic literature on oriental Lepidoptera: the species both defoliate fruit trees in the larval stage and suck from the lacrymal secretions of mammals as adults. The species have been placed in combination with Tarsolepis in two recent reference works on oriental Lepidoptera (Barlow, 1982, An Introduction to the Moths of South East Asia, 305 pp., Kuala Lumpur; Holloway, 1983, Malayan Nature J., vol. 37, pp. 1-107), and will be so in the imminent Heterocera Sumatrana treatment of the NOTODONTIDAE by R. Bender. Retention of Tarsolepis for these species is essential to avoid considerable confusion amongst entomologists in the oriental tropics. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 73 ZYGAENA ANTHYLLIDIS BOISDUVAL, [1828] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION, Z.N.(S.)2442 By C. M. Naumann (Fakultat fiir Biologie, Universitét Bielefeld, Postfach 8640, D-4800 Bielefeld 1, Germany) and W. G. Tremewan (British Museum (Natural History), London) [This is Dr Naumann’s 28th paper in the series ‘Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der Gattung Zygaena F. und ihrer Vorstufen (Lepidoptera, Zygaeni- dae)’. No. 27 is in press in Entomofauna| Recently Kogak, 1982, p. 99, has shown that the species-group name in Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828] is a junior secondary homonym of Lycastes anthyllidis Hubner, [1819] when both specific names are combined with Zygaena Fabricius, 1775 (ZY GAENIDAE); because of this Kogak has recalled from synonymy the name Zygaena erebus Meigen, 1829, for the species which for the last 155 years has been known as Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval. Apart from being listed (and misspelt) by Sherborn, 1923, p. 371, Lycastes anthyllidis Hiibner has not been used since it was first published. 2. Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval is a well-known species endemic to the Pyrenees (type locality: Baréges, Hautes-Pyrénées;: Boisduval, 1829, p. 3; 1834, p. 69): its identity is undisputed, the original description being clear and concise and accompanied by a good coloured illustration. Moreover, the lectotype is extant and preserved in the British Museum (Natural History), London (Tremewan, 196). pa2 yi. pl. 52, fig. 34; pl. 61, figs 5, 6). 3. Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval has been used as the valid name for the taxon since the latter was first described and illustrated in 1828; the more important papers and faunistic works where sub- sequently it has been described and illustrated, or mentioned, include those of Boisduval, 1834, p. 69, pl. 55, fig. 7; Duponchel, 1835, p. 76: pl. 7, fig. 1; Herrich-Schiiffer, 1843, pl. 1, fig. 4; 1846, p. 40: Oberthiir, 1884, p. 30, pl. 1, figs 14-17; 1910, p. 474; Spuler, 1906, p. 157, pl. 75, fig. 47, pl. 77, fig. 12; Seitz, 1907, p. 22, pl. 5e; and Reiss, 1930, p. 19, pl. 2e; 1933, p. 259. More recently it has been referred to in numerous publications, including the important systematic works of Haaf, 1952, p. 152, pl. 14 and Alberti, 1958, p. 317; 1964, p. 387, figs A3-C3, p. 388, fig. 3; 1981, p. 24, fig. 4(3); the faunistic works of Manley & Allcard, 1970, p. 122, pl. 37, fig. 8, and Gomez Bustillo & Fernandez- Rubio, 1976, p. 148, figs; the papers on its biology by Holik, 1953a, p. 14 and Burgeff, 1975: the catalogues and check-lists of Reiss & Tremewan, 1967, p. 148, Agenjo, [1969], Leraut, 1980, py o2).artid Gomez Bustillo & Arroya Varela, 1981 , p. 202; and the papers by Holik, 74 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 1937, p. 38; 1946, p. 254; 1953b, p. 47; Burgeff, 1950; and Fernandez- Rubio, 1975; 1982. 4. Lycastes anthyllidis Hiibner, [1819] was established as an objective replacement name for Sphinx triptolemus Hibner, [1806] (ZYGAENIDAE), a junior primary homonym of Sphinx triptolemus Cramer, 1779 (SPHINGIDAE). As already mentioned, except for the listing by Sherborn and the reintroduction by Kogak, the name Lycastes anthyllidis Hiibner has been entirely overlooked and has not been used since it was first published in 1819. 5. Sphinx triptolemus Hiibner, [1806] (type locality: ‘Tyroler- alpen’; Hiibner, [1806], p. 78), for which Hiibner proposed the replace- ment name Lycastes anthyllidis, has been used as the supposedly valid name to denote the Tyrolean subspecies of Zygaena loti ([Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775) (Reiss & Tremewan, 1967, p. 140); the type is presumed lost but the original description and coloured illustrations are good and the taxon is recognizable. Sphinx triptolemus Hubner must not be used because, as explained, it is ajunior primary homonym. The next available name for the taxon, Lycastes anthyllidis Hiibner, [1819], was proposed as a new replacement name for it. However, the use of anthyl- lidis Hiibner as the valid name for the Tyrolean subspecies of Zygaena loti would cause endless confusion with the current 155-year usage of anthyllidis Boisduval for a Pyrenean species. If Lycastes anthyllidis Hiibner is suppressed there is a junior subjective synonym available to denote the Tyrolean subspecies of Zygaena loti, namely Zygaena achilleae praeclara Burgeff, 1926a, p. 32 (type locality: ‘Siidtirol — Taler um Bozen (Etsch-, Eisack- und Sarcatal), Grddner Tal, Seiser Alp, Menaggio’ — syntypes in Entomologisches Institut, Eidgendssische Technische Hochschule, Zurich); this could therefore be used as the valid name. However, because the subspecies of all Zygaena species are undergoing a taxonomic revision that will inevitably reduce their number, we do not propose that this name be placed on the Official List. 6. On the basis of the above facts and in the interests of stability, we hereby request the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name anthyllidis Hiibner, [1819], as published in the binomen Lycastes anthyllidis, and all uses of that name prior to its use by Boisduval in 1828, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; to place the specific name anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828], as published in the binomen Zygaena anthyllidis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the specific name anthyllidis Hubner, [1819], as published in the binomen Lycastes anthyllidis, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (2 ~~ (3 _— Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 75 REFERENCES AGENJO, R. [1969]. Catalogo ordenador de los lepidopteros en Espafia. Zygae- nidae [5 pp.]. Graellsia, vol. 23 (1967) [unpaginated]. ALBERTI, B. 1958-59. Uber den stammesgeschichtlichen Aufbau der Gattung Zygaena F. und ihrer Vorstufen (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Mitt. zool. Mus. Berl., vol. 34(1958), pp. 245-396, text-figs 14, pls 1-32; vol. 35(1959), pp. 203-242, pls 33-64. — 1964. Uber Zygaena armena Ey. Ein Beitrag zu den Problemen von Artbildung und Artwertung (Lep., Zygaenidae). Dtsch. entomol. Z. (N.F.) vol. 11, pp. 381-392, text-figs I-4, 1 pl. — 1981. Uber Wesen und Aussagegrenzen der ‘“‘Phylogenetischen System- atik” von Hennig, untersucht am Beispiel der Zygaenidae (Lepidoptera). Mitt. mtinch. entomol. Ges., vol. 71, pp. 1-31, figs 1-4. BOISDUVAL, J. A. [1828]. Essai sur une Monographie des Zygénides. Paris. xxvi, 132 pp., 8 pls. 1829. Monographie des Zygénides, Index Methodicus. Paris. Errata et Addenda, 8 pp. —_ 1834-[1841]. Icones historique des Lépidoptéres nouveaux ou peu connus. Paris. Vol. 2, 192 pp., pls 48-84. BURGEFF, H. 1926a. Kommentar zum palaearktischen Teil der Gattung Zygaena Fab. des friiher von Ch. Aurivillius und H. Wagner, jetzt von E. Strand herausgegebenen Lepidopterorum Catalogus. Mitt. miinch. entomol. Ges., vol. 16, pp. 1-86. — 1926b. Zygaenidae I (Generis Zygaena palaearctica pars). Jn Strand, E., Lepid Cat., vol. 33, pp. 1-91. — 1950. Verbreitungsstudien an der Gattung Zygaena Fab. (Lepidoptera) (mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Problems der zwischen- und nacheiszeitlichen Besiedlung der Alpen). I. Portug. Acta biol. (A), vol. R. B. Goldschmidt. pp. 663-728, 6 figs, 21 maps. — 1975. Uber Rhaphidozygaena anthyllidis Boisduval. Nachr. Akad. Wiss. Gottingen (Math.-Phys. Klasse) no. 10, pp. 115-132, text-figs 1-7, I-X, pl., figs 1-12. DUPONCHEL, P.-A.-J. 1835. Histoire naturelle des Lépidoptéres ou Papillons de France. Paris. Supplement, vol. 2, 198 pp., 12 pls. FERNANDEZ-RUBIO, F. 1975. Genitalias (Andropigios) de las Zygaenas de la Peninsula Iberica. Madrid [6] pp., 26 pls. 1982. Genitalias (Andropigios y Ginopigios) de las Zygaenas de Alava _ py su entorno ibérico. Madrid [12] pp., 52 pls. GOMEZ BUSTILLO, M. R. & ARROYO VARELA, M. 1981. Catalogo siste- matico de los Lepidopteros Ibéricas. Madrid. 499 pp. — & FERNANDEZ-RUBIO, F. 1976. Mariposas de la Peninsula Ibérica. Madrid. Heteroceros, vol. 1, 300 pp. HAAF, E. 1952. Ueber die Genitalmorphologie der Zygaenen (Lep.), Verdéff. zool. StSammi. Miinch., vol. 2, pp. 125-159, text-fig. 1, pls 4-16. HERRICH-SCHAFFER, G. A. W. 1843-51. Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa. Regensburg. Vol. 2, XV. Zygaenides. Boisd., pp. 25-48, pls 1-16. HOLIK, O. 1937. Quelques problémes au sujet du genre Zygaena Fabr. II. De la nature de la ceinture abdominale. Lambillionea, vol. 37, pp. 32-45. 76 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 1946. Sur les problemes posés par le genre Zygaena Fabr. V. Variabilité sexuelle et individuelle. Revue fr. Lépidopt., vol. 10, pp. 250-261, 273-280. — 1952-53a. Die Nahrungspflanzen der Zygaenenraupen und ihre Bedeu- tung flir die Unterteilung der Gattung Zygaena Fabr. Entomol. Z., Frankf.a.M., vol. 62, pp. 142-144, 153-159, 182-184, 188-191; vol. 63, pp. 3-6, 14-16, 20-32, 38-40, 55-56, 70-71. ~ 1953b. Zyg. anthyllidis Bsd. NachrBlL. bayer. Ent., vol. 2, p. 47. HUBNER, J. 1805-23. Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge. Augsburg. Der Ziefer, 194 pp. a eae Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge. Augsburg. 431. pp. KOCAK, A. O. 1982. Additions and corrections to the names published in ‘Sys- tematic and synonymic list of the Lepidoptera of France, Belgium and Corsica’ by Leraut, 1980. Priamus, vol. 2, pp. 97-133. LERAUT, P. 1980. Liste systématique et synonymique des Lépidoptéres de France, Belgique et Corse. Paris. 334 pp. MANLEY, W. B. L. & ALLCARD, H. G. 1970. A field Guide to the Butterflies and Burnets of Spain. Hampton. 192 pp., 40 col. pls, frontispiece. OBERTHUR, C. 1884. Etudes d’Entomologie. Rennes. vol. 8, 53 pp., | pl. 1910. Etudes de Lépidoptérologie comparée. Rennes. vol. 4, 691 pp., pls 35-58. REISS, H. 1930-33. Jn Seitz, A., Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde. Stuttgart. vol. 2, Supplement (1930-31). pp. 1-50, pls 1-4; (1933). pp. 249-278, pl. 16. REISS, H. & TREMEWAN, W. G. 1967. A systematic catalogue of the genus Zygaena Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae). Series entomol., vol. 2, xvi, 329 pp. SEITZ, A. 1907-09. Gattung Zygaena F. In Seitz, A., Die Gross- Schmetterlinge der Erde. Stuttgart. vol. 2. pp. 18-34, pls 4-8. SHERBORN, C. D. 1923. Index Animalium Part II, 1801-1850. London. pp. 129-384. SPULER, A. 1906. Die Schmetterlinge Europas. Stuttgart. vol. 2. pp. 152-169, jal SN IR TREMEWAN, W. G. 1961. A catalogue of the types and other specimens in the British Museum (Natural History) of the genus Zygaena Fabricius, Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol.), vol. 10, pp. 239-313, pls 50-64. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 Th REPTOMULTISPARSA D’ORBIGNY, 1853 (BRYOZOA, CYCLOSTOMATA): REQUEST FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2400 By P. D. Taylor (Department of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD) When d’Orbigny, 1853, p. 875, erected the nominal genus Repto- multisparsa he listed the following 5 species without choosing a type species: Diastopora diluviana Milne Edwards, 1838 (non Berenicea diluviana Lamouroux, 1821), Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846, Reptomultisparsa dutempleana sp. nov., R. glomerata sp. nov., and R. congesta sp. nov. The valid name of the first named species is not Diastopora diluviana Milne Edwards, 1838 because Milne Edwards (1838, p. 228, pl. 15, figs 3, 3a, b, c; footnote (5) on pp. 228 and 229, and pl. 14, fig. 4 describe a dendroid variety which is probably a separate species) did not propose D. diluviana as a new species but merely intended it as a new generic attribution of Berenicea diluviana Lamouroux, 1821 (the type species of Berenicea Lamouroux, 1821, designated by Reuss, 1867). Inspection of Milne Edwards’ figures sup- ports d’Orbigny’s (1853) opinion that the Diastopora diluviana (Lamouroux, 1821) of Milne Edwards, 1838, is not conspecific with Berenicea diluviana Lamouroux, 1821. D’Orbigny, 1853, placed his own nominal species Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 in synonymy with ‘Diastopora diluviana Milne Edwards, 1838 (non Lamouroux, 1821)’. This synonymy has been upheld by later revisers (Walter, 1970, p. 75; Buge & Fischer, 1970, p. 127). As there is no earlier available name for the species misidentified by Milne Edwards, 1838, as Berenicea diluviana Lamouroux, 1821, the valid name for this species is considered to be Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850. 2. Gregory, 1896a, p. 151, selected the type species of Repto- multisparsa in the following way: ‘R. microstoma (Mich.) syn. R. dilu- viana Edw. & Mich. (non Lamx.)’. He went on to say ‘The first of the five species referred to the genus by d’Orbigny, which is accordingly here taken as the type, is the Diastopora diluviana Edw. & Mich. (non Lamx.). This, however, I regard as the same as Michelin’s Diastopora microstoma’. Consequently, Gregory, 1896a, placed in synonymy the first two species (i.e. Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 and Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846) listed under Reptomultisparsa by d’Orbigny, 1853, and considered the valid name of the species to be Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846. 78 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 3. Recent revision, including examination of types (Walter, 1970, corroborated by P.D.T.), has shown that Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 and Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846 are not synonymous. Furthermore, the species named as Diastopora micro- stoma Michelin, 1846 without description by Gregory, 1896a, was sub- sequently described and figured by Gregory, 1896b, as Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846 but is clearly Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850. Therefore Gregory, 1896a, apparently misidentified Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846 when selecting it as the type species of Reptomultisparsa. 4. Article 70a of the Code specifies that misidentified type species should be referred to the Commission. Either Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846 or Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850, both listed in the original description of Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853, could serve as the type species of Reptomultisparsa. Whereas the latest revision of Reptomultisparsa by Walter, 1970, names Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850, as the type species, two standard works of reference, the Fossilium Catalogus (Bassler, 1935) and the Treatise (Bassler, 1953), give Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846 as the type species. 5. It is recommended that Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 be selected as the type species of Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853 because the lectotype (designated by Walter, 1970) of Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 is a fertile colony with abundant gonozooids. On the other hand, the neotype (chosen by Walter, 1970) of Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846 lacks gonozooids though present in putative conspecifics. Gonozooids are structures of great importance in the precise characterisation and classification of cyclostome species (see Taylor & Sequeiros, 1982). Modern usage (see Walter, 1970) of Repto- multisparsa for tubuloporinid cyclostomes having adnate multiserial colonies, commonly multilamellar, with large, longitudinally elongate (fusiform) gonozooids would be conserved if Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 were to be selected as the type species. 6. Canu, 1913, described a new nominal species Berenicea edwardsi, incorrectly calling it a nomen novum, for the species erroneously named Diastopora diluviana (Lamouroux, 1821) by Milne Edwards, 1838. Berenicea edwardsi Canu, 1913 is the type species by original designation of Atractosoecia Canu & Bassler, 1922. This species has been regarded as a junior synonym of Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 by Walter, 1970, and Buge & Fischer, 1970, an opinion also held by the present author. Therefore, selection of Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 as the type species of Reptomultisparsa would place Atractosoecia Canu & Bassler, 1922 in subjective synonymy with Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853. 7. The Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to designate the nominal species Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 79 Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 as type species of the nominal genus Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853; (2) to place the generic name Reptomultisparsa dOrbigny, 1853, (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850, as published in the binomen Diastopora incrustans, (specific name of type species of Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERNCES BASSLER, R. S. 1935 Bryozoa. Fossilium Cat., Pars Animalia, vol. 67, pp. 1-229. — 1953 Bryozoa; in Moore, R. C., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part G, pp. 1-253. BUGE, E. & FISCHER, J.-C. 1970. Atractosoecia incrustans (d’Orbigny) (Bryozoa Cyclostomata) espéce bathonienne symbiotique d’un Pagure. Bull. Soc. géol. France (7) vol. 12, pp. 126-133. CANU, F. 1913. Contributions a l’étude des Bryozoaires fossiles. XIII. Bryozoaires jurassiques. Bull. Soc. géol. France (4) vol. 13, pp. 267-276. — & BASSLER, R. S. 1922. Studies on the cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. vol. 61 (22), pp. 1-160. GREGORY, J. W. 1896a. A Revision of the British Jurassic Bryozoa. Part IV. The Genera Reptomultisparsa and Diastopora. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) vol. 17, pp. 151-155. — 1896b Catalogue of the fossil Bryozoa in the Department of Geology Bri- tish Museum (Natural History). The Jurassic Bryozoa. London, pp. 1-231. LAMOUROUX, J. 1821. Exposition méthodique des genres de l’ordre des poly- piers. Paris, pp. 1-115. MICHELIN. H. 1841-8. Jconographie Zoophytologique. Paris, pp. 1-348. MILNE EDWARDS, H. 1838. Mémoire sur les Crisies, Les Hornéres, et plu- sieurs autres Polypes vivans ou fossiles dont l’organisation est analogue a celle des Tubulipores. Ann. Sci. nat. Zoologie (2), vol. 9, pp. 193-238. d’ORBIGNY, A. 1850. Prodrome de Paléontologie... vol. 1, Paris, pp. 1-394. — 1853. Paléontologie francaise, terrains crétacés. Tome 5: Bryozoaires. Paris, pp. 1-1191. REUSS, A. E. 1867. Die Bryozoen, Anthozoen und Spongiarien des Braunen Jura von Balin bei Krakau. Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien vol. 27, pp. 1-26. TAYLOR, P. D. & SEQUEIROS, L. 1982. Toarcian bryozoans from Belchite in north-east Spain. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Geol.) vol. 36 (2), pp. 117-129. WALTER, B. 1970. Les Bryozoaires Jurassiques en France. Docums Lab. Géol. Fac. Sci. Lyon vol. 35, pp. 1-328. 80 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 GOERIDAE ULMER, 1903 VERSUS TRICHOSTOMATIDAE RAMBUR, 1842 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA): REQUEST FOR A RULING UNDER ARTICLE 23d(ii). Z.N.(S.)1456 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In 1961 (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 19, p. 301) Dr D. E. Kimmins proposed that the family-group name TRICHOSTOMATIDAE Rambur, 1842 (as ‘Trichostomides’) be rejected as a nomen oblitum under the provisions of Article 23b then in force. The application was not proceeded with owing to the uncertainty surrounding those pro- visions, and has subsequently been overlooked. Dr Kimmins no longer wishes to proceed with it, but Dr Peter Barnard (British Museum (Natural History), London) advises me that it ought to be pursued. 2. Dr Kimmins pointed out that the earliest family-group name for the taxon currently known as GOERIDAE (GOERINAE Ulmer, 1903, Abh. Naturw. Ver. Hamburg, vol. 18, p. 81) is TRICHOSTOMA- TIDAE Rambur, 1842, Hist. nat. Ins. Névr., p. 489 (as ‘Trichosto- mides’). The bases for these two family-group names are, respectively, Goera Stephens, 1829, Nom. brit. Ins. p. 28, type species, by subsequent designation by Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins., vol. 2, Syn. genera brit. Ins., p. 50, Phryganea pilosa Fabricius, 1775; Trichostoma Pictet, 1834, Rech. Phrygan., p. 172, type species, by subsequent desig- nation by Kimmins, 1961, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, p. 301, Trichostoma picicorne Pictet, 1834, op. cit., p. 174, a junior subjective synonym of Phryganea pallipes Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins., vol. 1, p. 388. (As that species is the type species of Silo Curtis, 1833—see Opinion 654, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 20, pp. 119-120, 1963—Trichostoma Pictet, 1834 isa junior subjective synonym of Silo Curtis.) 3. TRICHOSTOMATIDAE has been used by Newman, 1853, Zoologist vol. 11, Appendix, p. cciv and by Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, vol. 2, p. 42, but since then the name has been abandoned in favour of GOERIDAE. The status of TRICHOSTOMATIDAE seems in any case to be anomalous. The name of its type genus is a junior subjective synonym; yet because the senior subjective synonym (Silo Curtis, 1833) is not the basis of a family-group name, Article 40 presumably does not apply, since it was not by reason of that synonymy that the family-group name was changed. On the other hand, Article 23d(ii) clearly applies, since the application of the Law of Priority to GOERIDAE and TRICHOSTOMATIDAE would clearly upset general usage. This is shown by the following references to recent uses of Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 81 GOERIDAE, kindly supplied by Dr Barnard: Ross, 1944, p. 256 (Trichoptera of Illinois) Ross, 1956, p. 10 (evolution of Trichoptera) Schmid, 1958, p. 153 (Trichoptera of Ceylon) Peterson, 1960, p. 369 (larvae of insects) Kimmins, 1966, p. 118 (British check-list) Lepneva, 1966, p. 322 (larvae of USSR) Malicky, 1973, p. 12 (review of world Trichoptera) Macan, 1973, p. 90 (key to British species) Schmid, 1980, p. 143 (Trichoptera of Canada) Malicky, 1983, p. 137 (key to European species). 4. Dr Kimmins’s original application was supported by Dr F. C. J. Fischer (Rotterdam), Dr K. M. F. Scott (University of Cape Town), Dr Glenn B. Wiggins (Royal Ontario Museum) and Dr Bo Tjeder (Falun, Sweden). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to rule under Article 23d(ii) that the family-group name GOERINAE Ulmer, 1903 is to be accepted as the valid name for any family-group taxon to which that name and TRICHOSTOMATIDAE Rambur, 1842 have been applied; to place the generic name Goera Stephens, 1829 (gender: feminine) type species, by subsequent designation by Westwood, 1840, Phryganea pilosa Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name pilosa Fabricius, 1775, as pub- lished in the binomen Phryganea pilosa (specific name of type species of Goera Stephens, 1829) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name GOERINAE Ulmer, 1903 (type genus Goera Stephens, 1829) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the family-group name TRICHOSTOMATIDAE Rambur, 1842 (type genus Trichostoma Pictet, 1834) (invalid through the ruling requested under (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. (2 — (3 _— REFERENCES KIMMINS, D. E. 1966. A revised check-list of the British Trichoptera. Entomo- logist’s Gaz., vol. 17, pp. 111-120. LEPNEVA, S. G. 1966. Trichoptera. II, 2. Larvae and pupae of Integripalpia. Fauna SSSR (N.S.), vol. 95, pp. 1-562. [In Russian.] MACAN, T. T. 1973. A key to the adults of the British Trichoptera. Scient. Publs Freshwat. biol. Ass. no. 28. pp. 1-151. 82 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 MALICKY, H. 1973. Jn Kikenthal, W. (Editor). Trichopteren (K6cherfliegen). Hanadb. Zool., Berl., vol. 4(2). part 29, pp. 1-114 1983. Atlas of European Trichoptera x, 298 pp. The Hague. PETERSON, A. 1960. Larvae of insects an introduction to nearctic species Part IT. 416 pp. Columbus. ROSS, H. H. 1944. The caddis flies, or Trichoptera, of Illinois. Bull. Ill. nat. Hist. Surv., vol. 23(1), pp. vi, 1-326. — 1956. Evolution and classification of the mountain caddisflies viii, 213 pp. Urbana. ‘ SCHMID, F. 1958. Trichopteres de Ceylan. Arch Hydrobiol., vol. 54, pp. 1-173. — 1980. Genera des Trichoptéres du Canada et des Etats adjacents. Les insectes et Arachnides du Canada. part 7, pp. 1-296. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 83 ATRACTOCERA LATIPES MEIGEN, 1804 (INSECTA, DIPTERA, SIMULIIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION IN THE COMMON USAGE WITH REJECTION OF THE PRESUMED HOLOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2393 By I. A. Rubtsov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R) Atractocera latipes was described by Meigen, 1804, p. 96, with the following statement ‘Ich fing nur einmal ein Mannchen im Mai in einer Hekke’. It is evident from Meigen’s detailed autobiography, pub- lished by Morge in 1974, that up to 1804 Meigen collected only in the vicinity of Stolberg, near Aachen, and possibly near Solingen. The for- mer is presumed to be the type locality. From the same source it is clear that up to 1804 Meigen had not received material from other zoologists. Meigen’s original colour-drawing of the species was published by Morge, 1976. 2. Edwards, 1915 and 1920, following the interpretation of earlier authors, published good descriptions and figures of adults and early stages of A. latipes, which promoted more exact identification of the species by subsequent workers. Rubtsov, 1956; 1959-1964 and Davies, 1966; 1968 showed that a number of closely related species, differing mainly in characters of early stages, are united under ‘latipes’ and restricted the use of the name. 3. The species (and even more the species-complex) under con- sideration is very common and widely distributed (from western Europe at least as far east as Lake Baikal, with numerous more or less doubtful records as far as Japan and outside the Palaearctic region). As a very active bloodsucker it has great medical and veterinary importance. It is included in many monographs (e.g. Rubtsov, 1940; 1956; 1959-1964; Pavlovsky, 1951; Grenier, 1953; Ussova, 1961; Carlsson, 1962; Knoz, 1965: Davies, 1966; 1968), in many Bulletins of WHO (the World Health Organisation) and in hundreds of papers dealing with its faunistic and ecological significance and the control of bloodsucking insects. 4. Atractocera latipes is the type species of Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 and of its junior synonymn Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926, the first being regarded as a distinct genus by the majority of modern specialists in the group. It is a large genus (about ninety species) distri- buted all over the Holarctic region. 5. Davies (in Crosskey & Davies, 1972) examined two specimens standing under the name ‘/atipes’ in Meigen’s collection, one a male with the label ‘/atipes’ ‘in what appears to be Meigen’s handwriting’ and one a female. The male belongs to Simulium subexcisum Edwards, 1915, now in the genus Hellichiella Rivosecchi & Cardinali, 1978, and the specific name is in current general usage as defined under Article 84 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 79b of the Code. The female belongs to Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (posticatum Meigen, 1838, a forgotten name). 6. Crosskey & Davies (1972) concluded that the male is Meigen’s holotype, and changed the name S. subexcisum to S. latipes. 7. As latipes sensu Edwards remained without an available name Crosskey & Davies, 1972, used the name Simulium vernum Macquart, 1826 for it. The latter was described probably from northern France (the exact locality was not indicated in the description) and had since remained a doubtful name, mentioned in catalogues only. The types are lost and a neotype was not designated by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, due to the absence of French material. The original description is very short and, although it does not conflict with /atipes sensu Edwards, it can be attributed to many other species. 8. The nomenclature of Crosskey & Davies, 1972, was followed by them and by Zwicky & Crosskey, 1980, but many specialists (e.g. J. Knoz, V. Patrusheva, L. Rivosecchi, I. A. Rubtsov, J. Smart, A. Terterian, Z. Ussova) and many practical workers continue to use the name J/atipes in Edwards’ sense. 9. Crosskey & Davies’ 1972 statement, that the male examined by them is the holotype of A. /atipes, is doubtful. After 1804 Meigen was in contact with many entomologists and his collection was greatly enlarged by his own findings and by material sent to him from various European countries. In 1840 his collection was purchased by the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. As shown by Zwick & Crosskey, 1980, some of Meigen’s type specimens of simultids were lost between 1804 and 1840 and some specimens (including the female under ‘/atipes’) were added after original publication. As Meigen’s specimens have no collecting labels, it is impossible to state whether the male labelled ‘/atipes’ is the holotype or a subsequently added specimen. 10. S. subexcisum Edwards is only known from England (the type locality is Crowborough, Sussex, holotype: male, in the Museum of Zoology, Cambridge) and France. The nearest record of S. sub- excisum to the type locality of A. latipes (which is near Aachen) is in the environs of Strasbourg, at a distance of about 260 kilometres. S. subexcisum has never been found in West Germany, the fauna of which is well known. It can be supposed that the male, examined by Davies, originates from material received from France or England by Meigen after 1804. 11. In Meigen’s figure of A. /atipes (see Morge, 1976) the basitar- sus of the hind leg is broader than the tibia. This agrees better with latipes in the common sense (in which the basitarsus is equal or slightly broader than the tibia) than with swbexcisum (in which the basitarsus is broad, but narrower than the tibia). Meigen had special training in drawing (see Morge, 1974) and his figures are very precise. 12. Regardless of the doubtful status of the presumed holotype, this is certainly a case in which the plenary powers should be used, firstly Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 85 because two names in general current usage are changed (one of them belongs to a species of great importance and the type species of a large genus) and secondly because the change of names introduces confusion. The designation of a neotype of A. /atipes in accordance with common usage is desirable, but I have no material from West Germany. I think Mrs H. Zwick, who has a large amount of material of this common species from West Germany, could propose an appropriate specimen. 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to set aside under the plenary powers the specimen MNHN, Paris, No. 525, considered by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, as the holotype of Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 and to state that this species should be treated in the sense used by Edwards, 1915; 1920; Rubtsoy, 1956; 1959-1964 and Davies, 1966; 1968 or as defined by the neotype, if a corres- ponding designation can be made; (2) to place the name Jatipes Meigen, 1804, as published in the binomen Azractocera latipes and as defined under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BARANOV, N. 1926. Eine neue Simuliiden-Art und einige Bemerkungen iiber das System der Simuliiden. Wiss. Insektenbiol vol. 3, pp. 15-16. CARLSSON, G. 1962. Studies on Scandinavian black-flies. Opuscula entomol, Suppl. XXI, 280 pp. CROSSKEY, R. W. & DAVIES, L. 1972. The identities of Simulium lineatum (Meigen), S. /atipes (Meigen) and S. vernum Macquart (Diptera: Simulii- dae). Entomologist’s Gaz. vol. 23(4), pp. 249-258. DAVIES, L. 1966. The taxonomy of British black-flies (Diptera: Simuliidae). Trans. r. entomol. Soc. London, vol. 118(14), pp. 413-506. —— 1968. A key to the British species of Simuliidae (Diptera) in the larval, pupal and adult stages. Scient. publs Sreshwat. biol. Assoc. No. 24, 125 pp. EDWARDS, F. W. 1915. On the British species of Simulium.—I. The adults. Bull. entomol. Res. vol. 6, pp. 23-42. ——1920. On the British species of Simulium.—Il. The early stages: with corrections and additions to Part I. Bull. entomol Res. vol. 11, pp. 211-246. ENDERLEIN, G. 1921. Das System der Kriebelmiicken (Simuliidae). Dz. tierarztl. Wschr. vol. 16, pp. 198-200. GRENIER, P. 1953. Simuliidae de France et d’Afrique du Nord. Encycl. entomol. (Ser, A) vol. 29, 170 pp. KNOZ, J. 1965. The identification of Czechoslovakian black-flies (Diptera, Simuliidae). Folia Fac. Sci. nat. Purkynianae Brunnensis (Biol.) 2, vol. 6(5), 54 pp.+425 Abb. 86 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 MEIGEN, J. W. 1804. Klassifikazion und Beschreibung der europdischen zweifliigligen Insekten. I. Reichard, Braunschweig, pp. 1-152. — 1838. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigli- gen Insekten. VII. Schulz, Hamm, 434 pp. MORGE, G. 1974. Johann Wilhelm Meigen. Beitr. Entomol., vol. 24 Sonderheft), pp. 93-160. 1976. Dipteren-Farbtafeln nach den bischer nicht verdffentlichten Original-Handzeichnungen Meigens: ‘Johann Wilhelm Meigen: Abbil- dung der europaeischen zweifliigeligen Insekten, nach der Natur’. Pars I. Beitr. Entomol. vol. 25, pp. 383-500. PAVLOVSKY, E. N. 1951. Bloodsucking Diptera, their significance and control. Leningrad. 120 pp. (in Russian). RIVOSECCHI, L. 1978. Simuliidae Diptera Nematocera. Fauna Ital. vol. 13, 555 pp. — & CARDINALI, R. 1978. Contributo alla conoscenca dei Simuliidi Ita- liani. X XIII. Nuevi dati taxonomici. Riv. Parassittol. vol. ??, pp. 26-78. RUBTSOV, I. A. 1940. Black-flies (Fam. Simuliidae). Fauna SSSR vol. 6(6), 533 pp. (in Russian). — 1956. Black-flies (Fam. Simuliidae) (2nd edition). Fauna SSSR (N.S.) No. 64, Diptera vol. 6(6), 859 pp. (in Russian). — 1959-1964 Simuliidae (Melusinidae) (parts). Jn LINDNER, E. (Ed.): Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. vol. U1 4, 689 pp. USSOVA, Z. V. Fauna of black-flies of Karelia and Murmansk Region (Diptera, Simuliidae). Moscow-Leningrad, 7 pp. (in Russian). ZWICK, H. & CROSSKEY, R. W. 1980. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae) described by J. W. Meigen. Aquatic Insects vol. 2(4), pp. 225-247. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF THE SPECIFIC NAME LATIPES MEIGEN, 1804 (DIPTERA, SIMULIIDAE) IN ITS FORMER MISIDENTIFIED SENSE, AND REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE ACTION. Z.N.(S.)2393. By R. W. Crosskey (British Museum (Natural History), London) The species of SSMULIIDAE concerned in Dr Rubtsov’s propo- sal is widespread across the Holarctic region. As with many simultids, it may prove to be a sibling species complex, but in the morphological sense of current taxonomy is a species that often needs to be identified in its early stages because it is a common component of stream and river faunas that are prospected for faunistic or ecological studies. 2. As Rubtsovy states, the pioneer work of Edwards, 1915; 1920, established an identity for ‘/atipes’ by applying this name to a species Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 87 that he described from both sexes of the adult and from the associated pupal stage. Edwards had not seen Meigen’s collection of SIMULIIDAE (then and still in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) and he used Meigen’s name for the species concerned simply because this guesswork application of the name had been made already by his pre- decessors. He used the binomen Simulium latipes (Meigen, 1804) and made his position clear: ‘This [species] has always been assumed to be Meigen’s S. /atipes, and I see no particular reason to doubt that it is so’. 3. Edwards was attempting to elucidate the confused taxonomy of European simuliids; he accepted pre-existing interpretations of names as correct if he saw no reason to doubt them, but sometimes had to make his own interpretations of the various nominal species that Meigen described. When in doubt he described species as new, whilst remaining well aware that some of his names applying to supposedly new species might later prove to be synonymous. This is clear from his statement, for example, in the description (Edwards, 1915, p. 33) of his S. morsi- tans Edwards where he comments that ‘it is possible that one of the older names may apply to this species’. Edwards clearly anticipated corrections to the nomenclature as knowledge improved. 4. Edwards’s interpretation of which species should bear Meigen’s name /atipes remained in force until the 1960s, when Davies, 1966, showed that in Britain alone at least six morphologically dis- tinguishable species had been confused under this name. A reappraisal was needed to decide which of the six should continue to carry the name latipes in the restricted sense, but it was not at that time appreciated that Meigen’s type specimen did not belong to the complex of species at all (it had not been studied by any modern worker and was not avail- able on loan). Davies, whilst continuing to follow Edwards’s interpret- ation in the broad sense, restricted the name /atipes to a very common member of the group of six species that is widespread in lowland Britain and in continental Europe, and commented that ‘in the absence of Meigen’s type, there is some doubt as to the species to which this name should be applied’. 5. The word ‘absence’ in Davies’s comment appeared to imply that the type was known to be lost, but in fact meant only that he had not seen it. A study of Meigen’s simultid collection made by Crosskey in 1969 showed a male specimen labelled as /atipes to be present in the collection and clearly acceptable on all the evidence as an original type specimen. Subsequent detailed morphological examination of this specimen by Crosskey & Davies, including slide preparation and illus- tration of the taxonomically very important genitalia by Davies, showed conclusively that it did not belong to the species accepted by Edwards as latipes. Instead, it belongs to a species of a quite different group of simuliids, to one that Edwards, 1915, had described as new under the name Simulium subexcisum. As the latipes male in Meigen’s collection was considered indubitably to have holotype status (discussion in detail 88 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 by Crosskey & Davies, 1972) it became clear that ‘/atipes’ sensu Edwards was a longstanding misidentification in need of correction. To call attention to the findings and rectify the nomenclature, Crosskey & Davies, 1972:— (1) Reassigned the name Jatipes Meigen to the species represented by its holotype, thereby using it as the senior synonym of subexcisum Edwards. (2) Brought the old name Simulium vernum Macquart, 1826, into use for the species misidentified by Edwards as J/atipes of Meigen and subsequently so known, applying it to the member species of the ‘/atipes-group’ to which the name had been restricted by Davies. (3) Used the name ‘vernum-group’ in place of the now improper use of the term ‘/atipes-group’. It was explained that no type exists for vernum Macquart but that a neotype would be designated when suitable material became available from northern France. In the meantime, use of the name vernum was desirable because it pushed the name back to an early date (1826) beyond which further nomenclatural disturbance was extremely unlikely through discovery of an even earlier applicable name; nothing in Macquart’s description contra-indicated its legitimate application to the misidentified ‘/atipes’ sensu Edwards/Davies, and it was free from a pre-established usage. Furthermore, the species concerned is normally univoltine with spring emergence and Macquart’s name is therefore appropriate. A neotype has not been designated as yet. Comments on aspects of Dr Rubtsov’s proposal 6. It is to the procedurally proper nomenclatural action taken by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, that Dr Rubtsov now objects—eleven years after its publication—and for which he seeks Commission support to restore the nomenclatural status quo existing before 1972. In essence, his proposal asks ICZN:— (a) to rule that the specimen accepted by Crosskey-Davies as holotype has no type status; (b) to designate an unspecified and unprovided specimen on his behalf as the neotype of latipes Meigen that will ensure that this name remains attached to the species ‘/atipes sensu Edwards, not Meigen’; (c) as the consequence of (a) and (b), to declare itself in favour of restoring pre-1972 usage. (1) The proposal thus put to the Commission is one to which strong objection is here raised, for if implemented it would create damaging confusion in the nomenclature of widely known species and species groups of SIMULIIDAE for which a new acceptance and stability has been reached in the past 11 years (see paragraph 9). (2) According to Dr Rubtsov (his paragraph 3), the species for which he wishes the name /atipes Meigen to be upheld has ‘great medical and veterinary importance’. No reference is (3) (4) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 89 provided in support of this misleading statement. In North America and Europe the species has no such importance, and indeed there are extraordinarily few biting records for it. There is some man-biting nuisance attributable to the species but localized to eastern U.S.S.R. The species has never been the target of any control operation, nor is it even mentioned in the 400-page recent book concerned with SIMULIIDAE as pests (Laird, ed., 1981). The species concerned (‘/atipes’ of authors) has virtually no impact on man or livestock and no defence of ‘usage’ can be rested on socio-economic importance. Rubtsov considers it doubtful if the specimen in the Paris Museum accepted as /atipes Meigen holotype by Crosskey and Davies has type status. It cannot, certainly, be absolu- tely proved that it has—but the same can be said for any specimen deemed on the available evidence to be the type for a species bearing a very old name. It is known that the specimen was present in the Meigen collection when that was received at the Paris Museum (facsimile of original inventory of Meigen’s SIMULIIDAE published in Zwick & Crosskey, 1981), that it bears Meigen’s own label identifying it as /atipes, and that its sex and characters are not in conflict with Meigen’s descriptions of 1804 and 1818. How much more evidence can we reasonably expect to have for type status in the case of such an old name? If the specimen is rejected as type, then other simuliid specimens considered to be types in the Meigen collection should be equally rejected (including that of nigra Meigen which Rubtsov himself holds to be the type). Indeed, almost all really old types would have to be rejected because proof absolute of their type status can seldom if ever be obtained. To cast doubt on the type status of the /atipes specimen in question, Dr Rubtsov (his paragraph 10) argues that ‘It can be supposed that the male, examined by Davies, originates from material received from France or England by Meigen after 1804’ (i.e. date of original description). This is a remarkable, groundless, and unwarranted assumption, be- cause there is no documentary evidence that Meigen ever received simuliid material from these countries. Rubtsov’s rationale for the statement is that the species represented by the /atipes holotype (that is to say, the species also known by the name subexcisum) cannot be present in Germany. (The type locality of /atipes is not stated in the original or the later Meigen description, but the very early-described Diptera in his works are believed to have been collected in the area of Stolberg near Aachen where Meigen lived.) 90 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 Rubtsov’s supposition of its absence from Germany rests on the false premise that the simuliid fauna of West Germany ‘is well known’, and therefore that Meigen cannot in 1804 have had a specimen available to him of subexcisum (i.e. latipes if the Meigen specimen is holotype)—because this species is unrecorded from Germany. Far from being well known, there is no existing monograph of German SIMU- LIIDAE, nor has north-west Germany been thoroughly prospected for simuliids at the critical level that would be likely to show the occurrence of this species. Simulium subexcisum/atipes can be easily overlooked as its adults are non-mammalophilic, it often breeds cryptically in slow pasture seepages or other minor flows, and it is a rather uncommon and patchily distributed species; furthermore great environmental changes have occurred in the area of the presumed /atipes type locality. Lack of proof that the species occurs today in West Germany is no basis for assuming that Meigen could not have collected a specimen in the Aachen area before 1804. (5) Dr Rubtsov is seemingly very out of touch with the post-1972 simuliid literature, and therefore with the extent to which the conclusions reached and published by Crosskey & Davies (1972) have been understood and accepted. In reality, virtually all workers have adopted the name vernum Macquart in place of /atipes sensu authors, not Meigen. 7. According to Rubtsov’s proposal, six named taxonomists (excluding himself) ‘continue to use the name /atipes in Edwards’ sense’. However, not one bibliographic reference is given in his proposal to support this statement, and nearly all the workers mentioned were, or are still, unaware of the point at issue. Of the six specialists mentioned, only Rivosecchi (1978) has been aware of the Crosskey & Davies (1972) work and—knowing the nomenclatural problem—has chosen to con- tinue with the use of the name /atipes in its former sense (i.e. with ‘usage’ of latipes sensu Edwards). The other five erstwhile taxonomists that Rubtsov lists are dead, or have ceased active work in taxonomy and their names are irrelevant to Rubtsov’s case. 8. In deciding the strength of Rubtsov’s proposal the Commis- sion should note that Professor Rivosecchi’s preference for maintaining usage, along with Rubtsov’s own, has to be set against the preference of those other taxonomists who in substantial taxonomic and ecological- faunistic works have preferred to accept the conclusions of Crosskey & Davies, 1972, and who have accordingly adopted the name vernum in place of Jatipes for the species concerned. These include: Zwick (1974, Germany, and 1978, Europe). Zwick (1976, Austria); Peterson (1977, Iceland); Raastad (1979, Fennoscandia); Cupp & Gordon (1983, United States). : Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 91 9. The view of most taxonomists that the name vernum should legitimately be used for the former /atipes of authors has found its way through to the non-taxonomists working on SIMULIIDAE, and there is now (since 1972) a substantial literature published in many countries in which Simulium vernum Macquart—or alternatively Eusimulium vernum (Macquart}—is used as the valid name for the species under discussion (and also for the species group of which it is the nomen- clatural pivot). The papers cover a great variety of biological fields and include the following:— Adult biology: (1) Davies, D. M., Gyérk6s, H. & Raastad, J. E. 1977, Norwegian J. Entomol, vol. 24, pp. 19-23. [Norway] (2) Golini, V. I., Davies, D. M. & Raastad, J. E. 1976, Norwegian J. Entomol. vol. 23, pp. 79-86. [Norway] Eggs: (3) Imhof, J. E. & Smith, S. M. 1979, Bull. entomol. Res., vol. 69, pp. 405-425. [Canada] Faunistics: (4) Beaucournu-Saguez, G. 1975, Annls Parasitol. hum. comp., vol. 50, pp. 105-122. [Spain) (5) Crosskey, R. W. 1982, Entomologist’s Gaz., vol. 33, pp. 199-212. [England] (6) Cupp, E. W. & Gordon, A. E. 1983, Search: Agriculture, vol. 25, pp. 1-74. [U.S.A.] (7) Glatthaar, R. 1978, Vjschr. naturf. Ges. Ziirich, vol. 123, pp. 71-124. [Switzerland] (8) Gonzalez, G. 1980. Butll. Inst. Cat. Hist. nat. (Zool.), vol. 45, pp. 97-106. [Andorra] (9) Hansford, R. G. 1978, Freshwat. Biol. vol. 8, pp. 521-531. [England] (10) Merritt, R. W., Ross, D. H. & Peterson, B. V., 1978, Gt Lakes Entomol, vol. 11, pp. 177-208. [U.S.A.] (11) Peterson, B. V. 1977, Can. Entomol. vol. 109, pp. 449-472. [Iceland] (12) Post, R. J. 1981, Trans. Norfolk & Nor. Nat. Soc., vol. 25, pp. 153-163. [England] (13) Raastad, J. E. 1979, Rhizocrinus, vol. 11, pp. 1-28. [Scandinavia] (14) Wichard, G. 1976, Gewdsser und Abwaisser, vol. 60/61, pp. 35-64. [Germany] (15) Zwick, H. 1974, Abh. senckenb. naturforsch. Ges., vol. 533, pp. 1-116. [Germany] (16) Zwick, H. 1976, Z. ArbGem. 6st. Entomol, vol. 28, pp. 73-77. [Austria] (17) Zwick, H. 1978, Limnofauna Europaea, Simuliidae, pp. 396-403. [Europe] Larval biology: (7) Glatthaar—reference as above. (10) Merritt et al—reference as above. (14) Wichard—reference as above. 92 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 (18) Wotton, R. S., 1977, Oikos, vol. 29, pp. 332-335. [England] (15) Zwick—reference as above. Morphometrics: (19) Kazimirova, M. 1982. Biologia (Bratislava). vol. 37, pp. 973-977. [Czechoslovakia] Seasonality: (20) Back, C. & Harper, P. P. 1979, Can J. Zool, vol. 57, pp. 627-639. [Canada] 10. The literature cited above indicates conclusively that the change of name from Jatipes auct. to vernum, introduced by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, has been accepted by a range of specialists in different countries and with varied interests. A reversion now to the use of latipes Meigen for the species fast becoming almost universally known as vernum would be disruptive to the newly evolving nomenclatural stability, and the proposal contained in Dr Rubtsov’s application should be rejected accordingly. Rubtsov has allowed eleven years to pass since Crosskey & Davies, 1972, formulated the necessary nomenclatural changes to which he now objects, and a new stability based on the actions of these authors has come about in that time. It would therefore be inimical to the interests of simuliid specialists in most of the world if ICZN were now to rule as Dr Rubtsov wishes. 11. In the matter of a neotype for /atipes Meigen sensu Edwards, sought by Rubtsov in his proposal, it is difficult to see how the Commission can act even if it wishes since Rubtsov is offering no particular specimen for ICZN to recognize and designate. Conclusion and request for alternative action 12. In the light of the facts brought out in these comments the Commission is asked not to support Dr Rubtsov’s proposal, but instead to act as follows: (1) to rule that the specific name J/atipes Meigen, 1804, as originally published in the binomen Atractocera latipes, is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen recognized by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, as the holotype of the species; (2) to place the specific name /atipes Meigen, 1804, as originally published in the binomen Atractocera latipes, gn the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name vernum Macquart, 1826, as published in the binomen Simulia [sic] vernum by Macquart (Recl. Trav. Soc. Sci. Agric. Lille 1823/1824, p. 79), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 93 REFERENCES CROSSKEY, R. W. & DAVIES, L. 1972. The identities of Simulium lineatum (Meigen), S. latipes (Meigen) and S. vernum Macquart (Diptera: Simulii- dae). Entomologist’s Gaz. vol. 23. pp. 249-258. CUPP, E. W. & GORDON. A. E. (eds.), 1983. Notes on the systematics, distri- bution, and bionomics of black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in the north- eastern United States. Search: Agriculture, No. 252 [Sspp: DAVIES, L. 1966. The taxonomy of British black-flies (Diptera: Simuliidae). Trans. R. entomol. Soc. Lond. vol. 118, pp. 413-511. EDWARDS, F. W. 1915. On the British species of Simulium.—I. The adults. Bull. entomol. Res. vol. 6, pp. 23-42. ——— 1920. On the British species of Simulium.—Il. The early stages; with corrections and additions to part I. Bull entomol Res. vol. 11, pp. 211-246. LAIRD, M. (ed.) 1981. Blackflies: the future for biological methods in integrated control. xii+399 pp. Academic Press, London etc. MACQUART, J. 1826. Insectes Dipteéres du nord de la France. Tipulaires. Rec/. Trav. Soc. Sci. Agric. Lille 1823-1824, pp. 59-224. MEIGEN, J. W. 1804. Klassifikazion und Beschreibung der europdischen zweifliigligen Insekten. (Diptera Linn.) Vol. 1, part 1, xxviii+152 pp. Reichard, Braunschweig [= Brunswick]. —— 1818. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliige- ligen Insekten. Vol. 1, xxxvi+ 332 pp. Forstmann, Aachen. PETERSON, B. V. 1977. The black flies of Iceland (Diptera: Simuliidae). Can. Entomol. vol. 109, pp. 449-472. RAASTAD, J. E. 1979. Fennoscandian black-flies (Diptera, Simuliidae): annotated list of the species and their gross distribution. Rhizocrinus, vol. 1; ppel=28: RIVOSECCHI, L. 1978. Simuliidae Diptera Nematocera. Fauna d'Italia, vol. 13, viii+ 533 pp. Calderini, Bologna. ZWICK, H. 1974. Faunistisch-dkologische und taxonomische Untersuchungen an Simuliidae (Diptera), unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Arten des Fulda-Gebietes. Ahh. senckenb. naturforsch. Ges., vol. 533, pp. 1-116. —1976. Zur Kenntnis der Kriebelmticken-Fauna (Simuliidae, Diptera) Ostereichs. Z. ArbGem. ést. Ent.. vol. 2a Dp. 73—77. —— 1978. Simuliidae. Pp. 396-403 in Illies, J. (ed.), Limnofauna Euro- paea, 2nd edit., xvii+ 532 pp., Fischer, Stuttgart and New York: Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam. —— & CROSSKEY, R. W. [1981]. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae) described by J. W. Meigen. Aquatic Insects, vol. 2 (1980), pp. 225-247. [Work issued in 1981 and not in the nominal year of 1980.] 94 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 CHOEROPSIS LEIDY, 1852 (ARTIODACTYLA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2407 By Robert M. Schoch and Spencer G. Lucas ( Yale University, P.O. Box 6666, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, U.S.A.) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress a name, which so long as it remains an available name, represents a potential threat to the often used and widely accepted generic name of the pygmy hippopotamus, Choeropsis Leidy, 1852. 2. S.G. Morton (1844, p. 15) proposed the binomen Hippopota- mus minor for the skull of a small, extant hippopotamus from western Africa. With regard to this proposal, Morton (1849, p. 235) later quoted a long personal letter from H. Falconer who stated that ‘Cuvier had preoccupied the specific name of H. minor for this small European fossil species, which he called both H. minor and H. minutus.’ Although Falconer’s statement technically was inaccurate (Desmarest, 1822, p. 388 named H. minor), Morton (1849, p. 232) proposed the name H. liberiensis Morton, 1849 to replace H. minor Morton, 1844. Since H. minor Morton, 1844 was a junior primary homonym of H. minor Desmarest, 1822, H. minor Morton, 1844 is permanently invalid (Art. 59a), and Morton (1849) correctly replaced it with H. liberiensis Morton, 1849. 3. J. Leidy (1852a, p. 52) removed H. /liberiensis Morton, 1849 from Hippopotamus Linnaeus, 1758 and made it the type species of the new genus Choerodes Leidy, 1852. Leidy (1852b, p. 213) later proposed the new generic name Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 to replace the name Choerodes Leidy, 1852 because he believed Choerodes was preoccupied by Chaerodes White, 1846 (type species C. trachyscelides White, 1846), an insect genus. 4. White’s (in White & Butler, 1846, p. 12) original spelling of the name Chaerodes used an unambiguous ligature, but Leidy’s (1852a, p. 52) original spelling of the name Choerodes used an ambiguous ligature. Thus, for example, MacAlister (1873, p. 494) spelled the name of Leidy’s taxon ‘Chaerodes’. Nevertheless, on the same page in Leidy, 1852a, as the original spelling of Choerodes, the same ligature is used to spell ‘Phoenixville’, a town in Pennsylvania (U.S.A.). This indicates that ‘Choerodes’, not ‘Chaerodes’, was the correct original spelling of Choerodes Leidy, 1852. This conclusion also is supported by the fact that Leidy, 1852a, probably derived the name Choerodes, and later (Leidy, 1852b) the name Choeropsis, from the Greek ‘choiros’ (‘pig’), normally written as choeros or choerus (for example, the names of the extant hogs Hylochoerus and Phacochoerus). Since Choerodes Leidy, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 95 1852 differs from Chaerodes White, 1846 in one letter, the two names are not, as Leidy believed, homonyms (Art. 56a). Therefore, Leidy (1852b, p. 213) need not have replaced Choerodes with Choeropsis. 5. The generic name Choeropsis Leidy, 1852, however, has been cited repeatedly in the zoological literature since Leidy, 1852b. Pertinent examples include Milne-Edwards (1868-1874, p. 44), Ritchie (1930, p. 204), Cristino (1958, p. 389), Sidney (1965, p. 119), Corbet (1969, p. 387), Saban (1971, p. 306), Olivier (1975, p. 211) and Walker (1975, p. 1370). In addition, the name Choeropsis is widely known and appears on labels in the many zoological gardens where pygmy hippopotami are displayed. 6. Therefore, recognition and validation of the name Choerodes Leidy, 1852 and its substitution for the well-known name Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 do not appear to be in the best interests of stability and universality of the zoological nomenclature. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Choerodes Leidy, 1852 for the purposes of the Law of Prior- ity but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Hippopotamus liber- iensis Morton, 1849, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name /iberiensis Morton, 1849, as published in the binomen Hippopotamus liberiensis (specific name of the type species of Choeropsis Leidy, 1852), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Choerodes Leidy, 1852, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CORBET, G. B. 1969. The taxonomic status of the pygmy hippopotamus, Choeropsis liberiensis, from the Niger delta. J. Zool., Lond. vol. 158(3), pp. 387-394. CRISTINO, J. J. DE SA E MELO 1958. Statut des ongulés en Guinée Portu- gaise. Mammalia vol. 22, pp. 387-389. DESMAREST, A. G. 1822. Mammalogie ou description des espéces de Mam- miferes. Partie 2, contenant les ordres des Rongeurs, des Edentés, des Pachydermes, des Ruminans et des Cétacés. Paris, pp. 277-555. LEIDY, J. 1852a. [Some remarks upon the comparative osteology and dentition of the Hippopotamus]. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 6, p. 52. 1852b. On the osteology of the head of Hippopotamus, and a description of the osteological characters of a new genus of Hippopotamidae. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, (2), vol. 2, pp. 207-224. 96 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 MACALISTER, A. 1873. The anatomy of Chaeropsis liberiensis. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. (2) vol. 1, pp. 494-500. MILNE-EDWARDS, M. A. 1868. Observations sur l’hippopotame de Libéria, pp. 43-66 in MILNE-EDWARDS, H. 1868-1874, Recherches pour servir a l'histoire naturelle des mammiferes. Paris (Masson), 394 pp. MORTON, S. G. 1844. On a supposed new species of Hippopotamus. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 2, pp. 14-17. ———1849. Additional observations on a new living species of Hippopotamus. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, (2) vol. 1, pp. 231-239. OLIVIER, R. C. D. 1975. Aspects of skin physiology in the pigmy hippopota- mus Choeropsis liberiensis. J. Zool., Lond. vol. 176, pp. 211-213. RITCHIE, J. 1930. Distribution of the pigmy hippopotamus. Nature vol. 126, pp. 204-205. SABAN, R. 1971. La musculature peauciére de la téte et du cou chez Hippopo- tamus amphibius L. 1758. Gegenbaurs Morph. Jahrb. vol. 116(3), pp. 303-321. SIDNEY, J. 1965. The past and present distribution of some African ungulates. Trans. zool. Soc. Lond. vol. 30, pp. 1-396. WALKER, E. P. 1975. Mammals of the World (3rd edn.) Volume 2. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, pp. 647-1500. WHITE. A. & BUTLER, A. G. 1846. Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Erebus and Terror; Insects. Janson, London, 24pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 97 CENTRURUS LIMPIDUS KARSCH, 1879 AND CENTRUROIDES ORNATUS POCOCK, 1902 (ARACHNIDA, SCORPIONES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2446 By Oscar F. Francke (Department of Biological Sciences and The Museum, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, U.S.A.) The objective of this request is to ask the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress a specific name because of the confusion that the adoption of the name would create, and because it has not been used as a valid name for more than 100 years. 2. Thorell, 1877, pp. 151-152 described Centrurus olivaceus and stated that: ‘Patria: America Septentrionalis. Exempla pauca siccata, ex California, in Mus. Holm. asservata examinavi.’ The collector of the specimens is not known. 3. The generic name Centrurus Ehrenberg, 1828, is a nomen nudum (Pocock, 1902b), but the name is available under Article |6a(v) of the Code from C. L. Koch, 1838 who described the single new species C. galbineus. 4. The combination Centrurus olivaceus has not been mentioned in the literature since Thorell’s original description. 5. The combination Centruroides olivaceus (Thorell), has been mentioned in the literature only three times since 1877, and none of these constitutes usage in the meaning of Article 79b; (a) Kraepelin (1899) included C. olivaceus as a questionable synonym of Centruroides infamatus (C. L. Koch,. 1845), from west-central Mexico; (b) Pocock (1902a) and (c) Stahnke & Calos (1977) placed C. olivaceus as a ques- tionable synonymn of Centruroides vittatus (Say, 1821), from the south- eastern United States. 6. Five dried, pinned specimens of C. olivaceus studied by Thorell are deposited in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet in Stockholm. They represent two different species of Centruroides, neither of which is known to occur in California. 7. The larger of the syntypes, an adult female with a carapace length of 6-0 mm, is missing both pedipalp chelae and the telson; both pedipalp tibiae, metasomal segment V, and the pectines are severely mutilated. Nonetheless, it is identifiable as being conspecific with Centruroides limpidus (Karsch, 1879). Hoffman (1932) recognized two subspecies of C. lJimpidus: the nominate subspecies and C. limpidus tecomanus Hoffman, 1932, separable primarily by the extent of develop- ment of the subaculear tubercle in adults. Since the syntype of C. oliva- ceus under consideration lacks the telson, it is not possible to assign it to a subspecific taxon. 98 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 8. Centruroides limpidus (sensu lato) is considered to be one of the dangerous scorpions to man because of the toxicity of its venom (Keegan, 1980), and the name has been used repeatedly in the literature. The following references from the last 50 years serve as examples, and satisfy the requirements of Article 79b: Hoffman, 1932 (taxonomy), Hoffman, 1938 (geographic distribution), Hoffman & Nieto Roaro, 1939 (venoms), Sergent, 1949 (venoms), del Pozo, 1949 (venoms), Baerg, 1961 (medical importance), Monroy Velazco & Monroy Nieto, 1961 (general), Glenn et al, 1962 (venoms), Mazzotti, 1963a, 1963b, 1964, 1966, 1973 (biology), Mazzotti et al, 1961 (effects of gamma radiation), Whittemore & Keegan, 1963 (medical importance), Diaz- Najera, 1964 (distribution), Diaz-Najera, 1966 (general), Diaz-Najera, 1975 (distribution), Bucherl, 1971 (venoms), Wheeling & Keegan, 1972 (venoms), Stahnke & Calos, 1977 (identification), Keegan, 1980 (medical importance). 9. The other four syntypes of C. olivaceus represent three adult females (carapace lengths of 5-5, 5-2, and 4-9 mm respectively), and a juvenile male (carapace length 3-8 mm), and are referable to Centrur- oides ornatus Pocock, 1902. 10. Most authors consider C. ornatus to be a subspecies of Centruroides infamatus (C. L. Koch, 1845), and both the nominate subspecies and C. i. ornatus, are also of considerable medical import- ance. The epithet ornatus, either in a binominal or a trinominal combination, has been used sufficiently in the past 50 years to satisfy Article 79b. Examples are: Hoffman, 1932 (taxonomy), Hoffman, 1938 (geographic distribution), Monroy Velazco & Monroy Nieto, 1961 (general), Diaz-Najera, 1964 and 1975 (distribution), Diaz-Najera, 1966 (general), Bucherl, 1971 (medical importance), Stahnke & Calos, 1977 (identification), and Keegan, 1980 (general). The suppression of nomina dubia is not a desirable course of action in most cases; once the under- lying circumstances have been explained, most such names can be left on one side, since it is clear that they cannot be interpreted unless a neotype is designated. But that may not always be a desirable or (as here—see Article 75b, olivaceus is not in general use—) a legitimate course. Moreover, the name is a potential threat to the stability of the names of four subspecies of medical importance. On these grounds its suppression is clearly desirable. 11. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (i) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name olivaceus Thorell, 1877, as published in the binomen Centrurus olivaceus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy;’ (ii) to place the following specific names: a. limpidus Karsch, 1879, as published in the binomen Centrurus limpidus, and Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 99 b. ornatus Pocock, 1902, as published in the binomen Centruroides ornatus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (111) to place the name olivaceus Thorell, 1877, as published in the binomen Centrurus olivaceus, and as suppressed by use of the plenary powers in (i) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BAERG, W. J. 1961. Scorpions: Biology and effect of their venom. Arkansas Agr. Expt. Stat. Bull. No. 649, 34 pp. BUCHERL, W. 1971. Classification, Biology, and Venom Extraction of Scor- pions. Vol. III, pp. 317-347, in Venomous Animals and their Venoms, Biicherl, W. & Buckley, E. R. (eds.). Academic Press, New York. DIAZ-NAJERA, A. 1964. Alacranes de la Republica Mexicana. Identificacion de ejemplares capturados en 235 localidades. Rev. Inst. Salubr. Enferm. Trop. Mexico, vol. 24, pp. 15-30. — 1966. Alacranes de la Republica Mexicana. Clave para identificar especies de Centrurus (Scorpionida, Buthidae). Rev. Invest. Salud. Publ. México, vol. 26, pp. 109-123. — 1975. Listas y datos de distribution geografica de los alacranes de México. Rey. Invest. Salud Publ. México, vol. 35, pp. 1-36. EHRENBERG, C. G. 1828. Symbolae physicae seu Icones et descriptiones Animalium Evertebratorum... (Arachnoidea, pp. 115-126, 2 pls.). ex Officina Academica, Berolini. GLENN, W. G., KEEGAN, H. L. & WHITTEMORE, F. W. 1962. Intergeneric relationships among various scorpion venoms and antivenins. Science No. 135, pp. 434-435. HOFFMANN, C. C. 1932. Monografias para la Entomologia Médica de Mexico. Monografia No. 2, Los Scorpiones de México. Segunda Parte: Buthidae. An. Jnst. Biol. México, vol. 3, pp. 243-361. — 1938. Nuevas consideraciones acerca de los alacranes de México. An. Inst. Biol. México, vol. 9, pp. 317-337. — & NIETO ROARO, D. 1939. Segunda contribucion al conocimiento de los venenos de los alacranes mexicanos. An. Inst. Biol. México, vol. 10, pp. 83-92. KARSCH, K. 1879. Skorpionologische Beitrage II. Mitt. Muench. entomol. Ver., vol. 3, p. 120. KEEGAN, H. L. 1980. Scorpions of Medical Importance. Univ. Press Missis- sippi, Jackson, Miss. 140 pp. KOCH, C. L. 1838. Die Arachniden. Niirnberg, vol. 4, p. 110. — 1845. Die Arachniden. Niirnberg, vol. 11, 174 pp. KRAEPELIN, K. 1899. Skorpiones und Pedipalpi. Das Tierreich, vol. 8, pp. 1-265. MARX, G. 1889. Arachnida. Scientific results of explorations by the U.S. Fish Commission Steamer ‘Albatros’. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus., vol. 12, pp. 207-211. 100 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 MAZZOTTI, L. 1963a. Descripcion del espermatoforo de la especie Centrur- oides limpidus. Rev. Inst. Salubr. Enferm. Trop. México, vol. 23, pp. 57-59. —1963b. Resistencia de los alacranes a la sumersiOn en agua. Rey. Inst. Salubr. Enferm. Trop. México, vol. 23, pp. 181-183. — 1964. Enemigos de los alacranes. Rey. Inst. Salubr. Enferm. Trop. México, vol. 24, pp. 9-10. ——1966. Estudio sobre los enemigos naturales de los alacranes. Rev. Inst. Salud. Publ. México, vol. 26 pp. 51-55. — 1973. Enemigos de los escorpiones: dos especies de aves de la America tropical (Tucanes). Ann. Parasitol. (Paris) vol. 48, pp. 351-353. — RHODES, R. H., LOPEZ, F. & TELICH, J. 1961. Radiacion con rayos gamma de escorpiones de la especie Centruroides limpidus. Rey. Inst. Salubr. Enferm. Trop. México, vol. 21, pp. 125-127. MONROY VELAZCO, J. & MONROY NIETO, J. M. 1961. Alacranes venenosos de Mexico. Sistematica y distribucion geografica. Morfologia Biologia. Veneno, Sintomatologia. Rev. Mexicana Cien. Med. Biol. 2a Epoca. Nos. 1-6, 30 pp. POCOCK, R. I. 1902a. Arachnida: Scorpiones, Pedipalpi, and Solifugae. Biolo- gia Centrali- Americana. Francis & Taylor, London, p. 26. — 1902b. A contribution to the systematics of Scorpions. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 7, vol. 10, pp. 364-380. POZO, E. C. DEL 1949. Ressemblances et differences dans les actions physiologi- ques des venins des scorpions. Arch. Inst. Pasteur Algiers, vol. 27, pp. 35-39. SAY, T. 1821. An account of the Arachnides of the United States. J. Philadel- phia Acad. Nat. Sci., vol. 1, pp. 59-65. SERGENT, E. 1949. Etude comparative du venin de scorpions mexicains et de scorpions nord-africains. Arch. Inst. Pasteur Algiers. vol. 27, pp. 31-34. STAHNKE, H. L. & CALOS, M. 1977. A key to the species of the genus Centruroides Marx (Scorpiones: Buthidae). Entomol. News, vol. 88, pp. 111-120 THORELL, T. 1877. Etudes Scorpiologiques. Atti Soc. Italiana Sci. Nat., vol. 19, pp. 75-272. WHEELING, C. H. & KEEGAN, H. L. 1972. Effects of a scorpion venom on a tarantula. Toxicon, vol. 10, pp. 305-306. WHITTEMORE, F. W. & KEEGAN, H. L. 1963. Medically important scor- pions in the Pacific region. Pp. 107-110, in Venomous and Poisonous Animals and Noxious Plants of the Pacific Region, Keegan, H. L. & MacFarlane, W. V. (eds.). Pergamon Press, New York. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 101 LEUCASPIS SIGNORET, 1869 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA, DIASPIDIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF LEUCASPIS BURMEISTER, 1835 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA, LEUCOSPIDAE). Z.N.(S.)2448 By E. M. Danzig and I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) Walker, 1834, p. 13, in discussing the genus Leucospis Fabricius, 1775, said in a footnote: ‘Aev« os albus, dys facies. I think with Dumeril [sic] that the name of the genus is derived from these words.’ 2. Burmeister, 1835, p. 47, in reviewing Walker’s 1834 paper, said in a footnote that the generic name is formed from the Greek ‘leu- cos’ and ‘aspis’ and should be spelled Leucaspis. Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835, is clearly an unjustified emendation of Leucospis and therefore an available name. To our knowledge, Leucaspis Burmeister is practi- cally never used now by hymenopterologists as a valid name (see also Morrison & Morrison, 1866, pp. 108-109). 3. Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868, p. 41, also 1869, p. 734) listed in a catalogue of scale insects ‘Leucaspis nob. Gen. n.’ with two species, L. candida and L. signoreti, both nomina nuda. The name Leucaspis is here clearly a nomen nudum, although it is common practice to credit the name to ‘Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868’. 4. Signoret, 1869a, 14 April, p. 865, listed Leucaspis with pini Hartig and the reference ‘C. pini Hart. Jahr. tiber die Forsh. des Forstwess. (1839), 642’. Despite some errors in this reference (‘C[occus|’ instead of Aspidiotus, ‘Forsh.’ for ‘Fortschritte’ and so on) it is an unambiguous reference to Aspidiotus pini Hartig, 1839, p. 642. This indication (Code, Article 16a(v)) makes the name Leucaspis available. The name is to be credited to Signoret, 1869 and the type species, by monotypy, is Aspidiotus pini Hartig (the other specific name cited in combination with Leucaspis, on p. 872, was ‘L. signoreti Targioni, 1868’ at that time a nomen nudum). 5. Accepting Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 as preoccupied by Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835, Kirkaldy, 1904, p. 257, replaced the junior homonym by ‘Leucodiaspis Signoret, 1869’. This spelling in Signoret’s work (1869b, p. 99) was certainly a lapsus calami for Leucaspis, because it is not indicated as an emendation and is not accepted in later parts of Signoret’s work. Leucodiaspis should be credited to Kirkaldy, 1904, because he made the name available by using it as a replacement name. Although some authors (Lindinger, Zimmermann, Zahradnik) followed Kirkaldy, a large majority of coccidologists still use Leuwcaspis. Williams 102 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 (1969, p. 330) indicated that an application must be made to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the conservation of Leucaspis in scale insects. 6. The genus Leucaspis Signoret includes nine mostly European or Mediterranean species, some of them economically important as pests of pine. It is the type genus of the subfamily LEUCASPIDINAE Atkinson, 1886, pp. 271, 273-274 (as ‘Leucaspiaria’). 7. An additional problem is the identity of Aspidiotus pini Hartig, the type species of Leucaspis Signoret. Hartig (1839, p. 642) described two new species of Aspidiotus injurious to pine in Germany, but he mixed up the sexes (a possibility that he himself did not exclude). It is clear from his original descriptions that A. pini Hartig = Leucaspis sp. male + Nuculaspis abietis (Schrank, 1776), female; A. flavus Hartig = Nuculaspis abietis male + Leucaspis sp. female. Those parts of the descriptions that are based on Leucaspis sp. fit two or three species of this genus occurring in Germany (Lindinger, 1906). Nothing is known of the fate of Hartig’s scale-insect material and it is most probable that it is all lost. Enquiries were made of two institutions (Forstliche Hochschule, Eberswalde, DDR and Zoologisches Museum, Munich, BRD) which, at least before World War II had some remnants of Hartig’s collections of insects in other groups, but no answer was received from Eberswalde and none of Hartig’s scale-insect material was found in Munich (Dr M. Baehr, in correspondence). 8. In 1870 Signoret published a detailed description of Leucaspis pini Hartig. The name has been used consistently since then for the same species by nearly all authors, including those of the latest mono- graphs (Balachowsky, 1953; Borchsenius, 1966). Another point of view (Lindinger, 1906; 1943) is that Aspidiotus pini Hartig should be treated as a nomen dubium in Leucaspis and that the species named L. pini by Signoret should receive another name. Morrison & Morrison, 1966, p. 109, said ‘it seems preferable to fix the Hartig name in this [generally accepted] status’. 9. For this purpose we here designate a neotype of Aspidiotus pini Hartig, a female surrounded by a black circle in a preparation labelled ‘Germania: Triglitz, Pinus sylvestris, 10.1V.09’ and preserved in the Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad. A corresponding neotype label will be added after publica- tion. Triglitz is about 100 km from Berlin, in the vicinity of which Hartig apparently collected his material. A female (not a male) is proposed as neotype because modern taxonomy of the scale insects is based on females. 10. In accordance with the above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 103 (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835 and all uses of that name prior to its use by Signoret, 1869, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Aspidiotus pini Hartig, 1839, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name pini Hartig, 1839, as published in the binomen Aspidiotus pini (specific name of type species of Leucaspis Signoret, 1869) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name LEUCASPIDINAE Atkin- son, 1886 (as ‘Leucaspiaria’) (type genus Leucaspis Signoret, 1869) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the name Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835 as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ATKINSON, E. T. 1886. On the homopterous family Coccidae. J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal. vol. 55, pp. 267-298. BALACHOWSKY, A. 1953. Les cochenilles de France, d'Europe, du nord de l'Afrique, et du bassin mediterranéen, vol. 7, pp. 735-929. Paris. BORCHSENIUS, N. S. 1966. 4 catalogue of the armoured scale insects (Diaspi- doidea) of the world, 499 pp. Moscow and Leningrad. BURMEISTER, H. 1835. Bericht iiber die Fortschritte der Entomologie im Jahre 1834. Arch. Naturgesch., Jahrg. 1, Bd. 2, pp. 7-74. HARTIG, T. 1839. Jahresberichte iiber die Fortschritte der Forstwissenschafi und forstlichen Naturkunde im Jahre 1836 und 1837 nebst Original- Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete dieser Wissenschaften. Jahrg. 1, Heft 4, pp. 640-646. KIRKALDY, G. W. 1904. Bibliographical notes on the Hemiptera, No. 11. Entomologist, vol. 37, pp. 254-258. LINDINGER, L. 1906. Die Schildlausgattung Leucaspis. Jahrb. Hamb. wiss. Anst., vol. 23 (1905), Beiheft 3 (Hamburg. bot Staatsint., Abt. Pflanzens- chutz, 8), 60 pp. 1943. Verzeichnis der Schildlaus-Gattungen, I. Nachtrag, (Homoptera Coccoidea). Z. wien. entomol. Ges., vol. 28. pp. 217-224. MORRISON, H. & MORRISON, E. R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of the scale insects. U.S. Dept. Agric. misc. publ. No. 1015, 206 pp. SIGNORET, V. 1869a. Essai sur les cochenilles (Homoptéres-Coccides), 2¢ partie. Ann. Soc. entomol. France (4) vol. 8, pp. 829-876. ——— 1869b. Ditto, 3° partie. bid. vol. 9, pp. 97-104. ——— 1870. Ditto, 6° partie. Ibid. vol. 10, pp. 91-110. 104 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 TARGIONI-TOZZETTI, A. 1868. Introduzione alla seconda memoria per gli studi sulle cocciniglie, e catalogo dei generi e delle specie della famiglia dei Coccidi. Atti Soc. ital. Sci. nat. vol. 11 for 1869, pp. 694-738. WALKER, F. 1834. Monographia Chalciditum (continued). Entomol. Mag. vol. 2, pp. 13-39. WILLIAMS, D. J. 1969. The family-group names of the scale insects. Bull. brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Entomol., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 315-341. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 105 TOMIOPSIS BENEDIKTOVA, 1956 (SPIRIFERIDA, BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2451 By N. W. Archbold and G. A. Thomas (Department of Geology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia 3052). E. D. Cope (1893, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., vol. 31, pp. 317-318) proposed the name Jomiopsis for a genus of fossil edentate mammal, of Tertiary age, with type species 7. ferruminatus Cope, 1893 (by origi- nal designation), based on a single tooth from the ‘Neocene?’ (sic) of the Lapara Creek in Western Texas, U.S.A. 2. R. N. Benediktova (1956, Voprosy Geologii Kuzbassa, |, Materialy Vtorogo Soveshchaniya po Stratigrafii Uglenosnykh Otlozhe- nil, pp. 169-174) proposed the name Tomiopsis for a genus of fossil spiriferid brachiopod, of Carboniferous age, with type species Brachy- thyris kumpani Yanischevsky (1935, Uchenye Zapiski Leningrad. Gosud. Un-ta, Vyp. 1, pp 68-69, by original designation). 3. R. A. Doescher (1981, Smithson. Contrib. Paleobiol., No. 42, p. 40) noted that Tomiopsis Benediktova (1956) is pre-occupied by Tomiopsis Cope (1893) and hence is a junior homonym, but he did not propose a replacement name. 4. Since 1893, the name Tomiopsis Cope has not been used for a redescription or discussion of Cope’s genus and no additional species have been referred to the genus. The name has been listed in the following indices: (1) Hay, I. P. 1902. Bull. U.S. geol. Surv., vol. 179, p. 581; (2) Waterhouse, C. O. 1902 Index Zoologicus (Zoological Record Index Volume, 1880-1900, p. 378); (3) Palmer, T. S. 1904 Index Generum Mammalium. A list of the genera and families of mammals. N.A. Fauna, No. XXIII, pp. 682, 822; (4) Montgomery, T. H. 1904. Biol. Bull. vol. 8, p. 57. (5) Hay, O. P. 1930. Publ. Carnegie Inst., 390, vol. 2, p. 417; (6) Neave, S. A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 4, p. 506. 5. Since 1956 the name Tomiopsis Benediktova has been widely used in the palaeontological literature as a valid name for a brachiopod taxon, both in comparisons with other genera and with the description of additional species. The name is now well established for a widely distributed Carboniferous and Permian brachiopod genus. Significant publications that contain discussions of the genus and/or the description of species include: (1) Sokolskaya, A. N. 1959. Paleont. Zhur., No. 1, pp. 59-67; (2) Sokolskaya, A. N. 1962. Trudy Sib. nauchno-issled. In-ta Geol. Geofiz. i. Mineral. Syr’ya (SNIIGGIMS), Vyp. 21, Tom 3, pp. 177-178; 106 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 (3) Ustritskiy, V. I. & Chernyak, G. E. 1963. Trudy nauchno- issled. In-ta Geol. Arktiki (NUGA), vol. 134, pp. 118-119; (4) Sarycheva, T. G., Sokolskaya, A. N., Beznosova, G. A. & Maximova, S. W. 1963. Trudy Paleont. In-ta, Akad- Nauk SSSR, Vyp. 95, pp. 306-308; (5) Waterhouse, J. B. 1965. Trans. roy. Soc. New Zealand, Geol. vol. 3 (12), p. 169; (6) Pitrat, C. W. 1965. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (RC; Moore, ed.); part H; vol..2. p., 727; (7) Kotlyar, G. V. & Popeko, L. I. 1967. Zapiski Zabaikal. Fil. Geog. Ob-va SSSR, Vyp. 28, Trudy otdel. geol., Vyp. 5, pp. 185-195; (8) Kotlyar, G. V. 1968. Ezheg. Vses. Paleont. Ob-va, Tom 18, pp. 225-234; (9) Czarniecki, S. 1969. Prace Museum Ziemi, vol. 16, pp. 309-311; (10) Waterhouse, J. B. 1971. J. Paleont., vol. 45, pp. 68-80. (11) Zavodovsky, V. M. & Stepanov, D. L. 1971. In. Polevoi Atlas Permskoi Fauny i Flory Severo- Vostoka SSSR, pp. 175-177; (12) Termier, G., Termier, H., Lapparent, A. F. de & Marin, P. 1974. Doc. Lab. Geol., Fac. Sci., Lyon, H.S., vol. 2, pp. 70-74; (13) Lee, Li & Ku Feng, 1976. Jn, A Pictorial Handbook of Palaeontology for Northern China; Inner Mongolia Section, Part 1, Palaeozoic Section. Geol. Publ. House, Peking, p. 302; (14) Waterhouse, J. B. & Mutch, A. R. 1978. New Zealand J. Geol. Geophys., vol. 21, pp. 521-522; (15) Waterhouse, J. B. 1978. Palaeontographica, Abt. A, vol. 160, p. 58; (16) Kalashnikov, N. V. 1980. Brakhiopody Verkhnego Paleo- zoya Evropeiskogo Severa SSSR. ‘Nauka’, Leningrad, pp. 97-98; 6. We believe that the interests of stability in nomenclature would be best served by the conservation of the name Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 by exercise of the plenary powers. 7. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Tomiopsis Cope, 1893, and all uses of that name prior to its use by Benediktova in 1956, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956, (gender: feminine) type species, by original designation, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 107 Brachythyris kumpani Yanischevsky, 1935, as conserved 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 kumpani Yanischevsky, 1935, as published in the binomen Brachythyris kumpani (specific name of type species of Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Tomiopsis Cope, 1893, as sup- pressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; 8. Weare indebted to Dr T. Rich, Curator of Vertebrate Palaeon- tology, Museum of Victoria, for his assistance regarding the use of the name Jomiopsis Cope, 1893. 108 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 CAECILITIDAE IN AMPHIBIA AND INSECTA (PSOCOPTERA): ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.)2333 (see vol. 40, pp. 124-128) By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology) and John T. Polhemus (Associate in Entomology, Museum, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.) It is strange that this problem of family-group name homonymy has been known for so long (since 1929) without definitive resolution, in view of the repeated efforts by entomologists to remove the homonymy. We thus support enthusiastically this proposal to dispose of the problem officially and definitively. Our only suggestion is that the desir- ability be considered of keeping the changed family name as closely corresponding to the spelling of its type genus as possible, not only to promote ease of association but also to minimise implication of existence of a nominal type genus that in fact does not exist. That is to say, the nominal type-genera of the two families are different, as they would have to be: Caecilia of amphibians, Caecilius of insects. It would be useful for the changed family name to reflect the difference. Additionally, there is no nominal genus Caecilionis (or -us, or -a), which is to some extent implied by a rendition of the changed family name as CAECILIONIDAE, and proposal of that generic name in the future, for any group of animals, would forever be at least strongly contraindicated, although sure to be unwitting since the name would not be listed in any index as occupied. For these reasons we suggest that a family name change of clearer and more proper correlation with type genus than CAECILIONIDAE, based on Caecilius, would be CAECILIAIDAE, based on Caecilia. That alternative would leave the automatically properly formed and familiar name CAECILIIDAE for the insect family, and since that family is large and widely distributed there is no reason on grounds of ‘significance’ to seek to preserve the familiar family name for the amphibian group rather than the insect group. Furthermore, a family name created from the entire name Caecilia is much more euphonious than one from Caecilius (viz., CAECILIUSIDAE). Finally, the anglicized vernacular for members of the insect family would be spared the necessity of rendition as ‘caecilionids’, remaining as ‘caeciliids’, while the members of the amphibian family would need only an insignificant change in their vernacular, viz. ‘caeciliaids’. In this context it might be wished that Gray’s original orthography (CAECILIADAE, hence ‘caeciliads’) be accepted as correct by use of the plenary powers of the Commission, as a uniquely condoned exception to Art. 29 of the Code. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 109 Assuming that such an exception would never be approved, we accordingly suggest that as an alternative to the previous proposal number (1) that the International Commission on Zoological Nomencla- ture use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758, for the purposes of Art. 29, is Caecilia, thereby creating for it the family name CAECILIAIDAE. If approved, the original proposals under headings number (2) and (3) would remain with our endorsement, but those under heading (4), replacement of names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, would have to be changed as follows: (a) CAECILIIDAE (ex CAECILIINI) Kolbe, 1880 (type genus Caecilius Curtis, 1837); and (b) CAECILIAIDAE (ex CAECILIADAE) Gray, 1825 (type genus Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758). Likewise the proposal number (5) would be altered to read: to place the family-group name CAECILIADAE Gray, 1825 (an incorrect original spelling of CAECILIAIDAE through the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 110 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 LASPE YRESIA HUBNER, [1825], (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF CYDIA HUBNER, [1825]. Z.N.(S.)2421 By V. I. Kuznetsov and I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, Leningrad 199164, USSR) Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825], pl. 45, p. 381 (type species Tortrix corollana Hiibner, 1823, by subsequent designation by Fernald, 1908, p. 10) is the name commonly used for a genus of tortricid moths contain- ing more than a hundred species and having nearly worldwide distri- bution. The genus includes many species of economic importance, among them the codling moth, L. pomonella (Linnaeus, 1758), the most important pest of apples. The literature on this genus is very voluminous and includes thousands of papers and monographs on this species. 2. Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] is a junior homonym of Laspeyresia R.L., 1817, p. 288, an unjustified emendation of Laspeyria Germar, 1810 (Lepidoptera, NOCTUIDAE) (both names were coined to honour J. H. Laspeyres, a German lepidopterist). Laspeyresia R.L., 1817 seems never to have been used as a valid name in noctuids. 3. Cydia Hiibner, [1825] (type species, by subsequent designation by Walsingham, 1897, p. 130, Phalaena pomonella Linnaeus, 1758, p. 538) is a subjective synonym of Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825]. Both names were published in the same work and their relative precedence was established by Kennel, 1908, pp. 49-50. Kennel, in discussing the problem of the correct name for the genus in question, rejected Cydia as having been used for a different genus and accepted Laspeyresia as the valid name. The corresponding text is as follows (some words omitted): ‘Schwieriger...ist das Auffinden des fiir die Gattung giiltigen altesten Namens. Bei Hiibner (1826) [i-e. [1825]] kommen Vertreter derselben in 6 verschiedenen Gattungen vor: Enarmonia, Cydia, Epinotia, Hemimene, Pammene, Laspeyresia. Der “alteste Name _ ware Enarmonia... Meyrick aber... gebraucht den Namen Enarmonia fur eine andere Gruppe und ihm folgt Walsingham . .. Dadurch wird dieser alteste Name fiir unsere Gattung unbrauchbar. Dasselbe gilt flir den Namen Cydia Hb... Meyrick hat vorher schon den Namen fir eine andere Gattung verwendet, die im wesentlichen, aber nicht ganz, der Gattung Semasia (H.-S.) Reb. entspricht; diese Doppelverwendung verbietet die weitere Beniitzung fiir unsere Gruppe. Epinotia, Hemimene und Pammene sind gleichfalls anderweitig verwandt und so bleibt denn noch Laspeyresia ... ich nenne die Gattung Laspeyresia (Hb.) Ken.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 111 4. Brown, 1979, p. 565, wrongly regarded as first reviser Walsingham, 1914, pp. 258-259, who did the reverse and regarded Laspeyresia as a junior synonym of Cydia. 5. The generic name Carpocapsa Treitschke, 1829, p. 231 (type species Phalaena pomonella Linnaeus, 1758 (as pomonana Denis & Schiffermiiller, an unjustified emendation) by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1831, folio 352) is a junior objective synonym of Cydia. It was widely used for this genus in the 19th century and is still sometimes used today. 6. L. corollana and L. pomonella, the type species of Laspeyresia and Cydia respectively, belong to the same subgenus although in different species groups or sections (Danilevsky & Kuznetsov, 1968). 7. Kennel’s acceptance of Laspeyresia was followed in taxo- nomic monographs (Heinrich, 1926; Benander, 1950; Van Deurs, 1956; Obraztsov, 1959; Danilevsky & Kuznetsov, 1968; Bentinck & Diakonoff, 1968; Kuznetsov, 1978, etc.) and in many works dealing with economic importance, control, physiology, etc. Carpocapsa is gradually fading from usage, although occasional uses of it can still be traced today. 8. Bradley, 1972, because of the homonymy of Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] with Laspeyresia R.L., 1817, rejected the first name in favour of Cydia. He was followed by Razowsky, 1976, 1977; Bradley, Tremewan & Smith, 1979, and by some other authors. Cydia has been adopted by the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. Brown, 1979, advocated the use of Cydia on account of the incorrect acceptance of Walsingham as first reviser. 9. According to Brown, 1979, the Abstracts of Entomology listed 252 uses of Laspeyresia, 42 of C ydia and 30 of Carpocapsa between January 1974 and July 1978. This is clear evidence that Laspeyresia dominates even in recent years. In order to conserve this usage the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to: (1) use its plenary powers to Suppress the generic name Laspeyresia R.L., 1817, and all uses of that name prior to its use by Hubner, [1825], for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonomy; (2) place the generic name Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Fernald, 1908, Tortrix corollana Hiibner, 1823, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name corollana Hubner, 1823, as published in the binomen Tortrix corollana (specific name of type species of Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825]) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) place the generic name Laspeyresia R.L., 1817, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. ki2 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 REFERENCES BENANDER, F. 1950. Vecklarfjarilar, Tortricina. In Svensk Insectenfauna, vol. 39, Fjarilar, Lepidoptera, pt 10, 173 pp., 9 pls, Stockholm. BENTINCK, G. A. & DIAKONOFF, A. 1968. De Nederlandse Bladrollers (Tortricidae). Monogr. nederl. entomol. Ver., No. 3, 201 pp., 99 pls. BRADLEY, J. P. 1972. Lepidoptera, in Kloet & Hincks, A check list of British Insects, 2nd edit., Handb. Ident. brit. Ins. vol. 2 (2), viii+ 153 pp. ——, TREMEWAN, W. G. & SMITH, A. 1979. British tortricid moths, Tortricidae, Olethreutinae, vili+ 336 pp., 43 pls. London. BROWN, R. L. 1979. The valid generic and tribal names for the Codling Moth, Cydia pomonella (Olethreutinae, Tortricidae). Ann. entomol. Soc. America, vol. 72 no. 4, pp. 565-567. CURTIS, J. 1831. British Entomology, vol. 8, fol. 338-385. London. DANILEVSKY, A. S. & KUZNETSOV, V. I. 1968. Listovertki (Tortricidae). Triba plodozhorki Laspeyresiini. Fauna SSSR n.s. no. 98, Nasekomye tsheshuekrylye, vol. 5, pt. 1, 635 pp. Leningrad. [DENIS, M. & SCHIFFERMULLER, I.], 1775. Systematisches Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Wienergegend, 322+1 pp. Vienna. FERNALD, C. H. 1908. The genera of the Tortricidae and their types, 62 pp. Amherst, Mass. HANNEMANN, H. J. 1961. Kleinschmetterlinge oder Microlepidoptera. |, die Wickler (s. str), Tortricidae. In Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, pt 48, 233 pp. 22 pls, Jena. HEINRICH, C. 1926. Revision of the North American moths of the subfamilies Laspeyresiinae and Olethreutinae. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. no. 132, ._V¥+207 pp., 76 pls. HUBNER, J. 1823. Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge, Tortrices. —— [1825]. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmett., Heft 24. KENNEL, J. VON 1908-1921. Die palaearktischen Tortriciden. Zoologica (Stuttgart), vol. 21, pt. 54, 742 pp., 24 pls (pp. 1-100, 1908). KUZNETSOV, V. I. 1978. 21 Sem. Tortricidae (Olethreutidae, Cochylidae}— listovertki, in Opredelitel nasekomych evropeyskoy tshasti SSSR, vol. 5, pt 1, pp. 193-680, Leningrad. MEYRICK, E. 1895. A handbook of British Lepidoptera, vi+844 pp. London. OBRAZTSOV, N. S. 1959. Die Gattungen der palaearktischen Tortricidae, II, die Unterfamilie Olethreutinae (2), Tijdschr. Entomol., vol. 102, pt 2, pp. 175-216. R.L., 1817. (Review of) die Schmetterlinge von Europa von Ferdinand Ochsenheimer, vierter Band, 1816. Jenaische allg. Literatur- Ztg, vol. 14, fasc. 36, cols 281-288. RAZOWSKI, J. 1976. Phylogeny and system of Tortricidae. Acta zool. Cracov., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 73-120. —— 1977. Catalogue of the generic names used in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera). Acta zool. Cracov., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 207-295. TREITSCHKE, F. 1829. Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, Fortsetzung vol. 7, pas2 il. VAN DEURS, W. 1956. Sommerflugle VIII, Viklere, in Danmarks Fauna, vol. 61, 292 pp. 31 pls. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 113 WALSINGHAM, M. A. 1897. Revision of the West Indian Microlepidoptera with descriptions of the new species. Proc. zool. Soc. London, pp. 54-183. —— 1914. Fam. II Olethreutidae, in Godman & Salvin, Biologia Centr.- Amer., Zool., Lepidoptera Heterocera, vol. 4, pp. 224-266. 114 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 BYRRHUS MURINUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (COLEOPTERA, BY RRHIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF BYRRHUS UNDULATUS AND BYRRHUS RUBIDUS KUGELANN, 1792. Z.N.(S.)2314 By M. Mroczkowski (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) J. G. Kugelann (1792, p. 484) described Byrrhus undulatus from Osterode (now Ostréda, Poland) and Byrrhus rubidus from K6nigsberg (now Kaliningrad, USSR). Since their establishment, B. rubidus has been used only once (Panzer, 1797, p. 14) and B. undulatus only four times (Panzer, 1794, p. 34; 1797, p. 14; Illiger, 1798, p. 94; Duftschmid, 1825, p. 16). Schonherr, (1806, p. 112) synonymised both Kugelann’s species with Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794, p. 437 and this has been accepted ever since (except by Duftschmid, loc. cit.). All Kugelann’s material was destroyed in the Second World War. 2. The specific name murinus has been used by all 19th and 20th century authors. In some works, chiefly monographs and cata- logues (e.g. Dalla Torre, 1911) Kugelann’s names are given as synonyms of it. The nominal species Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794 is the type species, by subsequent designation herein, of Porcinolus Mulsant & Rey, 1869. Porcinolus murinus is a very common species in the whole of Europe and Asia. 3. The following references satisfy the criteria of Article 79b for the conservation of Byrrhus murinus: Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M. & Stefanska, J. 1983. Cat. faunae Poloniae, part 23, vol. 9, p. 194 Fiori, G. 1956. Mem. Mus. civ. St. nat. Verona, vol. 5, p. 281 Haber, A. 1957. Roczn. Nauk LeSn., vol. 20, p. 79 Horion, A. 1955. Entomol. Arb. Mus. Frey (Tutzing bei Miinchen), Sonderband, p. 242 Karczewski, J. 1961. Fol. For. Polonica, A, Warszawa, vol. 6, p. 62 Kloet, G. S. & Hincks, W. D. 1977. Check-list Brit. Ins., 2nd edit., Part 3 revised by R. D. Pope, p. 47 Mroczkowski, M. 1958. In Klucze do oznaczania owadow Polski, vol. 19, pts: 30-51. pe 22 Paulus, H. F. 1970. Ann. Hist.-nat. Mus. nat. Hung., vol. 62, p. 250 —— 1979. Byrrhidae in Die Kdfer Mitteleuropas, vol. 6, p. 345 Silfverberg, H., ed. 1979. Enum. Coleopt. Fennoscand. et Daniae, p. 38. 4. In the light of the above evidence the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 115 (a) undulatus Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus undulatus; (b) rubidus Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus rubidus; (2) to place the generic name Porcinolus Mulsant & Rey, 1869 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designa- tion herein, Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name murinus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Byrrhus murinus (specific name of type species of Porcinolus Mulsant & Rey, 1869) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the two specific names undulatus Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus undulatus, and rubidus Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus rubidus, both as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES DALLA TORRE, K. W. VON 1911. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pt 33, 96 pp. Berlin. DUFTSCHMID, C. 1825. Fauna Austriae, oder Beschreibung der Osterreichis- chen Insecten, etc. pt 3, 289 pp. Linz. FABRICIUS, J. C. 1794. Entomol. syst., emendata et aucta, vol. 4, viii+478 pp. Hafniae. ILLIGER, K. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens, xlii+310 pp. Halle. KUGELANN, J. G. 1792. Neuestes Mag. Liebhaber Entomol. vol. 1, Heft 24, pp. 252-306, 477-512. MULSANT, E. & REY, C. 1869. Hist. nat. coléopt, France, pt 22, Piluliformes, 176 pp., 2 pl. Paris (See also Ann. Soc. linn. Lyon, n.s. vol. 17, pp. 201-382, 2 pls. PANZER, G. W. F. 1794. Deutschlands Insectenfauna oder entomol. Taschenb. ftir das Jahr 1795, 36 +372 pp., 13 pl. Nirnberg. — 1797. Faunae Insectorum Germaniae initia, oder Deutschlands Insecten, Jahrgang 4, Heft 37, 24 sheets, 24 pls. Niirnberg. SCHOENHERR, C. J. 1806. Synonymia Insectorum, vol. 1, pt 1, xxii+294 pp. Stockholm. 116 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 RHOPALOCERUS W. REDTENBACHER, 1842 (COLEOPTERA, COLYDIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF SPART YCERUS MOTSCHULSKY, 1837. Z.N.(S.)2456 By M. Mroczkowski (Zoological Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) In 1837, p. 100, Motschulsky described a new genus Spartycerus for Monotoma? rondanii A. Villa & J. B. Villa, 1833, p. 36 (type species, by monotypy). 2. In 1838, p. 208, Erichson emended Motschulsky’s name to Spartecerus. This was not only an unjustified emendation but also a junior homonym of Spartecerus Schonherr, 1834 (Coleoptera, CURCULIONIDAE). Motschulsky, however, (1840, p. 186) accepted Erichson’s emendation as justified and replaced Spartycerus (and the junior homonym Spartecerus) by the new name 4Apeistus. 3. In 1842, p. 21, W. Redtenbacher described a new genus Rhopalocerus with only one new species, Rhopalocerus setosus (type species, by monotypy). In 1845, L. Redtenbacher synonymised his brother’s name Rhopalocerus with Spartycerus Motschulsky. This is the last known use of Spartycerus as a valid name. 4. In 1846 Agassiz emended Motschulsky’s Apeistus to Apistus. This is not only an unjustified emendation but a junior homonym of Apistus Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829 (Pisces). 5. In 1849, p. 183, L. Redtenbacher synonymised Monotoma? rondanii A. Villa & J. B. Villa, 1833 with Rhopalocerus setosus W. Redtenbacher, 1842, and used the combination Apeistus rondanii as valid. The name Apeistus (or Apistus) was in continuous use for the genus in question up to 1911, when Reitter (p. 108) found that Apistus was preoccupied. He adopted the name Rhopalocerus and after his work, and that of Hetschko, 1930, many coleopterologists used Rhopalocerus as a valid name. That name is now well known and in continuous use as the valid name for the genus in question. 6. In 1899 Ganglbauer established a new tribe APISTINI based on Apistus Agassiz (non Cuvier). After Ganglbauer, 1899, the tribe name APISTINI was used only once, by Schaufuss, 1916. In 1911 Reitter, p. 108, established the new tribe RHOPALOCERINI based on Rhopalo- cerus W. Redtenbacher. Hetschko, 1930, listed five genera in this tribe, for which the name RHOPALOCERINI is in continuous use. The following are examples of the use of these two names in recent years: 1959. Nicolas, J—P. & J-L. Bull. mens. Soc. linn. Lyon, vol. 28, p. 158 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 117 1961. Horion, A. Faunistik der mitteleuropdischen Kdfer, vol. 8, Clavicornia, Part 2, p. 75. Uberlingen—Bodensee. 1964. Siroki, Z. Folia entomol. Hungarica n.s. vol. 17, p. 175 1967. Vogt, H. Colydiidae in Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 7, p. 202. Krefeld. 1969. Viana, M. J. Neotropica, vol. 15, pt 47, p. 99 1977. Dajoz, R. Faune de l'Europe et du bassin Méditerranéen, vol. 8, p. 153. Paris 1982. Burakowski, B. Las Bielanski w Warszawie rezerwat przyrody, p. 180. Warsaw 1982. Lucht, W. Entomol. Blatter, vol. 78, p. 32. 7. According to the provisions of the Code, Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837 is the valid name for this genus, but the last use of that name as a valid name was in 1845. I believe that the interests of stability would best be served by conserving the name Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842, but the suppression of Spartycerus to achieve that end would immediately make its junior objective synonym, Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840 the valid name for the genus. The only uses of that name are as follows: Redtenbacher, L. Fauna austriaca, edit. 1, 1849, p. 21; edit. 2, 1858, p. lxxxi; edit. 3, 1874, p. Ixxxviil Lacordaire, Genera des Coléoptéres, 1854, vol. 2, p. 380 Jacquelin du Val, Genera des Coléoptéres d'Europe, 1859, vol. 2 (4), p. 180 Seidlitz, Fauna baltica, edit. 1, 1872, p. 40 (Gatt.); edit. 2, Lief. 3, 1888, p. 59 (Gatt.) — Fauna transsylvanica, Lief. 3-4, 1889, p. 59 (Gatt.), Apeistus was then replaced by Apistus until 1911, when, as we have seen, the status of that name as a junior homonym was recognised. Apeistus must, however, also be suppressed to gain the desired stability of Rhopalocerus. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic names Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837 and Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Rhopalocerus setosus W. Redtenbacher, 1842, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name rondcnii A. Villa & J. B. Villa, 1833, as published in the binomen Monotoma? rondanii (at present the valid name for the type species of Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 118 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 (4) to place the family-group name RHOPALOCERINI Reitter, 1911 (type genus, Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840, a junior objective synonym of Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (6) to place the family-group name APISTINI Ganglbauer, 1899 (invalid because based on a junior homonym) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES AGASSIZ, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis, viiit+393 pp. Soloduri. CUVIER, G. & VALENCIENNES, A. 1829. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 4, xxvii+518 pp., pls 72-99. Paris. ERICHSON, W. F. 1838. Bericht iiber die Leistungen in der Entomologie wahrend des Jahres 1837. Archiv. fiir Naturges., Jahrg. 4, vol. 2, pp. 187-264. GANGLBAUER, L. 1899. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa, vol. 3, iii+ 1046 pp, 76 figs. Wien. HETSCHKO, A. 1930. Colydiidae in Coleopt. Cat., vol. 15, fasc. 107, 124 pp. Berlin. MOTSCHULSKY, V. 1837. Extrait d’une lettre adressée par M. V. Motschulsky a M. B. Zoubkoff. Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou, for 1837, fasc. 5, pp. 97-124, pl. 7. — 1840. Enumeration systématique des insectes décrits et figurés par T. Victor dans les Mémoires et le Bulletin de la Société impériale de Moscou depuis 1836 jusqu’en 1840. Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou, for 1840, pp. 181-203, pl. 4. REDTENBACHER, L. 1845. Die Gattungen der deutschen Kdfer- Fauna, {12]+178 pp., 2 pls. 1849. Fauna Austriaca, xxvii+ 883 pp. Wien. REDTENBACHER, W. 1842. Quaedam genera et species coleopterorum Archiducatus Austriae nondum descriptorum. 31 pp. Vindobonae. REITTER, E. 1911. Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des deustchen Reiches, vol. 3, 436 pp., 147 figs, pls 81-128. Stuttgart. SCHAUFUSS, C. 1916. Calwer’s Kdferbuch. Einfiihrung in die Kenntnis der Kafer Europas, 6th ed., vol. 1, 709 pp., 250 figs, 3+20 pls. Stuttgart. SCHONHERR, C. J. 1834. Genera et species Curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 2, fasc. 2, 669 pp. Parisiis et Lipsiae. VILLA, A. & VILLA, J. B. 1833. Coleopterorum species novae in catalogo dupletorum extantes, in Coleoptera Europae dupleta. pp. 32-36. Mediolani. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 119 CAP YS HEWITSON (1865), (LEPIDOPTERA, LYCAENIDAE), PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS: A RESTATEMENT OF THE CASE. Z.N.(S.)1748 By Adrian Penrose (Assistant Zoologist, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History) London, England) In October 1966 (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 23, pp. 165-166) an appli- cation to the Commission was published by the late N. D. Riley, ‘Scoptes Hiibner 1819 V. Capys Hewitson 1864 (LEPIDOPTERA: LYCAENIDAEB), a case of a forgotten name’. No comment was received concerning this application, but shortly afterwards, article 23b, the article implicated in the application, was the subject of an investigation by a special committee appointed by the Council of the Commission. No further action was taken by the Commission on Riley’s application. 2. In his original application, Riley did not formulate proposals for action by the Commission. In a comment supporting the four out- standing requests affecting butterfly generic names, C. F. Cowan (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 30, pp. 133-134) laid before the Commission proposals for concluding the application, and these are now incorporated into the present text. 3. Hiibner [1819], in his well known Verzeichnis bekannter Schmetterlinge introduced the generic name Scoptes (p. 111) for a het- erogeneous group of three species which he called Scoptes alpheus Cram, 182, E.F.; S. protumnus Linn. Syst. Pap. 258; and S. crotopus Cram. 390. G.H. In the same work Hiibner also placed protumnus (under its synonym petalus Cram, 243. C.D.) in his new genus Thestor (1.c. p. 73) and crotopus in his new genus Euselasia (1.c. p. 24). 4. In 1864 Hewitson (J/l. Diurn. Lep., vol. 1, p. 59) introduced the generic name Capys and included in it one species only, namely Papilio alpheus Cramer, which automatically became its type species by monotypy. 5. Five years later Butler (1869, Cat. Diurn. Lep. Fabricius Brit. Mus., p. 176) in a footnote to Scoptes Hiibner, adds ‘Capys of Hewitson’. Butler in this work refers only one species, namely Alpheus Cramer, to Scoptes but makes no statement at all as to whether or not he regarded alpheus as the type species of Scoptes. His action cannot be construed as fixing alpheus as the type species of Scoptes. 6. Scudder in 1875 (Proc. American Acad. Arts Sci. Boston, vol. 10, p. 267) in his Sketch of the Generic Names of the Butterflies, recited these facts, but did not select a type species for Scoptes, considering, for reasons that no longer hold good, that this was unnecessary. 120 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 7. Riley was unable to discover any subsequent action by any author that could possibly be accepted as fixing the type species of Scoptes, and could only find two other quotations of the name in the whole of the subsequent literature. The first is by Kirby (1871, Syn. Cat. Diurn. Lep., p. 337) who quotes it as a synonym of Axiocerses Hiibner (1819, l.c., p. 72); the second by Aurivillius (1898, Rhop. Aeth., p. 335, 337) who treats it as a partial synonym of both Capys Hewitson and Leptomyrina Butler 1898, to both of which it is considerably senior. 8. The question at issue therefore is to decide which of the three nominal species originally included in Scoptes by Hiibner should be selected as its type species, bearing in mind the desirability of causing the least possible disturbance to the other generic names involved. 9. If crotopus is selected, then Scoptes becomes a subjective syno- nym of Euselasia, one of the better known genera of RIODINIDAE, and a first reviser choice becomes necessary as between these two names, since according to Hemming (1937, Hiibner, vol. 2, p. 198, 253) both these Hiibnerian names were published ‘early in 1819’; and in all prob- ability a certain amount of taxonomic research would also be necessary. 10. If protumnus is selected, then Scoptes becomes an objective synonym of Thestor, which has protumnus as its type species and is a very well-known Lycaenid generic name, already the subject of con- siderable misuse. Here again, and for precisely the same reason, a first reviser choice would be necessary. 11. If alpheus is selected, then, Scoptes becomes an objective senior synonym of Capys Hewitson, which also has alpheus as its type species and is the current name, and has been for 100 years, for a well known genus of South African Lycaenidae. 12. Whichever of these courses is adopted there will be a risk of disturbance of long accepted practice (first and second choices), or an actual disturbance (third choice). As the consequences of the latter may be avoided by the Commission acting under its plenary powers, the Commission is hereby requested: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all type species designations for the nominal genus Scoptes Hubner [1819], and having done so to nominate Papilio alphaeus Cramer [1777], (Uitl. Kapel- len, vol. 2 (16), p. 31, pl. 182, figs. E.F.) as type species of that genus: (b) to suppress the generic name Scoptes Hiibner, [1819], for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Capys Hewitson. (1865) (gender masculine), type species, by monotypy, Papilio alpheus Cramer, [1777], on the Official List of Generic Names in Zo- ology; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 121 (3) to place the specific name a/pheus Cramer, [1777], as pub- lished in the binomen Papilio alpheus (type species of Capys Hewitson (1865)), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Scoptes Hiibner [1819], and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Of- ficial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zo- ology. A list of ten references to the use of Capys Hewitson, 1864 by five differ- ent authors within the last fifty years is held at the Commission’s office. 122 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 HYLA LACTEA DAUDIN, 1803 (AMPHIBIA): REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2341 By John D. Lynch (School of Life Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, U.S.A.) & William E. Duellman (Museum of Natural History and Department of Systematics and Ecology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A.) In 1768 Laurenti (Synopsin Reptilium ... p. 34) named Hyla lactea and gave a brief diagnosis (= description) based on two specimens, one in the ‘museo Academico Upsaliensi’ and one in the ‘museo Petro- politano’. These type specimens are apparently no longer extant. In 1803 Daudin (Hist. Nat. des Rainettes ... p. 29) considered Laurenti’s Hyla lactea the same as his Hyla hypocondrialis (holotype lost, fide Duellman, 1977, Das Tierreich, vol. 95, p. 161) and for unknown reasons, proposed (p. 30) Hyla lactea Daudin as a new species from ‘America’. The latter is based on Mus. nat. Hist. Paris no. 4870, an adult female. 2. Laurenti, 1768, also named Hyla aurantiaca, based ona figure in Seba (1734, Thesaurus ..., vol. 1, pl. 71, figs. 3). Hyla aurantiaca Laurenti either has been ignored except as a senior primary homonym of H. aurantiaca Daudin (Duellman, 1977, p. 179) or has been viewed as a subjective synonym of Hyla boans (Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. vol. 126, p. 137). Linné (1758, Systema Naturae... 10th ed.,... p. 213) cited no type for Rana boans but his indications included refer- ences to Seba’s figure as well as to one of his earlier works (Linné, 1754, Mus. Adolph. Frider, ... 1, p. 47). A type specimen for Linné’s (1754) taxon was found (Lonnberg, 1896, Bihang Svenska, Vet.-Akad. Handl., vol. 22, p. 13; Andersson, 1900, Bihang Svenska. Vet.-Akad. Handl., vol. 26, p. 17; Mertens, 1940, Zool. Anz. vol. 132, p. 195) and has been termed the ‘holotype’ (Mertens, 1972, Senckenberg. Biol. vol. 53, p. 197; Duellman, 1977, p. 39) but is best viewed as the lectotype for Rana boans (rendering Rivero’s, 1961, p. 137, suggestion that Hyla aurantiaca Laurenti and Rana boans Linné are objective synonyms moot). Daudin, 1803, proposed his own Hyla aurantiaca as a new species based on Mus. nat. Hist. nat. Paris no. 4871, an adult female. 3. Duméril & Bibron (1841, Erpétologie Générale..., vol. 8, p. 612) first proposed that Hyla aurantiaca Daudin and Hyla lactea Daudin were identical, a view consistently held by systematists interested in neotropical frogs. In 1838, Tschudi (Classif Batra- chier ... p. 71) proposed a new genus, Sphaenorhynchus, based on Hyla lactea Daudin (Sphaenorhynchus Tschudi, 1838, is not a junior homo- nym of Sphenorynchus Lichtenstein, 1823, Aves, as alleged by Lutz & Lutz, 1938, Anais Acad. Bras. Sci., vol. 10, p. 178). Most workers in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 123 the last century have recognised the genus although under a variety of names all of which employed Daudin’s Hyla lactea as the type species. 4. Simple application of the laws of homonymy and priority results in the following: (1) Hyla lactea Laurenti is the oldest name applied to the well-known and widespread tree frog Phyllomedusa hypocondrialis (Daudin); (2) Hyla aurantiaca Laurenti is a subjective synonym of the well-known and widespread tree frog Hyla boans (Linné, 1758); (3) neither Hyla aurantiaca Daudin nor Hyla lactea Daudin is nomenclaturally valid because each is a junior primary homonym. The only nomenclaturally valid name for this widespread Amazonian species is Sphaenorhynchus eurhos- tus Rivero, 1969, a replacement name for Hyla aurantiaca Daudin, a junior primary homonym; and (4) the generic names Sphaenorhynchus Tschudi, 1838, Dryo- melictes Fitzinger, 1843, and Sphoenohyla Lutz & Lutz, 1938, are invalid because each is based on a junior primary homonym, Hyla lactea Daudin 1803. 5. However, Daudin’s (1803, p. 29) association of Hyla lactea Laurenti with his Hyla hypocondrialis is by no means secure. Duellman & Lynch (1981, J. Herpetol. vol. 15, pp. 237-239) showed that the imprecise description could equally apply to Hyla fasciata Giinther, H. geographica Spix, and Phyllomedusa tomopterna (Cope), all widespread and well-known Amazonian—Guianan tree frogs. However, salient points in the description of Hyla lactea Laurenti are in conflict with the morphologies of each of these four species. 6. Although first listed as a senior name for Phyllomedusa hypocondrialis in 1803, Hyla lactea Laurenti has been ignored by herpetologists since Daudin, whereas Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 has enjoyed recognition even as the type-species of a genus, in spite of occasional recognition that it is a junior primary homonym (Rivero, 1969, Copeia...p. 701). We conclude that Hyla lactea Laurenti, 1768 is unidentifiable with any species of frog and is therefore a nomen dubium, but as an available name it continues to threaten nomenclatural stability for the genus of cis- Andean hylid frogs called Sphaenorhynchus. 7. Accordingly, we now request the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name /actea as used in the combination Hyla lactea by Laurenti, 1768, p. 34, for purposes of the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place said specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name /actea as used in the combination Hyla lactea by Daudin, 1803, p. 30, holotype Mus. nat. Hist. 124 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 nat. Paris no. 4870; type-locality ‘America’, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Sphaenorhynchus Tschudi, 1838, (gender: masculine, type species by monotypy, Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803, a primary homonym of H. /actea Laurenti, 1768) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Bull.:zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 125 COCHLIOM YIA TOWNSEND, 1915 (DIPTERA, CALLIPHORIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF CALLITROGA BRAUER, 1883. Z.N.(S.)707 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In a recent case concerning the generic name Somomya Bertoloni, 1861 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 106-109) Mr Adrian Pont (British Museum (Natural History), London) pointed out that the choice of species to be designated as type species of that nominal genus would make it a senior synonym of one of three other generic names — Auch- meromyia Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1891, Hemilucilia Brauer, 1895, or Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915. He has asked for a designation that will make Somomya a senior synonym of Auchmeromyia (and for the suppression of the former). While his proposals, if accepted, will remove that threat to the stability of Cochliomyia, the latter name is still threatened from a different direction by Callitroga Brauer, 1883. As the genus concerned — the screw-worm flies—is important in veterinary medicine, it is necessary for its name to be stabilised. 2. In 1952 Dr Sabrosky addressed a paper to the Commission asking a set of questions designed to clarify the status and the type species of Callitroga. His own position in relation to those questions was not stated; in August 1957, therefore, Mr Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission, asked him to frame his questions so as to show a definite position. In reply (October 1957) Dr Sabrosky said that the application could be ‘withdrawn or left in abeyance’ and that he might take the matter up again when the decisions of the London (1958) Con- gress on the status of names first published in synonymy had been pro- mulgated. This, however, was not done and it is only the appearance of Mr Pont’s application that has caused the case to be reopened. 3. Callitroga Brauer, 1883, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math. nat. Kl. vol. 47, p. 74, was proposed in a specific synonymy as ‘[Calli- phora] anthropophaga Lesbini, Weyenberg et Conil... [references]... =Compsomyia (Rond, 1875) macellaria F. conf. Lucilia hominivorax Cog. (Lucilia O.S., Callitroga Schin., Musca olim)...’. The Paris (1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 4, pp. 350-351) had decided that a generic name first published as the generic component of a binomen in which the specific name is cited in synonymy, is not available. However, Callitroga is not clearly published in combination with any particular specific name, so that its status in the light of the Paris decision is obscure. Its subsequent status has varied according to successive decisions of the Commission concerning names first published in synonymy. Usage has fluctuated accordingly and it is now high time that the status of the name was settled once and for all. 126 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 4. The Copenhagen (1953) Congress (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nom., pp. 63-64) decided that names first published in synonymy without an independent indication, definition or description (or, in the case of a generic name, without names of included species associated with it) should not be available unless they had been generally accepted; in that event, such a name would be an objective synonym of the name with which it had originally been synonymised. This proposed provision failed to clarify the status of Callitroga because, although clearly synonymised with Compsomyia, no specific names were clearly cited in association with it. The London (1958) Congress decided that no name published in synonymy was available (Article 11d of the 1961 edition of the Code). 5. The Washington (1963) Congress modified Article 11d to allow a name first published in synonymy to be available if it had been adopted with its original author and date. Callitroga thereby became available as from Brauer, 1883, but usage did not follow this, as will shortly appear. 6. I am indebted to Dr Sabrosky for the following account of the history of usage: ‘From Townsend’s publication in 1915 (J. Washington Acad. Sci. vol. 5, p. 644) of Cochliomyia for the New World screwworms until the publication in 1948 of Hall’s monograph on The Blowflies of North America (Thomas Say Found. No. 4, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Ind.), Cochliomyia alone was used except for a few publications that continued to refer the New World screwworms to the Old World genus Chrysomya before Cochliomyia came to be widely accepted. This was especially true after Shannon adopted Cochliomyia in his synopses of the North American CALLIPHORIDAE (1923, Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, vol. 11, pp. 101-118; 1925, Proc. entomol. Soc. Washington, vol. 28, pp. 115-139). Townsend continued to use Cochliomyia in his massive ‘Manual of Myiology’ (1934-1935, Pts 1, 2; 1937, Pt. 5) (Sao Paulo); he considered Callitroga a synonym of the Old World Compsomyia (now a synonym of Chrysomya). 7. ‘Hall adopted Callitroga in his 1948 monograph already men- tioned and this usage then prevailed in North America until 1962, after the 1961 Code ruled that names first published in synonymy were not available, but the rest of the world, with few exceptions, continued to use Cochliomyia. The North American literature is extensive, of course, because of the importance of screwworms, particularly as pests of cattle and because of the attention devoted to research on control of the pests. The scientific name of the primary screwworm is extensively used in entomological literature, veterinary medicine, cattle growers’ journals, state experimental station bulletins, extension service leaflets, etc. 8. ‘After the Code was published in November 1961 I promptly notified our Agricultural Research Service of the change to Cochliomyia, and the first re-appearance of that name, to the best of my knowledge, appeared in the Cooperative Economic Insect Report (U.S. Dept. Agric.) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 127 sometime in 1962. At the same time I changed usage in my service identifications and manuscript reviews. The way was thus prepared for an abrupt and complete change from Callitroga to Cochliomyia after D. G. Hall used the latter name in his contribution to Stone and others, 1965, Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico (the publication of which had been delayed). 9. ‘The Common Name Lists also switched to Cochliomyia from 1965 on. These lists are official lists maintained by the Entomological Society of America, with corresponding scientific names. They are used by editors and authors and are constantly scrutinised for accuracy. Obviously they promote and establish a great deal of usage. The first list was published in 1925 (J. econ. Entomol. vol. 18, pp. 521-545) and lists have been published ever since at six-year (later five-year) intervals. Generic and specific names for the screwworms have appeared in every list because of the importance of the species. Cochliomyia was used in 1925, 1931, 1937 and 1942, Callitroga in 1946, 1950, 1955 and 1960, and Cochliomyia again from 1965 to the current 1982 list. 10. ‘As much of the research on screwworms is done by the staff of the Agricultural Research Service, papers published in J. econ. Entomol. quickly reflect the official usage of the service and of the Common Names Lists. From 1940 through 1947 Cochliomyia was used in 21 papers by 23 authors and Callitroga not at all. In 1948-1950 there were four papers by 10 authors (multiple authorship in team projects is common) using Callitroga and none using Cochliomyia. This usage prevailed from 1951 through 1961. In 1962, after my change of usage, there were seven papers by 12 authors using Cochliomyia and two by five authors using Callitroga. From 1963 on only Cocliomyia has been used. A similar picture emerges from the J. med. Entomol. The Index of American Economic Entomology, like the Review of Applied Ento- mology, is less reliable for usage because the editors gather all references under whatever generic name they adopt, with no indication of the name actually used in the work under reference.’ 11. The two most cogent arguments for the suppression of Calli- troga are, first, the now well-established use of Cochliomyia, docu- mented above, and, secondly, the confusion over the type species of Callitroga. This has been treated differently by different authors. Some have treated the genus as having been established with anthropophaga, macellaria and hominivorax as the originally included species from which a type species could be designated. Hall, 1948, pp. 120, 122 desig- nated Musca macellaria Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Entomol., p. 776, as type species on that assumption. Callitroga thereby became a senior objective synonym of Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915, of which the same species is type species by original designation. Townsend rejected Callitroga as invalid and unavailable. Brauer took the view that macellaria was the type species by monotypy; he took it as the only originally included species with anthropophaga and hominivorax as synonyms. Brauer & 128 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 2, June 1984 Bergenstamm, 1893, p. 179 also apparently took macellaria as the type species, although their citations have been ruled out as type-species designations by Opinion 98, 1928. Yet in the same work, p. 194, note 85, they treated Callitroga as a synonym of Compsomyia; they treated ‘anthropophaga Lesbini’ (?non Blanchard, 1872, C.r. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. 75, pp. 1133-1134) as type species and as congeneric with the type species of Compsomyia Rondani, 1875, Ann. Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Genova, vol. 7, p. 425, namely Musca dux Eschscholtz, 1822, Entomo- graphica, vol. | (1), p. 114, by later designation by Coquillett, 1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. no. 1719, p. 526. As the suppression of the generic name is here advocated, the question of the type species of the genus becomes academic. 12. In view of the above evidence, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Calli- troga Brauer, 1883, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Musca macellaria Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (3) to place the specific name macellaria Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Musca macellaria (specific name of type species of Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Callitroga Brauer, 1883, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 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 of the Commission . Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology. Special Announcements . Pik raora chy ene) Comments On the proposals concerning Astacilla Cordiner, 1793. L. B. Holthuis On the proposed conservation of Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 and Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855. J. D. Holloway. New and revived cases Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). C. M. Naumann & W.G.Tremewan . . Reptomultisparsa Wehientiec 1853 (Bryozoa, Cyclostomata). P. D. Taylor .. GOERIDAE Ulmer, 1903 versus is TRICHOSTOMATIDAE Rambur, 1842 (Insecta, Trichoptera). The Secretary . Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera, Simuliidae). I. A. Rubtsov, with comment by R. W. Crosskey . . Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (Artiodactyla). R. M. Schoch & S. Gi: Lucas Centrurus limpidus Karsch, 1879 and Centruroides ornatus Pocock, 1902 (Arachnia, Scorpiones). O. F. Francke u Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 (Insecta, Homoptera, Diaspididae). E. M. Danzig & I.M. Kerzhner. . Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 (Spiriferida, ‘Brachiopoda). N. Ww. Archbold & G. A. Thomas CAECILIIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera). H. M. Smith & J.T. Polhemus. . Laspeyresia Hiibner. [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). V. L Kuznetsove & I. M. Kerzhner. . F Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794 (Coleoptera, " Byrrhidae). M. Mroczkowski . . Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 (Coleoptera, Colydidae) M. Mroczkowski . 5 ; Capys Hewitson (1865) (Lepidoptera, Lyicaenidae). A. Penrose Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia). J. D. Lynch & W. E. Delman is Sherer Bape ee eet eee Re tithe Oo eos Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (Diptera, Calliphoridae). The Secretary EiaASch F cctorktttonn oh Shey Rc or aga Pte Re Teh Reeke 72 72 73 77 80 83 94 97 101 105 108 110 114 116 119 122 125 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset = x /Oe ib aS x / ~, August 1984 Volume 41 Part 3 pp. v—-vi, 129-190 ISSN 0007-5167 The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Published by: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux On behalf of: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Orders and enquiries concerning subscriptions and back numbers should be sent to: CENTRAL SALES COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX FARNHAM ROYAL SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K. © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1984. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- duced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechan- ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. 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. 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) (Councillor) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Vi Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 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. SHUN-ICHI 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 Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. Per Brinck Prof. J.H. Callomon, F.R.S.C. Prok GB. Cox, EiG:S: Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.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, F.1I.Biol. Dr. L.B. Holthuis Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. M. Luc Dr. I.W.B. Nye Dre. balkkose, 12D! 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. M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) Mr. J.D.D. Smith, F.G.S. (Administrator) PSE P0904 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 129 a4 ; ED BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 41, part 3 (pp. v—vi, 129-190) 23 August 1984 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) Explication du vote sur le projet de la troisieme édition du Code Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Z.N.(G.) 197. C. Dupuis. (2) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: amend- ment proposed to third edition: Proposal concerning Article Sic. Z.N.(S.) 2474. R.J. Gagné & F.C.Thompson, and L.V. Knutson. (3) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: proposed amendment to third edition: Article 59b. Z.N.(S.)2475. Z. Boucek. (4) Request for a declaration clarifying the meaning of the expressions ‘Suppressed for nomenclatural purposes’, ‘Rejected for nomenclatural purposes’ and the status of information in works that are rejected under Articles 8 and 9 of the Code. Z.N.(S.) 2476. L.B. Holthuis, W.D.L. Ride and C.W. Sabrosky. (5) A proposed amendment to Article 70b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature on misidentified type species. Z.N.(S.) 2477. C.W. Sabrosky. *(6) Williamia Monterosato, 1884 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2237. H.B. Rehder. (7) Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Homoptera): proposed conservation by the suppression of Tibicen Berthold, 1827. Z.N.(S.) 239. R.V. Melville & R.W. Sims; also, Arguments pour la suppres- sion du nom de genre Tibicen et de ses dérivés dans la 130 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 nomenclature de la superfamille CICADOIDEA. M. Boulard. (8) Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877 and Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904 (Amphibia, Salientia): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)1750. The Secretary. (9) Hypocryphalus mangiferae (Stebbing, 1914) (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2142. S. Wood. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 41(2) on 29 June 1984 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b): (1) Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida, Cheliferidae): proposed validation. Z.N.(S.)2478. M.S. Harvey. (2) Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): proposed exemption from law of homo- nymy. Z.N.(S.) 2479. M.K. Howarth. (3) Erigone Savigny & Audouin, 1825 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.)2480. A.F. Millidge. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR NEW MEMBERS This notice is issued under Article 4 of the Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and announces the names, nationalities and fields of specialisation of members of the Commission whose terms of service have terminated or will terminate at the close of the next meeting (in 1985) of the General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences. No members of the Commission will be due to retire because they have served for the full period of their appointment, but there will be four vacancies to be filled to maintain the Commission at its present size. These vacancies arise as follows: Brinck, Professor P. (Sweden, Ecology, Arthropoda) wishes to resign. Melville, Mr R.V. (United Kingdom, Palaeontology) wishes to resign. Sabrosky, Dr C.W. (United States of America, Diptera) reaches the age limit. Welch, Professor H.E. (Canada, Nematoda) has retired on the grounds of ill health. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 131] Article 2b of the Constitution states: “The members of the Com- mission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature’. Nominations are now invited for successors having these qualifications to be elected to the places vacated. Retiring members may themselves be nominated, but Professor Brinck and Mr Melville have intimated that they do not wish their names to be put forward. The Commission wishes to receive more nominations than there are vacancies so as to be able to make a genuine choice between candi- dates and maintain a balanced geographical and disciplinary represen- tation. Nominations should be sent, if possible by the end of December, 1984, to: The Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, England. INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Following the announcement in vol. 41, part 2 of the forthcoming appearance of the Third Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, we can now announce that arrangements have been made for publication to be undertaken by the British Museum (Natural History), London. The book will make up into about 320 pages of format 216x318 mm. The price will be £15 plus £1.50 postage and packing. There is a pre-publication offer price of £13.50 plus £1.50 postage and packing on orders accompanied by remittance received before 31 January 1985. Orders should be sent to Publications Sales, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature August 1984 132 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 COMMENTS ON THE TYPE SPECIES OF ANOLIS DAUDIN, 1802 Z.N.(S.) 1603 (see vol. 20, pp. 438-439; vol. 40, pp. 15-19) (1) By Ernest E. Williams (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.) and Hobart M. Smith (Department E.P.O. Biology, University of Colorado 334, Boulder, Colorado, 80309, U.S.A.) Responding to the comment on this case by Sabrosky and to the alterna- tive proposal by Stimson and Underwood, we have reconsidered quite objec- tively all the data and arguments available to us and conclude that the requests of the original petition are overwhelmingly justified despite the existence therein of the several factual and interpretative errors or glossed over ambiguities pointed out by Sabrosky (loc. cit.). We are grateful for Sabrosky’s discussion of the type designation of bullaris by Stejyneger, 1904, and its reiteration by Steyneger & Barbour in several checklists. We would emend Sabrosky’s statements to assert that Stejneger did not intend to fix Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus 1758 as the type of Anolis but instead chose bullaris Daudin, 1802. We interpret the odd hyphenated notation in the checklists as an attempt to clarify Stejneger’s 1904 type designation—an attempt made necessary by the transparently composite nature of Daudin’s concept of bullaris. Stejneger, 1904, did not explicitly cite Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus, 1758. His designation of a type is a parenthetical mention after citation of Daudin as the author of the genus Anolis. We treat as clear indication of Stejneger’s intention his acquiescence, noticed by Sabrosky, in a notation that treated bullaris (italicised) as an invalid name equivalent to and replaced by carolinensis, a name proposed by Voigt many years later. It has always seemed an anomaly that so able and fastidious a nomenclaturist as Stejneger would sup- press (without comment or documentation) a Linnean name. It is clear to us that he did not do so, that instead he recognised that bu//aris Daudin was not the equivalent of Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus. Daudin’s concept of bullaris was, as Stejneger, Barbour and Boulenger supposed, very different from Linnaeus’s concept of Lacerta bullaris. It appears to have escaped notice that Daudin (Histoire Naturelle ... des Reptiles, vol. 4, p. 69, 1803) gave a Latin description of his Anolis bullaris: *Viridescens aut sub-rufus, macula temporali nigra cauda cylindrica, non cristata’. Apart from the green colour this cannot apply to either of the two Jamaican species which may have been the source of Catesby’s plate 66, ‘Lacerta viridis jamaicensis’, upon which Linnaeus explicitly and without ambiguity based his concept of Lacerta bullaris. In both Jamaican species the tail is compressed, not cylindrical, and this character was especially cited by Daudin as a distinction between two groups within Anolis typified by his Anolis bimaculatus and his A. bullaris. Any reading of Daudin’s description of A. bullaris makes it quite clear that his concept was confused and composite. His first citation under his des- cription is not Linnaeus, but ‘Le roquet’ of Lacepéde, now believed to apply to a species from Martinique. He cites also Lacerta cinereus minor of Sloan, presumably a Jamaican species but not applicable to either A. garmani or A. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 133 grahami, before citing Linnaeus. His French appellation for his species is ‘L’Anolis roquet ou rouge-gorge’. The last is explicit reference to a red or reddish dewlap found in A. carolinensis, not found in any Jamaican species nor in the one species that exists in Martinique. The one specimen cited and the measurements given by Daudin were from the Bosc collection for which again (p. 75) the character “une queue mince, cylindrique’ is given. Daudin (p. 76) indicates that Bosc collected ‘en Caroline’ but apparently (p. 71) received specimens also from ‘San-Domingue’. There is evident confusion of lizards from several localities and of species now or not, of the herpetological community for 150 years. On the grounds stated above we regard the identity of Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus as irrelevant to the problem of the type species of Anolis Daudin. We do so under Art. 70b of the Code, pertaining to deliberate misuse of identifi- cation. Art. 70 states that ‘It is to be assumed that an author correctly identifies the nominal species that he ... includes in a new nominal genus ... when he ’ establishes it... .’. In the present context, ‘correct identification’ means utilis- that name (bullaris) in a basically different sense (as Daudin did). Art. 49 also makes it clear that, under the Code, subsequent usages of any species group name, whatever the context, whether the original or different, have no bearing upon the proper application of that name, which remains fixed by its original proposal, with one exception: designation of type species of a new genus. As clarified by Art. 70b, ‘If the type designated for a new nominal genus is a previously established species but the designator states that he employs its specific name in accordance with the wrong usage of a previous author, the type species is to be interpreted as the one actually before the designator, not the one that correctly bears the name’. This article fits perfectly the circumstances of Stejneger’s selection of 4. bullaris Daudin as type for Anolis, interpreted as what was later called Anolis carolinensis by Voigt in 1832, but which was represented in Daudin’s concept of bullaris as indicated by his citation of Catesby’s pre-Linnean (1743) Lacerta viridis carolinensis, pl. 65. That no 134 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 bullaris of Daudin he chose as type for the genus, it seems to us that he conformed with at least the spirit of the Code, if not its exact wording, and that we can be spared an Anolis bullaris Stejneger, 1904 (= Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832) as the type species of Anolis (the nominal type species of a genus does not have to have a valid name, as stated in Art. 69a (1)). The end result of either route, however, is the same: Anolis carolinensis Voigt is the type species of Anolis Daudin through application of Art. 70, whether it is construed that an Anolis bullaris Stejneger, 1904, was created in designation of the type of the genus, or Stejneger’s selection of Anolis carolinensis Voigt as the desired interpretation of Daudin’s Anolis bullaris is accepted. We accordingly simply petition the Commission explicitly to sanction this conclusion, and so modify our first request of the original (1963) petition. The other two requests remain unquestioned. If, however, the Commission rejects that reasoning and holds the Linnean name as the legally correct interpretation of Stejneger’s type designation, we then vigorously call upon exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission to declare that designation null and void, as requested in our original petition. The Linnean species is itself a composite and there is not, as in Daudin’s description, any ground for selecting— except quite arbitrarily —any of the individual taxa confused under that name. The Linnean name derives entirely from plate 66 of Catesby, and Stimson & Underwood, who analysed all the information given by Catesby for plate 66, have themselves admitted that ‘no one species fits all the facts given by Catesby’. We conclude that any one of the three taxa they indicate the name could apply to (A. garmani, A. grahami grahami and A. g. aquarum) could be assumed to be a synonym of bullaris Linnaeus by discounting some discrepancy of about the same magnitude for each taxon. It seems clear to us that Catesby was unable to distinguish the various green anoles of Jamaica, and very likely included in his concept taxa other than the three noted here. Lacerta bullaris of Linnaeus can therefore qualify only as a nomen dubium (as do other Linnean names, e.g. Lacerta strumosa Linnaeus 1758, cited by Daudin in the synonymy of his bu/laris) and no attempt to limit the name to one taxon is justified. It remains, however, an occupied name [Art. 17(2)}. Sabrosky has pointed out that even if Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus ‘could not be recognised to species, it might remain as the type species of the genus’ and we agree that this is an acceptable option under the Code, for at least some Jamaican species is involved, and the name remains available. However, we strenuously object to such recourse either in this case or as a general prop- osition. It is poor taxonomic practice, not to be condoned officially (i.e., by the Commission) whether in individual cases or as a general policy (without extenuating circumstances, which are lacking in the present case), to leave either genera or species in limbo by failure to tie their names to the only secure anchor, a single entity, in spite of the fact that it is technically acceptable to settle for something less (i.e., for a genus, any of several species, or, for a species, any of several specimens to which its name could refer). The objections to the requests in the original petition imply that no serious threat to stability exists by accepting Stejneger’s type designation — accepted as implying Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus—and that no alteration or emendation of that designation by use of the plenary powers is therefore justified. On the contrary, stability is threatened by injudicious application of certain Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 135 automatic provisions of the Code, not primarily because of current taxonomy (although the present use of Norops Wagler by Savage and others for part of the genus may be a source of problems) but because of the ultimately inevitable division of this currently enormous assemblage of some 350 or more species- group taxa (species and subspecies), the most speciose reptile genus in the world. Sabrosky sagaciously pointed out that ‘current revisers of the genus should certainly be consulted, lest a type fixation at this point fix the name Anolis on the smallest and least important section of the genus’. We agree; it is a critical consideration on which one of us (EEW) is an authority. Acceptance of any Jamaican species of Anolis would, when the genus is partitioned, restrict that name to an unimportant section. The most important section is that containing Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832, whose literature is enormous, far exceeding that on all the rest of the genus together. To formalise now a type fixation for Anolis that would lead to the abandonment of that name (and use of Xiphosurus Fitzinger, 1826) for the section on which more research of every conceivable nature (experimental, physiological, anatomical and ecological as well as taxonomic) has been and undoubtedly will continue to be performed than on any other, would certainly not be conducive to nomen- clatural stability and would give rise justifiably to the ire of the innumerable non-taxonomists affected. The threat to nomenclatural stability by the fixation of any Jamaican species is not an idle one; it is a certainty. In brief, we reiterate our most urgent appeal to the Commission for its official acceptance of Anolis carolinensis Voigt as the type species of its genus, whether through invocation of Art. 70 of the Code, or through exercise of its plenary powers; and for its addition of both of those generic and specific names to the appropriate Official Lists, as we originally petitioned in 1963. (2) By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) Williams & Smith’s comment is well judged and takes into account several pertinent points that were not adequately expressed in the original appli- cation (Smith, Williams & Lazell, 1963). My earlier comments (with Dr G. L. Underwood) were based on a belief that the Anolis bullaris of Daudin, a composite of several species, included true bullaris Linnaeus, and could not be regarded as a misidentified type-species in the sense of Article 70. This being the case, it seemed to us that there was not sufficient usage of component generic or subgeneric names within Anolis (sensu lato) to justify setting aside the Law of Priority by use of the plenary powers. I agree that it was Stejneger’s intention to designate as type species that part of bullaris Daudin currently known as Anolis carolinensis Voigt. Unfortu- nately Stejneger was not entitled to do this under the Rules. A. bullaris of Daudin was not equivalent to 4. carolinensis but a composite of species including carolinensis. If Stejneger did have the right to designate bullaris sensu Daudin as type species, then the type species thus designated would have been the com- posite of Daudin and not that part of the composite singled out by Stejneger. However, I believe Stejneger did not have that right. Article 70b, cited by 136 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 Williams & Smith, actually begins ‘If the type designated for a new nominal genus....’ In this case Stejneger did not designate the type species for a new genus but for a previously established one. As written, Article 70b does not cover type species designations for previously established nominal genera, nor in my view was it intended to. In his comment Sabrosky wrote “‘Daudin’s bullaris was not a misidentifi- cation but a mixture of true bullaris and other forms now known to be distinct species. It cannot therefore be interpreted as a misidentified type species situ- ation... .’ I had earlier accepted this argument but, on reflection, I believe I was wrong to do so. It is true that Daudin’s concept of the species included true bullaris inasmuch as he believed his material and Linnaeus’ bullaris (i.e. Catesby’s plate 66) to be conspecific. But the same must surely be true of any case of misidentified type species. An author would hardly use a name if he did not consider the type material of that species and his own material to belong to the same species. To accept Sabrosky’s argument would be tantamount to accepting that there is no such thing as a misidentified type species. I now believe that the misidentification referred to in Article 70a must be of the material actually before the author regardless of any cited references to material not seen by him. While it is clear that Daudin’s material of bullaris comprised more than one species it is equally clear that it did not include any true bullaris Linnaeus. As indicated by Williams & Smith, the material seen by Daudin included at least one specimen collected ‘en Caroline’ by Bosc. There seems little doubt that bullaris of Daudin was based in part on the species now known as Anolis carolinensis Voigt. I now agree with Williams & Smith that Anolis bullaris as used by Dau- din, 1802 is a misidentified type species in the sense of Article 70a and that the plenary powers should be used to designate as type species of the genus Anolis Daudin a species actually before the author, namely Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832. I thus fully support the proposals contained in the original petition of Smith, Williams & Lazell, 1963. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE HOLOTYPE AND TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE FOR GALAGO CRASSICAUDATUS E. GEOFFROY, 1812 (PRIMATES, GALAGIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2285 (see vol. 37, pp. 176-185) By W. F. H. Ansell (Trendrine, Zennor, St Ives, Cornwall, United Kingdom) It is surely desirable to retain the familiar and long standing specific name crassicaudatus and to be able to associate the nominate form with a definite locality. The type locality Quelimane, as designated by Thomas (1917, p. 48), does not do this because it lies within the zone of hybridisation between sub- species monteiri and the next properly distinguishable subspecies, which occupies the southern part of the species range. Dr Olson has, moreover, shown that Thomas was mistaken in supposing that Peters (1852, p. 292) was the first to identify the species with a definite locality because Sundevall had earlier (in van der Hoeven, 1844, p. 42) reported a specimen from ‘near Port Natal in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 137 Caffraria’, i.e. near Durban, Natal. It therefore seems perfectly justifiable to set aside the type locality designated by Thomas. The neotype proposed by Olson is from a definite locality which is both within the range of the recognisably distinct southern subspecies and near enough to where Sundevall’s specimen originated. It would fulfil the purpose of stabilising the nomenclature of the species. I therefore support both of Dr Olson’s proposals. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR INDODORYLAIMUS ALI & PRABHA, 1974 (NEMATODA, DORYLAIMIDA) Z.N.(S.) 2335 (see vol. 39, pp. 57-58; vol. 39, p. 285) (1) By M. R. Siddiqi (Commonwealth Institute of Parasitology, Herts, U.K.) The application of Qaiser Baqri as published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 285, states that he has designated a lectotype from the available syntypes, and I feel that the use of plenary powers to support this action is not called for. Article 74a of the International Code clearly provides for such an action of designating a syntype as lectotype and Baqri’s action is justified. With regard to the proposal to designate a type species for Indodorylai- mus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 57-58), I strongly believe that Thornenema wickeni Yeates, 1970, a well documented species, is the type species of the genus Jndodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974, for the following three reasons: 1. Indodorylaimus n.gen. was proposed by Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nemato- logica vol. 19, for 1973, p. 486) who fixed its type species thus: Type species: Indodorylaimus wickeni (Yeates, 1970) n.comb. (syn. Thornenema wickeni Yeates, 1970). Thornenema wickeni Yeates, 1970 is thus the original designation of the type species for Jndodorylai- mus, and is the type species regardless of other considerations (Art. 68a). 2. The reason for the creation of a new genus /ndodorylaimus is given by the authors just before the generic diagnosis as follows: ‘Yeates (1970) described Thornenema wickeni based on females. The female specimens described herein agree with his description in all essential measurements and in body characters. However the males of this species, reported herein for the first time, have a tail similar to that of the female necessit- ating removal of this species from Thornenema in which the tails of the sexes are dissimilar (elongate-filiform in females and short, bluntly conoid in males). Therefore a new genus /ndodorylaimus is proposed for its inclusion under Prodorylaimidae.’ This clearly shows that the authors discussed the taxonomy of Thorne- nema wickeni Yeates and proposed a genus for its reception. (Note ‘its inclusion’ in the last sentence). 3. Ali & Prabha (1974) differentiated their new genus /ndodorylaimus thus: ‘Indodorylaimus is close to Sicaguttur from which it differs in having a mono-opisthodelphic gonad in the female and the first ventromedian supple- ment within the range of spicules in the male.’ 138 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 Please note that the female characteristic is used first for the differen- tiation. JT. wickeni is based on females only, and Ali & Prabha (1974) added male characteristics in the generic diagnosis of Jndodorylaimus because they thought that their species with males was T. wickeni. The genus Jndodorylaimus may, or may not, be a valid genus, but another species viz., Indodorylaimus elongatus Baqri, 1982 (=Indodorylaimus wickeni apud Ali & Prabha, 1974) could not and should not be designated as the type species of Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, as discussed above. (2) By Dr Q. H. Bagri (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta, 700016, India) In reply to the above comment by M. R. Siddiqi, nowhere in my appli- cation have I stated that the generic diagnosis of Jndodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 is inadequate or that the description provided by the authors is poor. Rather, I have clearly stated that the type specimens of Thornenema wickeni Yeates, 1970 were compared with Ali & Prabha’s specimens and the latter were found different in many characters. Hence, the specimens on which /ndo- dorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 was based were misidentified. The species that was before Ali & Prabha had no valid name and was found to be a new species. In the circumstances (Article 49), I named the species Indodorylaimus elongatus Bagqri, 1982 (=I. wickeni apud Ali & Prabha, 1974) and designated it as type species of Indodorylaimus. Article 72d has the pro- vision that if an author proposes a new specific name expressly as a replacement for a prior name, it retains the type of the taxon bearing the prior name. Hence, Ali & Prabha’s specimens were retained as types with the replaced name. Articles 41, 49, 65b, 67j, and 70a deal with the misidentification of type species. Mayer, E. in his Principles of Systematic Zoology, p. 370, states that the principle on which such corrections (misidentification of types) are based is that the type of a taxon is not a name but the zoological object. The type (species or genus) is then the zoological object which the original author had before him (when making the type designation) and not the name which he may have erroneously attached to this object. In light of the above, I find it rather difficult to accept the objection raised by Dr Siddiqi. To me it seems that Article 68a of the International Code is not applicable under the circumstances. PROPOSAL TO EMEND Z.N.(S.) 2401 BY DESIGNATING APIS PILIPES AS TYPE SPECIES OF MEGILLA FABRICIUS By Charles D. Michener (Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A.) One aspect of a recent proposal (Michener, 1983) urged suppression of the first designation of a type species of the genus Megilla Fabricius, 1805. This action would validate the designation of Apis acervorum Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Megilla by Richards, 1935. My proposal was made with the objective of placing Megilla as a junior synonym of Anthophora Latreille, 1803. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 139 I now realise that Apis acervorum Linnaeus has usually been misident- ified. Day, 1979, places it as a species of Bombus Latreille, 1802, without a firm decision as to which one. (The type is believed lost). Loken (1973) places it in synonymy of B. subterraneus Linnaeus, 1758, without detailed explanation or neotype designation, and Day, 1979, so places it on page 81. Thomson, 1872, in a major work, also placed Apis acervorum as a synonym of subterraneus but most subsequent authors did not follow him. The misidentification of Apis acervorum Linnaeus is of long standing, starting with Fabricius (1775), who referred to the ferruginous hind tibiae, a feature of Anthophora ‘acervorum’ but not of Bombus subterraneus or other Bombus species that could be the one named acervorum by Linnaeus. The misidentification was so generally accepted that Dalla Torre, 1896, cited 20 references to acervorum under Anthophora or genera synonymous with it and many others have appeared since 1896. It is obvious that Richards (1935), in designating Apis acervorum Linnaeus as the type species of Megilla, had the generally accepted misidentification in mind, for he indicated that Megilla would become a synonym of Anthophora, not of Bombus. My original proposal would leave Megilla (which has not appeared in primary zoological literature in this century except to replace a homonym in 1916; see Michener, 1983) available to replace one or another subgeneric name in Bombus (e.g., Subterraneobombus Vogt, 1911, type species Apis subterranea Linnaeus, 1758—? A. acervorum Linnaeus, 1758), depending on decisions as to the identity of Apis acervorum Linnaeus. Nothing would be gained by destabilizing the subgeneric names of Bombus in this way. I therefore emend my proposal (Michener, 1983) to request the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to designate Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775, as the type species of Megilla Fabricius, 1805, and to invalidate all previous type designations for this genus. A. pilipes was one of the originally included species in Megilla. It is a synonym of Apis plumipes Pallas, 1772, which is the valid name for the Apis acervorum of authors, not Linnaeus, 1758. This designation will therefore accomplish Richards’ intent as well as preserve the current usage of Subterraneobombus and Macropis. REFERENCES DALLA TORRE, C. G. DE 1896. Catalogus Hymenopterorum vol. 10, Apidae (Anthophila), viii+ 643 pp. DAY, M. C. 1979. The species of Hymenoptera described by Linnaeus in the genera Sphex, Chrysis, Vespa, Apis and Mutilla. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. London vol. 12, pp. 45-84. EABRICTUS. Ty sCol1775: Systema Entomologiae. Flensburgi and Lipsiae 8+30+832 pp. LOKEN, A. 1973. Studies on Skandinavian bumble bees. Norsk entomol. Tidsk. vol. 20, pp. 1-218. MICHENER, C. D. 1983. 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 in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 207-208. 140 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 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. THOMSON, C. G. 1872. Skandinaviens Hymenoptera. Lund. Tome 2, 286 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 141 EXPLICATION DU VOTE SUR LE PROJET DE LA TROISIEME EDITION DU CODE INTERNATIONAL DE NOMENCLATURE ZOOLOGIQUE. Z.N(G.)197 par Claude Dupuis (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris) INTRODUCTION Le Code de Nomenclature poursuivant des buts pratiques ne peut, a l’évidence, étre ni un monument de philosophie, ni un modéle littéraire, ni un chef d’oeuvre de droit international. Le projet actuel sou- leve, toutefois, des questions plus simples de méthode, de grammaire et de droit auxquelles, aprés un examen scrupuleux, je considére qu’il n’a pas su répondre, d’ou mon vote contre. Mon refus ne porte pas en général sur des dispositions réputées votées, mais sur des aspects que d’aucuns considéreront comme pure- ment formels. En fait, ces aspects sont fondamentaux en ce qu’ils conditionnent l’intelligibiliteé d’un tel document, c’est a dire sa pédagogie implicite et, au total, son degré de réception ou de rejet par la communauté scientifique et non pas par celle des seuls taxinomistes s. strictissimo. Ce qui suit est une énumération de mes principales raisons de refus. I— FAIBLESSES DANS LA PRESENTATION DES PRATIQUES ET REGLES NOMENCLATORIALES A Mélange inextricable de ce qui est essentiel avec ce qui est accessoire L’exercice concret de la nomenclature zoologique fait appel a des regles de trois sortes: —des régles fondamentalement liées a la pratique zoologique et qui concernent les relations entre des noms et des critéres pour le choix de ces noms; — des régles de droit extrazoologique; — des microrégles de graphie. Ces deux derniéres sortes de régles expriment: —des prescriptions provisoires et toujours susceptibles d’un démenti rapide par |’évolution des techniques (modalités d’impression) et des institutions (fonctionnement des Congrés et de la Commission); —des détails infimes ou des listes interminables, et toujours incompletes, afin que ce qui, substantiellement, est wn méme nom soit véritablement unique d /a lettre prés (comme l’exigent la stupidité et le cout des mémoires informatisées). Malheureusement, tout ce qui est provisoire, infime ou énuméra- tif est accessoire. Le mélange des éléments accessoires aux éléments essentiels conduit a sacrifier le général au particulier, ce qui risque 142 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 d’égarer le zoologiste de bonne foi dans un tel dédale qu’il ne pratiquera les régles qu’avec répugnance. Cet inconvenient est encore plus marqué dans le projet de la 3e édition que dans les éditions précédentes ou je le déplorais deja. B Longueur exagérée et numérotation malcommode des articles et paragraphes L’article 1 1 comprend 6 pages! La longueur moyenne d’un article est de 76/88 =0,86 page. Il y a des alinéas de 12 lignes et plus! Ou trouve 3 hiérarchies différentes de numérotation: 74(a)(ii), mais aussi 75(d)(2) et 9(1). Etant donné ce qu’il en cotte d’écrire, de lire et de composer les chiffres romains, les habitudes anglaises des 1, il, 111 ... Vii auraient bien da étre abandonnées au profit de chiffres arabes et de la séquence type 75(a)(1)(i). C Insuffisance de l’expression en langage courant D’une facon générale, l’expression du projet préte a confusion, en raison de l’emploi de tournures ou formules: (1) passives ou indirectes (p. ex. lle: ‘Application de la nomenclature binominale requise’ devrait se traduire par: ‘Application of the requested binominal nomenclature’, ce qui est ridicule. Le titre anglais ‘Application of binominal nomenclature’ est vide de signifi- cation. Il fallait la formule directe: ‘Obligation d’appliquer une nomenclature binominale’, le premier mot de cette formule manquant dans le texte anglais): (2) négatives (dans le glossaire, “Conserver’ est défini par ‘supprimer (!!) des obstacles . . .’) (3) inversées (61c définit le subjectif avant l’objectif); (4) désordonnées (72a (ii) ordonne holotype, lectotype, néotypes, syntypes, alors que la logique opératoire est: holotype (73a), syntype (73b), lectotype (74), néotype (75). Il y aurait eu lieu de procéder partout a un checking de ces insuffisances pour y remédier. D Défauts de l’expression technique Ces défauts apparaissent dans le texte actuel, par sa comparaison avec les textes antérieurs, et dans le glossaire: (1) Dans le texte on releve: —Tlintroduction d’éléments de confusion (nomenclatorial — seul admissible—et nomenclatural, qui rime tout simplement avec caricatural; nominal et nominatif); —des mots impropres (introuvables dans les dictionnaires: anonymité!, adjectival! participial!) (pour ne rien dire des erreurs de traduction qui fourmillent); Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 143 —des expressions différentes pour une méme chose (48: changement de genre, qui est mauvais; 51: transfert, qui est bon); — des formules trop restrictives (69a vi doit s’appliquer aussi, et surtout, aux bibliographies analytiques et critiques). (2) Une comparaison avec les anciens textes montre: —Tl abandon injustifié de bonnes formules (‘pris a la lettre’ est remplacé dans 76c par ‘strictement interprété’ qui est faible); — l’abandon de concepts indispensables (sauf peut étre a la R6B, on a partout, y compris dans le glossaire, abandonné le concept de caté- gorie pour ceux plus équivoques de ‘rank’ et de ‘groupe’; ce dernier est utilisé aussi bien pour des groupes de taxa que des groupes de catégories! Ce concept de catégorie est capital (1) par opposition a taxon et (2) pour bien faire comprendre la coordination nomenclatoriale qui résulte de la coordination taxinomique de certaines catégories). (3) Le Glossaire, a lui seul, justifie mon vote négatif Ce document est capital car ‘il fait partie intégrante’ du Code (cf. Préambule) (et non pas ‘il est partie intégrante ...’; en francais on dit, dans ce cas, ‘faire partie’; ‘étre partie’ signifie étre impliqué dans un litige). (a) Mes critiques de fond sont les suivantes: —les catégories sont définies par leur position hiérarchique, y compris parrapport a des catégories facultatives (la famille, le genre, par rapport a la sous-famille, au sous-genre .. .) et non pas par leur compo- sition potentielle (une famille est, avant tout, une réunion de genres, REG. )h —il y a des définitions insuffisantes (Caractére: un caractere sert aussi a réunir des taxa— Nom vernaculaire: il fallait opposer le parler courant au langage technique — Taxon subordonné: la définition donnée est fausse dans le cas ou l’on compare, p. ex., une tribu et une famille ne présentant pas de rapports d’inclusion); —il manque des définitions (p. ex. catégorie, coordination, errata...); — il y a des contradictions (exclure de la notion d’hybride la des- cendance de sous-espéces est contraire au principe de coordination de l’espéce et de la sous-espéce, donc contraire au respect de la liberté taxinomique). (b) Mes critiques de forme seraient innombrables. En voici quelques unes: — ‘reputé’ (pourquoi avoir donné le verbe actif alors que la for- mule, au sens du Code, est toujours celle d’un adjectif?). Il faut définir clairement cet adjectif comme suit: reconnu, par l’effet de l’usage ou du droit, comme possédant une qualité non exprimée ou exprimée différemment dans les faits ou apparences; 144 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 — ‘cas... 2) Désinence .. (— Un cas grammatical n’a jamais été une désinence! — ‘nouvelle combinaison. La premiere...’ — Une combinaison qui est nouvelle en ce sens ne l’est que par rapport a une combinaison préexistante; — ‘signe diacritique ... indiquant différentes prononciations dune lettre-—En réalité, il s’agit souvent de lettres différentes (cf. dictionnaires danois, espagnol, polonais. . .); —‘spécimen tératologique ... déformé’— Non! anormal ou monstrueux; — ‘substantif-phrase’ (?) ‘Nom composé’ est correct; ne dites pas ‘sa ferminaison est déterminée ...’ E Insuffisances quant aux exemples —Certains demeurent encore purement formels, du type A-us (art. 22); ce ne sont pas des exemples, mais des conceptual constructs; — Certains manquent (p. ex. en 6b); —Certains sont mal ordonnés (p. 11 l’on trouve successive- ment deux exemples admis, puis un réfusé et, a nouveau, un admis!): —Certains sont mal placés (l’exemple donné dans le Glossaire sous ‘nom impropre’ aurait du figurer dans le texte). J’'ajoute que Pygos- celis n’est pas un ‘pingouin’ (A/lcidae) mais un ‘manchot’ (Spheniscidae) et que, de toutes manieres, des noms vernaculaires tels que Pingouin n’ont rien a faire dans le Code! F Réglementation différente d’abus semblables La désignation des lectotypes et néotypes fait, de nos jours, l’objet de nombreux abus. Sa réglementation par les articles 74-75 est insuffi- sante. J’estime qu’il y a trois regles qui devraient s’appliquer également a ces deux sortes de types: 1) La désignation des lectotypes et néotypes ne constitue pas une fin nomenclatoriale en soi (ceci est dit en 75c, mais il n’y a rien de semblable sous 74). 2) La désignation des lectotypes et néotypes doit, en consé- quence, échapper a la routine muséologique et n’étre admise que dans le cadre d’un travail de révision, etc ... (ceci est dit en 75b mais il n’y a rien de semblable sous 74) (au surplus, sous 74b(i) et (ii), il fallait également préciser une étude zoologique critique, comme |’on précise un probleme zoologiquz complexe sous 74b (1ii)). 3) Toute désignation de lectotype et de néotype doit étre compat- ible avec les restrictions exprimées par les réviseurs antérieurs, etc... (c’est la R 74 A, mais il n’y a rien de semblable sous 75, méme pas en Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 145 75d (4). J’ajoute que ceci ne devrait pas constituer une Recommanda- tion, mais une regle impérative et que je trouve une contradiction a ce sujet entre la regle 74a (11) et la Recommandation 74A. C’est le point évoque ci-dessous. G La notion de ler Réviseur et des droits afférents (qui est une garantie de stabilité) est trop restrictive A larticle 24a et dans le Glossaire (‘réviseur’) la notion du ler réviseur est bornée a l’auteur d’un choix entre deux noms ou actes simultanés. Ceci est insuffisant. Le choix d’un lectotype, une émendation de nom, le réexamen d’un type, etc... sont, chacun en leur domaine, des premieres révisions. Il y a autant d’actions de révision que d’actions nomenclatoriales et tax- inomiques concevables (d’ailleurs le mot révision est donné avec son sens taxinomique en 75b (i) comme il devrait l’étre en 75b (ii). Le principe du ler réviseur au sens général est un corollaire du principe de priorité. C’est de lui que procéde, en particulier, l’obligation d’effectuer certaines désignations dans le respect des actes antérieurs. J’ajoute que, dans les définitions de ‘rejeter’ et ‘préséance’, l’on devrait, de ce fait, trouver d’abord mention des procédures courantes de pre- mieére révision et ensuite seulement mention des actions exceptionnelles de la Commission. II— FAIBLESSES DANS L‘EXPOSE DES FAITS GRAMMATICAUX A bien des égards et dés sa lére édition, le Code n’a pas réussi a maitriser l’expression des faits grammaticaux, ce qui a entrainé les bévues les plus singuliéres (p. ex. parce qu’on a voulu ‘simplifier’ le cas des génitifs des noms de personnes, on a institué la recette de cuisine du i— ou Ji sur quoi, bien évidemment, je m’abstiens — d’ou, de la part de toutes sortes de zoologistes, l’adjonction pure et simple d’un / a tout et n’importe quoi: noms de pays, noms d’hotes, etc... etc. . .). Lorsqu’on veut remplacer une pratique issue des cervaux par une recette ou une énumeération faite pour les machines, /’on égare les lecteurs et l’on s’engage dans une procédure sans fin. Le cas de l’homonymie, auquel je limiterai mes remarques, est révélateur. La définition de l’homonymie peut étre a la fois étymologique, sémantique et orthographique. Dans le cas de la nomenclature zoologique, il me parait qu’il ser- ait plus économique de la définir d’abord comme étymologique et sémantique. 146 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 Des noms de taxa qui ont la méme étymologie et la méme signifi- cation, dans leur radical et leurs suffixes, sont homonymes (les noms de genres directement entre eux, les noms d’especes pour autant que combinés a un méme nom de genre), qu’ils ne different pas ou qu’ils different par une ou plusieurs lettres ne concernant ni |’étymologie, ni la signification. C’est ce que reconnait I’article 58; a l’énumération qu’il donne on pourrait ajouter sans fin: londinensis et londonensis!!! coreocoris et corecoris 77) Myia ev. mya ... Ites, ithes, ytes Pr | i ae | McGillivrayia et McGillivraya Yakovlevi et Jakovlevi Pawlowskyi et Pavlovskyi et toutes les variantes de translittération (du grec, du russe, du chinois, etc .. .) de voyelles de liaison, de lettres intercalaires accidentelles, etc. .. ete. S. Le caractére ouvert et indéfini de la liste des exceptions possibles démontre que l’on ne peut pas résoudre la question par une énume- ration. Au lieu d’énumérer incomplétement les cas d’>homonymies éty- mologiques et sémantiques qu’1l faut bien reconnaitre en dépit de la défi- nition orthographique de l’homonymie, il faut, a l’inverse, écarter cette définition orthographique et dire simplement les cas ou les noms étymo- logiquement homonymes ne le seront pas en regard du Code (peut-étre n’y a-t-il que le cas des noms génériques fondés sur un nom de personne et différents par leur genre grammatical). Cette simplification exigerait, certes, un important travail de remise en chantier d’articles ‘votés’(?) car elle aurait des incidences — elles aussi simplificatrices— sur la question des orthographes subsé- quentes et des homonymies secondaires (de noms de familles). De toutes manieéres, je vote contre la définition orthographique de ’homonymie et contre ce qu’il y a de contradictoire dans le projet a ce sujet entre les articles 56, 57 et 58. III— ASPECTS JURIDIQUES DU PROJET (A) Equivalence des textes Il est bon que le Code soit officiellement bilingue (et j’ai toujours souhaité qu’il devienne trilingue). Ceci est, de plus, nécessaire a son expression la meilleure possible. Lorsqu’un texte en langue A est produit simultanément en langue B, ses faiblesses dans la langue A apparaissent et il peut étre retravaillé, comme sera a son tour retravaillé le texte Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 147 B, et ceci jusqu’a obtention de deux textes 4 la fois parfaitement equivalents et, surtout, constituant en deux langues le meilleur texte possible. La procédure suivie pour le projet n’a jamais été celle-la. I] s’en- suit que le projet en francais, tel qu’il a été soumis, est inacceptable et que le projet en anglais n’est pas ce qu’il aurait pu étre. (B) Fondement juridique du texte Il m’a bien paru qu’a Helsinki la Section de Nomenclature (dont la division de Zoologie a avalisé les propositions) n’était autre que la Commission, qui avait simplement changé de président pour la circon- stance. En ces conditions, j’ai cru devoir m’épargner la peine d’examiner si les instructions que la Commission s’était données a elle-méme a Helsinki avaient été correctement suivies. J’aurais aimé que la question réciproque (le editorial Committee n’a-t-il pas introduit des questions non traitées a Helsinki?) soit soumise a un vote. Ceci m’aurait éclairé sur le fondement en droit des dispositions nouvelles relatives aux noms ‘interpolés’ que je repousse. (C) Pleins pouvoirs de la Commission (cette formule devant toujours €tre au pluriel, et non pas au singulier comme dans le Glossaire) I] est indispensable qu’une commission d’experts puisse donner, avec les pleins pouvoirs, dans un domaine défini, son avis sur les cas particuliers échappant aux prescriptions du Code. S’il s’agit véritable- ment de ‘pleins pouvoirs’, je ne comprends pas qu’on astreigne la Commission a des directives (50b, 70b, 55). (D) Appendices Aux termes de I’article 87, les Appendices ne font pas plus partie du Code que les exemples et recommandations (ce qui est, dans les trois cas, contestable). Or, alors que les exemples et recommandations ont été soumis au vote avec I’ensemble du texte, les appendices ne I’ont pas été. Ils seront, néanmoins, publiés simultanément. Il y a la une ambigiité sur la responsabilité comparée des commissaires (ceux qui ont le droit de faire des appendices et ceux qui ne |’ont pas). (E) Statut des textes et décisions antérieurs Je ne suit pas d’accord avec le libellé de article 84b qui annule toutes les éditions et décisions antérieures. C’est dans ces documents (dont on ne s’est pas assez soucié) que se trouve l’essentiel du fondement juridique et historique du projet. Il ett éte préférable de déclarer: ‘Toutes les dispositions des éditions antérieures ... et tous les amendements — , contraires a la présente édition sont abrogés’ 148 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 Pour l’ensemble de ces raisons, je ne pouvais émettre d’autre vote que négatif. Je regrette de devoir prendre cette décision a l’égard d’un texte élaboré pas des experts en nomenclature, compétents et sérieux, qui ont beaucoup travaillé et qui ont toute mon estime. Je crains, ou bien qu’ils aient eu le malheur de se laisser subjuguer par |’édition précé- dente, ce qui ne pouvait conduire qu’a la compliquer, ou bien de m’étre personnellement imaginé que les zoologistes avaient besoin d’un Code élagué, triant l’essentiel et l’accessoire, écrit dans un langage directement accessible et purgé de contradictions et confusions. En émettant mon vote, c’est, en effet, aux zoologistes dans leur ensemble, et non pas seulement aux seuls taxinomistes ou nomenclator- ialistes, que j’ai pensé avant tout. Si tous les zoologistes parviennent a faire de la 3€me édition (supposée adoptée) un usage meilleur que des précédentes, ce que je souhaite, je reconnaitrai volontiers que le progrés, de nos jours, n’est pas a chercher dans la clarté d’un ensemble mais dans la complication des détails. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 149 INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO THIRD EDITION: PROPOSAL CONCERNING ARTICLE Slc. Z.N.(S.)2474 By R. J. Gagné & F.C. Thompson (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) and L. V. Knutson (// B IJ] USDA, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, West Beltsville, Maryland 20705, U.S.A.) Article S5le of the Code prescribes the use of parentheses in new combinations. If a species-group taxon was described in a given genus and later transferred to another, the name of the author of the species-group name, if cited, is to be enclosed in parentheses. 2. When recombinations were rarer than they are today, this con- vention may have been useful to indicate whether a researcher needed to consult other combinations than the current one. Now, when combi- nations different from the original are in the majority, in some groups approaching 100% of included species, and when species are indexed either by specific epithet or present combination, use of the parentheses is superfluous. 3. Use of the parentheses is expensive and time consuming. The Insect Identification and Beneficial Insect Introduction Institute, SEA, AR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is ultimately responsible for checking all insect names in departmental manuscripts and reports. Parentheses are among the items checked. Often, research entomologists of that Institute are asked to provide just that information, which is of no interest to the writers or readers of the reports. The Institute has also found that computer programming is more expensive with this conven- tion because the opening and closing parentheses add a complication when retrieving authors’ names. 4. Although the convention is generally adhered to, notable exceptions to its use exist in the scientific literature without adverse effect. Lindner, E., 1926-present, and Crosskey, 1980, have dispensed with it. In the latter case, a taxonomic catalogue, the original genus, if different from the current genus, follows closely the species citation, so enclosing an author’s name in parentheses seems superfluous. But in Lindner, 1926-present, the names of authors of specific taxa that should have parentheses have none even in discussions or figure captions. To quote from Crosskey, 1980: ‘The editors ... hold the view that Article Sic of the [second edition of the] Code is one of its most negative, and therefore useless requirements — its only effect is to convey the rather worthless information that a species no longer remains in the genus where it was first placed. Much valuable research time has been wasted 150 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 by specialists in searching out ‘whether the author’s name should be in brackets’, and mandatory Article 51c should in our view be eliminated from the Code or reduced to the status of a recommendation for revisionary works alone’. 5. We strongly agree with Crosskey and propose that Article 51c of the third edition be deleted from the Code because it serves a negligible purpose incommensurate to the time and labour involved. We do not feel that the convention should be maintained even as a recommendation because we prefer uniform application. REFERENCES CROSSKEY, R. W. (edit.) 1980. Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical region. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), London, 1437 pp. LINDNER, E. (edit.) 1926-present. Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region. Stuttgart (Schweizerbart). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 151 INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THIRD EDITION: ARTICLE 59b. Z.N.(S.)2475 By Z. Boucek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) I am unhappy with the wording and meaning of Article 59b in the third edition of the Code. It makes invalid the original name of a species in favour of a replacement name because of a junior homonymy in a genus to which the original name was transferred. The provision was apparently introduced for automatic nomenclatural validation of some names, in better-known groups, where usage of the replacement name greatly exceeds usage of the original name. 2. However, in less well known groups in many cases the original name was used once and the replacement name virtually also once, so that there is no ‘established usage’ of either of them. The original and the replacement names (epithets) are, in fact, in the same relation as objective synonyms, and the present edition gives automatic precedence to the junior objective synonym. This is contrary to the spirit of our Code, 1.e. the axial Principle of Priority. 3. May I suggest the following amendment to Article 59b: (b) Homonyms replaced before 1961.— When a replacement name proposed before 1961 for a junior secondary homonym has acquired wide use, the relevant junior secondary homonym is permanently invalid. (1) If the replacement has not been widely used, and if, after another generic transfer, the replaced name is no longer a junior secondary homonym, the replaced original name becomes again nomenclaturally valid and com- petes with other names under the Principle of Priority, as in Section d of this Article. (ii) Doubtful cases should be submitted to the Commission for a decision under its plenary power [Art. 79]. 152 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSIONS ‘SUPPRESSED FOR NOMENCLATURAL PURPOSES’ AND ‘REJECTED FOR NOMENCLATURAL PURPOSES’ AND THE STATUS OF INFORMATION IN WORKS THAT ARE REJECTED UNDER ARTICLES 8 AND 9 OF THE CODE. Z.N.(S.)2476 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands), W. D. L. Ride (Canberra College of Advanced Education, Canberra, Australia) and C. W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington DC 20560, U.S.A.) The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature dis- tinguishes only two classes of works: those that are ‘published’ within the meaning of Article 8, and unpublished works. 2. But for a name or nomenclatural act to be available, it must also be contained in a work that was published after 1757 [Art. 1 la]; it must have been published in a work in which the author had consis- tently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature [Art. | lc]; and, if published after 1950, it must not be anonymous [Art. 14]. 3. On the other hand, works that meet only the criteria of Article 8 (but not also those of paragraph 2 above) may be the published sources of descriptions or illustrations that may provide the bases for the establishment of new names under Articles 12 and 13 by bibliographic reference. 4. In the past the Commission has given Opinions that certain works are ‘suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes’ or ‘rejected for nomenclatorial purposes’ and recorded these rulings in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature (in the Code the spelling ‘nomenclatural’ is used; it is used elsewhere in this proposal, except when quoting). 5. At present it is not clear whether the expressions ‘rejected for nomenclatorial purposes’ and ‘suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes’ are of equivalent effect on the works so described. Are such works totally rejected or suppressed (i.e. have they the same status in nomenclature as manuscripts) or may they be used as sources of illustrations or descriptions as though they were works published before 1758? (see paragraph 3 above). 6. In preparing the third edition of the Code it has become appar- ent that a ruling must be obtained to clarify the expressions used by the Commission in its Opinions. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 153 STATUS OF WORKS UNDER THE CODE 7. Unpublished works: Works that do not meet the criteria of Article 8 (or are rejected under Article 9) have the status, in zoological nomenclature, of unpublished works; that is, they have the same status as manuscripts. 8. Works published before 1758: Works published prior to 1758, even if they meet the criteria of Article 8, are not sources in which names can be made available. Since nomenclatural acts, such as type fixation, selection using the First Reviser principle, and allocation of species to a genus described without originally included species, can only be done following the establishment of an available name, it follows that none of them can be accepted from a pre-1758 work. However such works have been regarded, since the time of Linnaeus, as published sources of illustrations or descriptions that can be cited by bibliographic reference in order to establish a name (e.g. by indication under Article 12 of the third edition). 9. Non-binominal works: Published works that are not wholly binominal [Art. |1c] have the same status as works published before 1758; names and nomenclatural acts published in such works cannot be available. 10. Anonymous works: Names published anonymously after 1950 are not available [Art. 14]. This provision should be extended to cover also nomenclatural acts published in such works. 11. Rejected and suppressed works: Although the difference in meaning between ‘rejected works’ and ‘suppressed works’ may not be evident to the casual reader, analysis of the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature reveals that ‘rejected works’ are those that are held by the Commission not to meet the ‘nor- mal provisions of the Régles’ (Hemming, 1958, Introductory Note to the Official Index, paragraph 7). In this sense, rejection is an action that can be taken by any zoologist with regard to a work in which ‘the author did not consistently apply the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature’ or to a work ‘published before | January 1758, the starting point of zoologi- cal nomenclature’. On the other hand, ‘suppressed works’ are those on which official action is taken by the Commission using its plenary power [Art. 79] even though the work satisfies the criteria of Article 8 (or poss- ibly so), but for reasons of conserving later names or acts, is deemed to be a threat to stability and thus meet to be suppressed. 12. Nowhere in the Code or the Official Index is it made clear whether works that are rejected or suppressed have the status of manu- scripts (i.e. works that do not meet the criteria of Article 8 or have been rejected under Article 9) or whether they have the status of published works referred to in paragraphs 8 to 10 above. 154 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 DRAFT DECLARATION A 13. The Commission is asked to insert words into Chapter III of the Code to make it clear that (a) (b) (c) suppressed and rejected works all have the same status in zoological nomenclature, i.e. a work rejected by a zoologist or the Commission on any of the following grounds: (i) that it was published before 1758; or (ii) that it has been suppressed by the Commission by the use of the plenary power; or (iii) that the author did not consistently apply the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature; or (iv) that it was published anonymously after 1950 is not a work in which a new name can be established or any of the following nomenclatural acts be done: (1) fixation of the name-bearing type of a taxon at any rank in the family group, the genus group or the species group, including the subsequent reference of one or more nominal species to a genus established without included species; (2) any of the actions admissible under the Principle of the First Reviser; (3) emendation, justified or unjustified; but such works may be used as published sources to which bibliographic reference can be made for published illus- trations or descriptions to make available a newly published name under the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 (of the third edition); the expressions ‘rejected for nomenclatural purposes’ and ‘suppressed for nomenclatural purposes’ used by the Com- mission with reference to works shall be defined as in (a) above, subject to any qualification expressly stated in the rel- evant Opinion; and a work that does not satisfy the provisions of Article 8 or that is rejected under Article 9 has the status in zoological nomenclature of a manuscript, that is, it is unpublished for all the purposes of the Code. COMPLETION OF RULING 14. The term ‘available’ is not used in the Code itself in con- nexion with works, but is used in the title and introduction of the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature following a decision at Copenhagen in 1953 that ‘Where, on the application of specialists, the International Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 155 Commission either (a) declares to be available, or (b) validates, for nomenclatorial purposes, a given work, the name of that work (together with its author and date) shall be placed on an ‘Official List’ to be styled the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature.’ (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nom., p. 24, decision 24). In this context, and subject to any qualification imposed by the Com- mission using its plenary power [Art. 79], the use of the terms ‘available’ and ‘validated’ confers equal status. DRAFT DECLARATION B 15. We request the Commission to insert words in Chapter III of the Code to make it clear that (a) (b) (c) the terms ‘available’ and ‘validated’ when used in connexion with a work in zoological nomenclature shall be interpreted to mean that the work so described is, or is deemed by the Commission to be, a work that is published under Article 8 and is not excluded from use for any other nomenclatural purpose (such as establishing new names, fixation of name- bearing types, selection under the Principle of the First Reviser, etc.) by any provision of the Code; the term ‘available work’ be used to describe such a work; and any work so described may nevertheless be partially restricted in use or suppressed by the Commission using its plenary power and any such limitation or suppression shall be expressed in an Opinion. 156 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 70b OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ON MISIDENTIFIED TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2477 By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) There is ample evidence in the literature that in cases where it is or becomes very clear that a type species was misidentified, authors commonly do not bother to apply to the Commission but go ahead and recognize the species actually involved as type species. This maintains stability and universality, and therefore it is difficult to fault such actions even though they are in technical violation of Article 70b of the code. 2. A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico (1965) illustrates the immensity of the problem, at least in the field of entomology. The individual cataloguers of families listed a total of 51 genera and 3 subgenera in 25 families as having misidentified type species. Two of the generic names are junior homonyms, but both are involved in the type species of their replacement names. Twelve are synonyms in current classification. The editors allowed the cataloguers to recognize the actual species rather than the named species, if they pre- ferred for reasons of stability, but only one chose to adopt the named species. The editors pointed out (Introduction, p. 9) that ‘To conform to nomenclature requirements, application should be made to the Inter- national Commission, but time did not permit securing the necessary decisions for this catalog’. 3. For a different continent and many different authors, the Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region (R. W. Crosskey, ed.) [British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 1980] covered a fauna of similar size, 16,318 species and 2,009 genera compared to 16,130 species and 1,971 genera for America north of Mexico. The editors positively accepted the actual species involved, but misidentified, as the type species. Thus, in the ‘Explanatory information on the Catalogue text’ (pp. 21-22): ‘If the nominal type-species was misidentified, so that the actual type-species is different from the putative type-species, the existence of misidentification and the original binomen, author and date, of the valid name of the actual species involved are shown, e.g. ““Type-species: Ocyptera pusilla Meigen, 1824, sensu Robineau-Desvoidy [misident., = Tachina biguttata Meigen, 1824]’, (thus the type-species is biguttata Meigen which Robineau-Desvoidy mistakenly identified as pusilla Meigen)’. 4. The Afrotropical Catalogue recorded 30 genera and 7 sub- genera in 23 families as having misidentified type species. Of these one name was a homonym and 9 are currently in synonymy. Because some Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 157 old and widespread genera are involved, 15 of the problem cases occur in both catalogs, but the Afrotropical Catalogue still adds a sizeable number. 5. I believe that the Commission should be saved the work and trouble of considering clearcut cases, and taxonomists should be saved the time and effort of preparing them for the Commission and the time of waiting (sometimes) years for a decision. There must, of course, be provision for challenge, and then the case can be considered by the Com- mission. Meanwhile the great majority of such cases need not reach the Commission at all. 6. Accordingly, I propose that Article 70b (of 3rd edition, =70a of 1961, 1964 editions) be amended as follows, and that a new 70c be inserted, with present 70c becoming 70d: (b) Misidentified type species. — If, however, a person discovers that a type species was misidentified, or considers that a misidentifi- cation has clearly occurred, he or she is to continue to regard as type species the species that was actually involved, but under its correct name, and not the species represented by the name incorrectly applied to the type species. (c) Commission action on misidentified type species. — If there is disagreement on the misidentification or on the identity of the species actually involved, the case is to be referred to the Commission with appropriate documentation and a proposal that the Commission designate as type species, by use of the plenary power when necessary, the nominal species that will best serve stability and universality of nomenclature, either (1) the nominal species named in the fixation of the type species, regardless of its misidentification; or (11) the species actually involved, which was wrongly named in the type fixation, or (ili) if the identity of the misidentified species is doubtful, a nominal species chosen in conformity with the usage of the generic or subgeneric name prevailing at the time the misidentification is discovered; or (iv) if the Commission considers that none of these alternatives is appropriate it may designate any nominal species to be the type species. 7. Subsections (ii) to (iv) are virtually the same as in (i) to (iil) of Article 70b of the 3rd edition of the Code, and Subsections (1) to (ili) are virtually the same, in a different sequence, as (i) to (iii) of 70a of the 1961 and 1964 editions. (8) The compact formats adopted in the two catalogs illustrate slightly different ways of representing the result, thus: Anthrax Scopoli, 1763: 358. Type-species, Musca morio Linnaeus (mon.; misident.) = Anthrax anthrax (Schrank). [North American Catalog.] 158 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 Anthrax Scopoli, 1763: 358. Type-species: Musca morio Linnaeus, 1758, sensu Scopoli [misident., = Musca anthrax Schrank, 1781], by monotypy. [Afrotropical Catalogue]. COMMENT ON DR SABROSKY’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 70 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Dr Sabrosky‘s proposed amendment to Article 70 would, if adopted, undoubtedly save the Secretariat of the Commission a great deal of work and is to be welcomed on that score. It contains within itself, however, a difficulty that he has not perceived: it would put Article 70b in direct conflict with Articles 67e and 69a(i) (of the third edition). These provisions prescribe, first, that only the actions of the original author made when a nominal genus or subgenus is established are relevant in deciding what are the species originally included in that taxon (Article 67 g further provides that a species that was not originally included cannot be the type species); and, secondly, what species can be accepted as the originally included species. ‘ In most cases about misidentified type species, the species that is preferred for designation was not originally included; in many cases it was only established later than the genus in question; in some cases it has no name of its own at the time when the misidentification is discovered. His proposed paragraph b would be unexceptional if it were confined to cases where the species before the desig- nator was an originally included species; but so to restrict his proposal would deprive it of nearly all its usefulness. The solution to this conflict is not immediately apparent to me. I hope readers of the Bulletin will put forward proposals. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 159 WILLIAMIA MONTEROSATO, 1884 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2237 By Harald B. Rehder (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) In 1887, [30 June] (see outside back wrapper), p. 210, Mérch proposed the name A/lerya for a subgenus of Piliscus Lovén, 1859 containing two species of limpet-shaped pulmonate mollusks, Ancylus gussoni O. G. Costa, 1829, and Piliscus (Allerya) krebsii new species (Morch, 1877a, p. 210). In another paper that appeared several months later (but not later than [31 October 1877], see inside front wrapper) Morch used the name Allerya, again for a subgenus of Piliscus, with only one species included, Piliscus (Allerya) krebsii, which he stated was ‘close to P. gussoni’. 2. In 1877 Monterosato erected the genus Scutulum for Ancylus gussoni O. G. Costa (Monterosato, 1877, p. 427). In 1884, p. 150, Monterosato proposed the replacement name Williamia for Allerya Morch, which he claimed was preoccupied by Allerya Bourguignat, 1876. He also pointed out that his own name Scutulum was pre- occupied by Scutulum Tournouér, 1870. Monterosato considered that Bourguignat’s name Allerya dated from the month in which he (Monterosato) submitted Bourguignat’s paper (Bourguignat, 1878) for publication. 3. Bourguignat’s paper, in which he proposed Allerya for three small land snails from Sicily, now in the family ENODONTIDAE, had been transmitted by him, apparently through Monterosato, to the Royal Academy of Science, Letters and Art in Palermo, Sicily. Monterosato translated it from French into Italian and submitted the manuscript to the Academy for publication according to the note after the author’s name in the publication. However, the title page of vol. 6 bears the dates 1876-79, and part 3, in which Bourguignat’s paper appeared, could not have been published before 1878 and probably appeared in that year. Neave, 1939, p. 115, has already pointed out that Al/erya Bourguignat should be dated from 1878, and that Williamia was proposed as a replacement name in error (Neave, 1940, p. 657). 4. In 1895, p. 137, Cossmann designated Patella gussoni O. G. Costa as type species of Williamia (in which it was the only originally included species, hence type species by monotypy), which he used as a subgenus of Siphonaria. As synonyms of Williamia he listed Scutulum Monterosato, 1877, non Tournouér, 1870, and Allerya Morch, 1877, non Bourguignat, 1876 [sic]. According to Article 67i of the Code this type-species designation applies both to Williamia and to Allerya Morch, for which no earlier type-species designation has been found. 160 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 5. Allerya Mérch, 1877, in the family SIPHONARIIDAE, is thus one year earlier than Allerya Bourguignat, 1878 and becomes therefore a nomenclaturally valid name. It should replace Williamia Monterosato, 1884, a name that has been in use for 100 years for a world-wide genus of pulmonate limpets. It is found in such general treatises as Zilch, 1959, p. 84 and Franc, 1968, p. 522; faunal works as Abbott, 1974, p. 336; Keen, 1971, p. 852; Kuroda & Habe in Habe, 1961, Appendix, p. 33; Kay, 1979, p. 493; and Rehder, 1980, p. 98; and in taxonomic papers such as Hubendick, 1946, p. 70; Donohue, 1965, p. 19; and Marshall, 1981, p. 487. According to the last-named author, p. 487, Allerya Morch has been used only once, by Habe, 1964, p. 144, since its establishment for this group of pulmonate limpets. 6. The name Allerya Bourguignat, 1878, was proposed for three species of small land snails from Sicily that are now considered to be members, either as valid names or as synonyms, of the genus Discus Fitzinger, 1833, p. 99, in the family ENODONTIDAE (Zilch, 1959, py 227): 7. In 1862 Bourguignat proposed the generic name Brondelia (p. 20) for two species of supposedly freshwater limpets from Algeria, one of which he had described eight years earlier (Bourguignat, 1854, p. 92) as Ancylus drouetianus. This species, which has been designated as type species of Brondelia by Rehder, 1984, p. 84, was originally described and figured from a specimen in the Cuming Collection and was said to have come from North America. The type specimen is lost or missing, but from the adequate description and good figure it without doubt represents a species of Williamia, and probably W. gussoni, the type species of Williamia (Rehder, 1984, p. 84). Brondelia Bourguignat has never been used for the group of pulmonate limpets now known as Williamia Monterosato, and therefore I request that this name also be suppressed. 8. In order to preserve the name Williamia Monterosato as cur- rently used, and to avoid the confusion that would result from the strict application of the Law of Priority in this case, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the generic names (a) Allerya MOrch, 1877, and (b) Brondelia Bourguignat, 1862; (2) place the generic name Williamia Monterosato, 1884 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Ancylus gussoni O. G. Costa, 1829, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name gussoni O. G. Costa, 1829, as published in the binomen Ancylus gussoni (specific name of type species of Williamia Monterosato, 1877) on the Official Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 161 List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) place the generic names (a) Allerya MOrch, 1877 and (b) Brondelia Bourguignat, 1862, as suppressed under the ple- nary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ABBOTT, R. T. 1974. American Seashells, 2nd edit., 663 pp., 6405 figs, 24 pls. New York. BOURGUIGNAT, J. R. 1854. Descriptions d’ancyles nouveaux, de la collec- tion de M. Cuming, précédée d’une courte notice sur le genre Ancylus et d’un catalogue complet des especes qui le composent. Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 21, pp. 76-93. — 1862. Notices monographiques sur les genres Gundlachia, Poeyia, et Brondelia. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) vol. 14, pp. 12-23. — 1878. Monographia del nuovo genere Siciliano Allerya. Atti Acad. Sci., Lett. Arte Palermo, n.s. vol. 6 (3), pp. 1-7, 5 figs. COSSMANN, M. 1895. Essais de Paléoconchologie comparée, fasc. 1. Paris, Author. COSTA, O. G. 1829. Ossery. geol. intorno di testa... Pantelleria. Napoli. DONOHUE, J. 1965. Concerning Williamia peltoides (Carpenter). Veliger, vol. 8 (1), pp. 19-21. FITZINGER, L. J. 1833. Systematisches Verzeichniss der im Erzherzogthum Oesterreich vorkommenden Weichthiere. Beitr. Verein vaterl. Gesch., Statistik, Topogr., vol. 3, pp. 88-122. FRANC, J. 1968. Sous-classe des Pulmonés, in Grassé, ed., Traité de Zoologie, vol. 5, fasc. 3, pp. 325-607, figs 173-309. HABE, T. 1961. Coloured illustrations of shells of Japan, vol. 2, 183 pp. Osaka. — 1964. Shells of the western Pacific in colour, vol. 2, 233 pp., 66 pls. Osaka. HUBENDICK, G. 1946. Systematic monograph of the Patelliformia. K. svenska Vetenskaps Akad. Handl., (3) vol. 23 (5), pp. 1-93, 6 pls. KAY, E. A. 1979. Hawaiian marine shells, xvi+653 pp., 195 figs. Honolulu. KEEN, M. 1971. Sea shells of tropical west America, 2nd edit., xvi+ 1064 pp., figs, 22 pls. Stanford. LOVEN, S. 1859. Om Molluskslagtet Pilidium Midd. Ofvers. k. Vetenskaps Akad. Foérhandl., vol. 16 (3), pp. 119-120. MARSHALL, B. A. 1981. The genus Williamia in the western Pacific (Mollusca: Siphonariidae). New Zealand J. Zool., vol. 8, pp. 487-492, 2 figs. MONTEROSATO, M. DE 1877. Notizie sulle conchiglie della rade di Civita- vecchia. Ann. Mus. Stor. nat. Genova, vol. 9, pp. 407-428, 2 figs. — 1884. Nomenclatura generica e specifica di alcune Conchiglie mediterranee, _ 152 pp. Palermo. MORCH, O. A. L. 1877a. Observations sur l’Ancylus gussoni Costa, et le nouveau sous-genre Allerya. J. Conchyliol., vol. 25 (2), pp. 209-211. — 1877b. Synopsis molluscorum marinorum Indiarum occidentalium imprimis Insularum danicarum (contin.). Malakol. Blatter, vol. 24, pp. 93-123. 162 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 NEAVE, S. A. 1939. Nomenclator zoologicus, vol. 1, xiv+957 pp. — 1940. Nomenclator zoologicus, vol. 4, 758 pp. REHDER, H. A. 1980. The marine mollusks of Easter Island (Isla de Pascua) and Sala y Gomez. Smiths. Contrib. Zool. vol. 289, iv+ 167 pp., 14 pls. —— 1984. The genus Brondelia Bourguignat, 1862, and its taxonomic position. Nautilus, vol. 98 (2), pp. 83-84. TOURNOUER, E. 1870. Sur des nummulites et une nouvelle espece d’échinide trouvées dans le ‘Miocéne inférieur’ ou ‘Oligocene moyen’ des environs de Paris. Bull. Soc. géol. France (2) vol. 26, pp. 974-982, 3 figs. ZILCH, A. 1959-60. Gastropoda: Euthyneura in Schindewolf, ed., Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6 (2), pp. 1-400 (1959), 401-835 + I-XII (1960). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 163 TIBICINA AMYOT, 1847 AND LYRISTES HORVATH, 1926 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, HOMOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF TIBICEN BERTHOLD, 1827. Z.N.(S.)239 By R. V. Melville (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) and R. W. Sims (British Museum (Natural History), London) The question of the status of Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926 in relation to Tibicen Berthold, 1827 was first raised as an issue before the Commission by Dr R. G. Fennah in 1946 but was not then pursued. In 1961 he stated that he did not wish to pursue the case. In 1963 the problem surrounding the family-group names involved was raised separately (reference Z.N.(S.) 1626) by the late Dr China and his paper was published in April 1964 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 21, pp. 154-160). The Commission voted on this application from March to June 1966, but though a two-thirds majority gave a favourable vote, Dr Holthuis pointed out that TIBICENIDAE [sic] Van Duzee, 1916 could not be suppressed unless the name of its type genus (Tibicen) was first suppressed; this would require a use of the plenary powers that had not been announced. No Opinion was accordingly then written. 2. In 1980 one of us (R.V.M.) noticed the connexion between the cases presented by Dr Fennah and Dr China and invited R.W.S. to coordinate them and canvass the views of hemipterists on the course of action best calculated to promote stability of nomenclature. The names principally involved are: (a) Cicada Linnaeus, 1758, p. 434. The type species of this genus, by subsequent designation by Van Duzee, 1912, p. 491, is Cicada tibicen Linnaeus, 1758, p. 436. Until then, Cicada plebeja Scopoli, 1763 had been treated by most authors as the type species, following an invalid designation by Latreille, 1810. The confusion caused by Van Duzee’s nomenclaturally valid action persists to this day. (b) Tibicen Berthold, 1827, p. 424. The type species of this genus, by monotypy, is Cicada plebeja Scopoli, 1763, p. 117. In 1843 Amyot & Audinet-Serville stated wrongly that Cicada haematodes Scopoli, 1763 is the type species, and this was generally accepted because Latreille (from whose French vernacular of 1825 Berthold had taken Tibicen) included C. haematodes in Tibicen in 1829 but not C. plebeja. Moreover, the true C. plebeja has not the generic 164 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 characters given by Latreille (1825, 1829) and Berthold, 1827 to the genus. (c) Tibicina Amyot, 1847, p. 154. Type species, by subsequent designation by Distant, July 1905, p. 22, Cicada haematodes Scopoli, 1763, p. 118. It was wrongly treated as a junior objective synonym of Tibicen by those who regarded C. haematodes as the type of both genera. (d) Lyristes Horvath, 1926, p. 95. Type species, by original designation, Cicada plebeja Scopoli, 1763. Horvath ac- cepted an invalid designation by Van Duzee, 1914, of Cicada orni Linnaeus, 1758, p. 436 as type species of Cicada Linnaeus, 1758, but believed that C. haematodes should be retained as type species of Tibicen. He proposed Lyristes for the genus typified by C. plebeja, left without a name. TIBICININAE Distant, 1905, p. 22 (type genus Tibicina Amyot, 1847. (f) TIBICENINAE [sic; recte TIBICININAE] Van Duzee, 1916, p. 488 (type genus Tibicen Berthold, 1827). (g) CICADINAE Berthold, 1827, p. 424 (as ‘Cicadariae’) (type genus Cicada Linnaeus, 1758). 3. China, 1964, sought principally to remove the confusion caused by the coexistence of TIBICININAE and TIBICENINAE. How- ever, as Dr Holthuis has pointed out (in litt. 9 April 1981) the genitive of Tibicen is tibicinis, so that the family-group names are homonyms under Article 55a and the Commission must resolve this homonymy. 4. R.W:S. collected the facts about these names and outlined two alternative solutions to the problems. The first entailed the suppression under the plenary powers of 7ibicen with the consequent invalidation of TIBICININAE Van Duzee, 1916; the replacement names would be Lyristes Horvath, 1926 and LYRISTINAE Gomez—Menor, 1957, pp. 28, 30. The second entailed the use of the plenary powers to designate Cicada haematodes Scopoli as type species of Tibicen. Lyristes would, as in the first alternative, become the valid name for the genus of which Cicada plebeja is the type species, and Tibicina would become a junior objective synonym of Tibicen. If this solution was adopted, the species hitherto included in Tibicen would pass into Lyristes and those included in Tibicina would pass into the revised concept of Tibicen, and confu- sion might then arise. These proposals were circulated to 16 specialists in CICADOIDEA; M. Boulard, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris J. Dlabola, Narodni Muzeum, Prague H. Duffels, Zodlogisch Museum, Universiteit, Amsterdam J. S. Dugdale, DSIR Entomology Division, Auckland W. della Giustina, Laboratoire de Zoologie du CNRS, Versailles K. G. A. Hamilton, Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa M. Hayashi, Saitami University, Urawa 338, Japan — (e Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 165 F. Heller, Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Stuttgart V. Kartal, Department of Zoology, University of Ankara P. Lauterer, Jilova 33, Brno Thomas E. Moore, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Kanya Naruse, Ichikawa-shi, Chiba-ken 272, Japan J. Nast, Zoological Institute, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw W. Scheld, Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat, Innsbruck. 5. The first responses to R.W.S’s invitation consisted of 10 replies, of which six preferred to retain both Tibicen and Tibicina, with subfamilies TIBICENINAE (sic) and TIBICININAE. Four preferred the suppression of Tibicen and the rejection of TIBICENINAE, with the adoption of the replacement names Lyristes and LYRISTINAE. Among these replies that from M. Boulard examined the issues involved in great depth and is reproduced in full here. Although the text is not correct on every point of nomenclatural detail, it has not been edited from that point of view. It is hoped that our final proposals will be found to be correctly framed. 6. M. Boulard circulated his contribution to the specialists already named. As a result, three of the six who had voted to retain Tibicen now voted for its suppression. Two additional replies were received, one in favour of retaining 7ibicen, the other its suppression. The final totals were thus four for the retention of Tibicen and eight for its suppression. 7. The replies showed some misunderstanding on two points: (a) The status of Tibicina Amyot, 1847. This appeared in what was evidently an instalment of Amyot’s Entomologie francaise, and that work began with an essay on the ‘Méthode mononymique’. It was apparently the presence of that essay that led the Commission to reject the work in Opinion 686 (1963, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 20, p. 423), but the ruling omitted to specify the instalment in which Tibicina appeared. The name is therefore available from Amyot, 1847 under Article 78e. If it were not available from that work, it would date from Kolenati, 1857, with impli- cations for the method of fixation (but not for the identity) of the type species. (b) the status of TIBICENINAE Van Duzee, 1916. Some of those who wished to see this name conserved overlooked the fact that, as the genitive of Tibicen is tibicinis, the name must be spelled TIBICININAE and is then a junior homo- nym of TIBICININAE Distant, 1905 (type genus Tibicina Amyot, 1847) and that this homonymy must be dealt with under Article 55a. Of those who understood that fact, some wanted PLATYPLEURINAE Schmidt, 1909 to be used in replacement, while others preferred LYRISTINAE Gomez Menor, 1957 (type genus Lyristes Horvath, 1926). It is clear 166 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 that there are taxonomic objections to the adoption of PLAT YPLEURINAE. 8. M. Boulard’s contribution now follows: ARGUMENTS POUR LA SUPPRESSION DU NOM DE GENRE TIBICEN ET DE SES DERIVES DANS LA NOMENCLATURE DE LA SUPERFAMILLE DES CICADOIDEA Par Michel Boulard (Directeur- Adjoint du Laboratoire d’Entomologie de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Chef du Service des Homopteéres du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Secrétaire général de la Société Entomologique de France, 45, rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris) A. INTRODUCTION 1. En 1912 et 1914, la nomenclature et la classification supérieure alors en usage pour les ‘CICADIDAE”! depuis plus d’un demi-siécle, furent bouleversées dans leurs éléments fondamentaux par Van Duzee. En dépit d’efforts répétés de la part de plusieurs auteurs, elles n’ont pas, aujourd’hui encore, retrouvé la stabilité statutaire aux niveaux des trois sous-familles principales. 2. Les trois sous-familles en question ont été fondées sur trois types de Cigales paléarctiques trés connues et décrites a l’aube de la taxinomie entomologique dans le méme genre Cicada Linné 1758: la Cigale de l’Orne, C. orni Linné, 1758; la Cigale plébéienne, C. plebeja Scopoli, 1763; et la Cigale rouge, C. haematodes Scopoli, 1763. Des différences, considérées comme essentielles et résidant chez les males, font que ces trois Cigales représentent trois taxa assez éloignés pour étre chacun le taxon-type d’une sous-—famille distincte. 3. Pendant plus de 100 ans, Cicada eut pour espéce-type ‘C. plebeia’. Mais C. orni ayant été finalement reconnue type du genre linnéen en 1914, les auteurs ne sont pas accordés, depuis, sur les statuts génériques des deux espéces scopoliennes: le méme nom Tibicen étant donne: (a) ou bien a C. haematodes [Tibicen haematodes (Scopoli, 1763), Amyot et Audinet-Serville, 1843] par les uns, qui nomment alors la Cigale plébéienne: Lyristes plebeius (Scop.) Horvath, 1926, \Cicadoidea: sensu Metcalf, 1939 (J. Soc. Bibliogr. Nat. Hist., vol. 1(9), p. 247) —Cicadidae Westwood, 1840 (Intr. Mod. Class. Ins., vol. 2, p. [420]), Distant ... 1906 (Syn. Cat. Hom., 1) =Cicadae verae Latreille, 1802 (Hist. Nat. génér. et partic. Crust. et Insec., vol. 3, p. 257); voir aussi note (10), in fine. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 167 (b) ou bien a C. plebeja [Tibicen plebeius (Scopoli, 1763) Van Duzee, 1914] par les autres, qui appellent la Cigale rouge: Tibicina haematodes (Scop.) Kolénati, 1857. 4. Cette ‘fixation oscillante’ du taxon dénommé Tibicen qui, en raison de |’égale valeur systématique inhérente a l’une comme a |’autre espéce, se trouve dans les deux cas genre-type de deux sous-familles opposées, a entrainé et entraine de graves désordres nuisant a la compréhension de la Superfamille. En outre, le cas (b), ci-dessus rappelé et mis en place par Van Duzee, conduisit a introduire dans la nomenclature des noms du groupe famille ayant méme radical et ne differant que par une seule lettre: Tibiceninae et Tibicininae, qui ajoutent a la confusion. 5. En 1964, avec le dessein de remédier a cet état catastrophique, China a établi une chronologie des évenements ayant noué le probléme. Toutefois, cette chronologie souffre de lacunes importantes et les solutions alors proposées par China ne firent que reculer le probleme sans le résoudre. 6. Afin d’aider a clarifier une situation aussi désastreuse qu’embrouillée, j’ai entrepris de recherches qui, conduites avec le souci de l’éthique et de la simplification rationnelle, m’ont amené a considérer que le mot TJibicen et ses dérivés ne devraient plus étre maintenus dans la nomenclature en tant que noms de genre et de groupes. Ce point de vue, que j’ai déja fait connaitre tres succintement en 1972, se trouve étayé en détail par les arguments que je développerai un peu plus loin, apres avoir mis en évidence les sources du probleme. La solution qui en découlera, permettrait, mutatis mutandis, d’écarter définitivement tous malentendus taxinomiques, d’étrangler, enfin, l’anarchie qui préside dans la systématique des Cigales. B. LES SOURCES DU PROBLEME I. Le choix de Latreille; prémisses de la classification 7. Nomenclature et classification des vraies Cigales reposérent longtemps sur la désignation sans équivoque par Latreille de l’espece plebeia comme type du genre Cicada (1810, Considérations générales sur l’Ordre naturel ... des Insectes, p. 434). Quoique venant aprés des citations d’autres espéces a la méme place (C. orni, in: Lamarck, 1801, Systeme des Animaux sans Vertébres, p. 292; in: Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle ... des Insectes, Familles naturelles des genres, tome 3eme, p. 257. C. haematodes, in: Latreille 1807, Genera... insectorum, p. [153]), cette désignation, faite dans un livre ot le mot ‘type’ apparaissait pour la premiere fois avec son sens taxinomique, fut entérinée par les Homoptéristes du siécle passé et du début du siécle 168 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 présent, notamment: Amyot, Kolénati, Stal, Fieber, Puton, Mélichar, Kirkaldy, Goding, Froggatt, Oshanin et Distant. 8. Amyot, en 1847 (Annis Soc. ent. Fr. (2) 5, pp. 142-157?) établit, le premier, la distinction entre les trois Cigales, basée sur le critere cymbacalyptal?. Réservant le taxon Cicada a plebeia aux ‘timbales entiérement recouvertes en dessus et latéralement’ (op. cit., p. 150), il crée alors Tettigia pour orni aux ‘timbales plus ou moins laissées a découvert’ (p. 152) et Tibicina pour haematodes aux ‘timbales entiérement découvertes’ (p. 152 et 154). Cette division tripartite, nettement fondée, qui fut reprise tout d’abord par Kolénati en 1857 (Bull. Soc. Naturalist., Moscou, vol. 30, pp. 399-429), deviendra celle distinguant les trois principales sous-familles et elle reste en vigueur aujourd’hui. 9. Distant, en 1906, rassemblant ses conceptions taxinomiques et systématiques sur les Cigales dans l’ouvrage fondamental que consti- tute son ‘Synonymic Catalogue of... Cicadidae’ consacra cette division tripartite sous la forme retracée comme suit: — Cicadinae, Distant, 1904, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), vol. 14, p. 293, genre-type Cicada Linn. sensu Latreille, 1810, espéce-type C. plebeja, Scop. (p. 38). — Gaeaninae, Dist., 1905, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), vol. 15, p. 304 (p. 72), genre-type Gaeana Am. & Serv. 1843, espéce- type G. maculata Drury (p. 101); (sous-famille dans laquelle Tettigia orni L. se trouve citée la premiere, p. 74). — Tibicininae, Dist., 1905, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), vol. 16, p. 22, genre-type Tibicina Amyot, 1847, espéce-type T. haematodes, Scop. (p. 123). II. Les choix de Van Duzee et de Horvath 10. Malheureusement, la désignation de Latreille ne put conti- nuer d’étre acceptée pour la raison primordiale, élevée en regle absolue lors du 5eme Congrés International de Zoologie (Berlin, 1901), que C. 2Ce travail est inclus dans un essai taxinomique intitulé: ‘Entomologie francaise. Rhynchotes’, avec, en sous-titre: ‘Méthode mononymique’, que parut tout d’abord en plusieurs parties de 1845 a 1847 (in: Annls Soc. ent. Fr.), puis en un seul volume (Bailliére éd., Paris, 1848: 504 pp.). En 1963, la Commission (Opinion 686, Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 20, p. 423) rejeta avec raison la méthode mononymique. Mais le texte d’invalidation ne mentionne pas la partie ol sont traitées les Cigales et a ’en-téte de laquelle (p. 143) le sous-titre ne figure pas. Aussi, les taxa qui s’y trouvent inventés par Amyot restent-ils correctement établis. Je remercie mes collegues R. V. Melville et R. W. Sims (Londres) pour avoir attiré mon attention sur ce point important. 3de cymbacalyptes: plaques tergales recouvrant plus ou moins cymbales; protége-timbales, ‘tymbal-covering’. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 169 plebeja Scopoli ne figure pas parmi les especes incluses par Linné en 1758 dans son genre Cicada. En 1912, Van Duzee (Bull. Soc. nat. Sci. Buffalo, vol. 10, p. 491), tenant compte de ce fait, a alors placé Cicada tibicen Linné, 1758 comme type du genre, et cette désignation est valide selon les regles en vigueur a l’€poque, comme aussi selon celles du Code actuel. Pourtant deux ans plus tard Van Duzee (Canad. Entomol. vol. 46, 1914, p. 387) crut bon de se corriger et il a désigné Cicada orni Linné, 1758 comme type du genre en se basant sur la citation unique de cette espece par Lamarck en 1801 (op. cit., loc. cit.) aprés la diagnose que celui-ci donna pour le genre Cicada L.4 11. Van Duzee apres avoir fixé, comme il le pensait, le genre Cicada, rechercha alors sous quel nom placer plebeja; il choisit ‘TIBICEN’ Latreille, 1825 et confirma, implicitement, la désignation de C. haematodes comme type de Tibicina Kolénati (sic, p. 388). Cela le conduisit a bouleverser la nomenclature alors acceptée pour les grandes divisions de la classification des Cicadoidea; celle—ci prit l’aspect calamiteux suivant, tiré des pages 22 et 23 du papier que Van Duzee fit paraitre en 1915 (J. New York entomol. Soc., voi. 23): — TIBICINAE (sic) (=CICADINAE of Distant), genre Tibicen Latr., 1825 ... type C. plebeja Linn. (sic): — CICADINAE (=GAEANINAE of Distant), sans indication d’espece-type de Cicada, mais avec implication de Cicada orni L. — TIBICIINAE (sic) (=TIBICINAE of Distant) (sic), sans indication d’espece-type de Tibicina, mais avec implication de Cicada haematodes Scop. 12. Van Duzee (1916, Check List of Hemipt., pp. 55 et 56; 1917, Techn. Bull. Calif. agr. exp. Stat., Entomol. 2, pp. 488, 496, 498 et 500) maintint son choix (qui, a s’arréter au seul plan formel, pourrait étre vu comme correctement établi, cf. alinéas 18b et 22) et les noms de ses 4Je partage tout a fait opinion de M. Melville (in /itt.) selon laquelle la désignation de C. orni par Van Duzee pourrait étre invalidée: d’une part, elle est postérieure a celle de C. tibicen en 1912 et, d’autre part, la Commission, en 1924 (Opinion 79, Smiths. misc. colls., vol. 73, pp. 15-16) a décidé que les citations d’especes in Lamarck 1801 ne pouvaient pas étre prises pour des désignations d’espéces-types. Il n’y a cependant aucun doute que C. orni, espéce citée dans la liste de Linné avant C. tibicen et de loin la plus anciennement connue, la premiére aussi et la seule a avoir été désignée tout d’abord comme l“exemple’ (au sens gestatoire manifeste de type) du genre par Latreille en 1802 (Hist. nat. ... Insectes, tome 3eme, p. 257), devrait étre considérée, définitivement, espece-type de Cicada L. dans l’intérét de la stabilité de la nomenclature. 170 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 sous—familles, en leur apportant les amendements qui s’imposaient. Son schéma fut repris par Metcalf (1939, J. Soc. Bibliogr. nat. Hist., vol. 1 (9), p. 248; 1963, General Cat. Hom., VIII, Cicadoidea), bien qu’entre temps de nombreux auteurs, cicadologues® avertis pour la plupart, leussent soit refusé, soit ignoré ou laissé pour compte. 13. Le premier a s’étre opposé explicitement au choix de Van Duzee fut Horvath, en 1926 (Annis Mus. nat. Hung. vol. 23, pp. 93-98). D’une part, cet auteur fit prendre conscience que Van Duzee se trouvait en désaccord total avec Latreille, l’inventeur du genre Tibicen et, d’autre part, il démontra le bien-fondé de la fixation du genre par Amyot et Audinet-Serville en 1843 (Hist. nat. des Insectes Homopt. p. 482), puis par Stal en 1861 (Annls Soc. entomol. Fr., (4) 1, p. 617), lesquels avaient désigné C. haematodes Scop., mais il récusa l’usage de Tibicina pour cette espece. Reconnaissant, toutefois, la fixation de Cicada L. par C. orni, Horvath fut alors amené a donner le nom Lyristes aux taxon générique ayant C. plebeja pour type. 14. Des actions de Van Duzee et de Horvath naquirent les deux courants antagonistes qui perturbent la nomenclature et la systématique supérieure des Cicadoidea: l’un préconisant Tibicen haematodes et Lyristes plebeius, Vautre tenant pour Tibicen plebeius et Tibicina haematodes. Ces deux courants charrient, entre autres épaves, deux noms du groupe famille de méme radical, aboutissant aux sous-familles Tibiceninae et Tibicininae, variablement définies selon le choix générotypique, multipliant bévues et confusions, faisant des Cicadoidea un groupe incohérent. III. Tibicen et incohérences 15. L’utilisation du mot Tibicen, perpétué pour l’une ou |’autre des grandes Cigales scopoliennes a conduit (et risque de conduire.. .) a placer dans un méme taxon des espéces qui non seulement ne sont pas congénériques mais qui, en plus, n’appartiennent pas a la méme famille. Il n’est que de se reporter aux catalogues pour relever avec Orian (1963, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13), vol. 6, pp. 321-323) et China (1964, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 21(2), pp. 154-160) un nombre impressionnant d’erreurs résultant: — soit de l’étroite similitude orthographique entre les deux patronymes et dans laquelle, d’ailleurs, Van Duzee s’empé- tra le premier: Tibicinae Van Duzee 1915 (Joc. cit.)=Tibice- ninae Van Duzee 1917 (loc. cit.); — soit de la désignation alternée de deux espéces pour la ‘fix- ation’ du taxon. Pour prendre de frappants exemples dans la faune européenne pourtant pauvre en Cigales, je rappel- 5J'admets, avec Amyot & Audinet-Serville, 1843, Blanchard, 1849, et pour des raisons a la fois d’homogénéité et d’euphonie une origine grecque pour ‘Cicada’. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 171 lerai les non-sens tirés en 1972 (Boulard, L’Entomologiste, vol. 28 (6), p. 168) des catalogues de Metcalf (1963) et de Servadei (1967, Rhynchota, Fauna d Ttalia, vol. IX, Bologna) ou des espéces aussi éloignées que peuvent 1’étre plebeja Scopoli et nigronervosa Fieber voisinent dans le méme genre Tibicen, tandis que des espeéces tres affines comme haematodes Scop. et cisticola Fairmaire sont placées dans des familles différentes. On peut de méme citer Miiller (1956, Cicadidae Latreille, in: Sorauer, Handb. Pflanzenkrankh, vol. V (3), p. 190) dans la revue duquel Cicadetta et Platy- pedia cOtoient Quesada, Lemuriana et ‘Tibicen haematodes’ dans une tribu dite des Tibicenini (sic, p. 191-192) pendant que Mogania, Platypleura, Diceroprocta et Clidophleps se retrouvent avec ‘Cicada plebeja’ dans une tribu dite des Cicadini (sic, p. 195-198). On peut citer encore Ishihara (1961, Cicadidae, Ins. Jap. vol. 1 (2), 36 pp) pour qui le genre ‘Tibicen Latreille, 1825’ a type haematodes Scopoli (sic) — espéce, rappelons le ici a nouveau, dépourvue de pro- tege-timbales — renferme des especes aux timbales entiére- ment cachées par des cymbacalyptes les plus développés qui soient! Etc. ... D’autres exemples de la méme veine peuvent se trouver dans la littérature un peu plus contemporaine. . . Aussi devient-il pressant de mettre un terme a cet état devagatoire. C. DISCUSSION 16. La qualification fluctuante de Tibicen tend a montrer que ce terme ne fut pas, ou fut mal, défini a lPorigine et que, de ce fait méme, il fut et reste sujet a des interprétations divergentes. Effectivement, lexégése le révéle tour a tour nomen nudum et nomen incertum. a) Tibicen, nomen nudum: création de Lyristes I. Latreille dans le texte 17. Le mot Tibicen apparait pour la premiére fois dans la littérature sous la plume de Latreille de la maniere sibylline suivante: ‘Les g. CIGALE, TIBICEN (C. plebeia)’, sans plus mais apres une courte diagnose s’appliquant a la premiere Tribu des Cicadaires, a la page 406 dun livre dont il vaut la peine de remémorer le titre in extenso: ‘Familles naturelles du Régne animal, exposées succintement et dans un ordre analytique avec I’indication de leurs genres’ (Paris, 1825). Les genres mentionnés le sont en frangais et l’on doit 4 Berthold, auteur 172 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 d’une traduction allemande du livre de Latreille parue en 1827, d’avoir en méme temps latinisé les noms génériques. Pour ce qui nous concerne ici, la transcription est la suivante, qu’il faut noter: ‘Die Geschl. Cicada, Tibicen (Cicada plebeia). (op. cit., p. 424). 18. En dehors de toute question de forme (cf. alinéa 21), il convient de faire remarquer des maintenant que: (a) Il y a deux noms de genre, normalement séparés, artifice d’écriture, par une virgule, pour wne seule espéce citée; (b) Le contexte montre que l’espece citée s’y trouve tel qu’exemple général; de Cigales, de Tibicens et d’autres genres de ‘Chanteuses’, pressentis par Latreille. Ce sens propre de la citation se percoit bien dans l’ensemble de Vouvrage. Berthold, d’ailleurs, ne s’y est pas trompé qui prit soin d’écrire, en entier—seule altération apportée au texte original, peu remarquée mais de grande importance pourtant—le nom du genre de l’espéce citée: Cicada plebeia (op. cit., loc. cit.); ce qui permet de comprendre que, dans le texte latinisé, l’ambiguité est levée et que, du méme coup, se trouvent confirmés: l’appartenance de l’espece au premier genre nommé, la citation de celle-ci au titre de référence globale, la qualité ‘nudum’ pour Tibicen, 1825. Enfin l’on apprendra, deux années plus tard, que Latreille pensait effectivement a un troisiéme genre: pour l’orni (cf. alinéa 19). (c) L’espéce citée était, sans Equivoque en 1825 (et en 1827, comme il vient d’étre démontré) le type du premier genre nommé, ainsi que Latreille l’avait lui-méme désignée en 1810, page 434 de sa ‘Table des genres avec |’indication de l’espéce qui leur sert de Type’ (in: Considérations générales sur l’ordre ... des Insectes, pp. 421-444). Bien qu’il soit évident aujourd’hui que Latreille, pour fixer Cicada L., n’aurait pas da: ni revenir sur son choix de 1802, ni redésigner une espece non incluse par Linné, il reste indubitable que, jamais, ce Pionnier de la Taxinomie n’a pensé a C. plebeia pour établir Tibicen en 1825. 19. Cela est si vrai qu’en 1829, Latreille (in: Cuvier, Le Régne animal, vol. 5, p. 215, note en bas de page) reconnaissant alors que Tibicen était nomen nudum, indiquera, en premier réviseur taxinomi- que, quelles Cigales composent ce genre: ‘celles ot le premier segment abdominal offre en dessus une entaille laissant a découvert la timbale, ... telles sont la C. haematode (sic) d’Olivier, les T. [pour Tettigonia] picta, hyalina, algira, de Fabricius, et son T. orni, qui pourrait, sous ce rapport, former un autre genre’. Que demander de plus a un texte de 1829 ? N’est-il clair que Latreille y confirmait ses intentions taxinom1- ques en préconisant le démembrement de son taxon Cicada en trois genres suivant un critére de distinction toujours aussi précieux de nos Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 173 jours: l'un, Tibicen, créé pour des espéces a timbales découvertes, un autre, non nommé mais réservé a l’orni dont on sait que ses timbales n’ont qu’un quart découvert, pendant que Cicada Latr. gardait plebeja, espece non citée en 1829, et pour cause: ses timbales sont entierement cachées. Ainsi, fondamentalement, p/ebeja ne peut étre rangée dans le genre Tibicen et encore moins en étre considérée comme le type. Dont acte. II. Van Duzee dans le texte et ... le contexte 20. Pourtant, en 1914, Van Duzee crut devoir placer plebeja comme type de Jibicen Latr. 1825. S’arrétant aux apparences et y croyant fort, Van Duzee allat jusqu’a écrire: “Latreille in 1825 estab- lishes (sic) genus Tibicen (sic) for (sic) plebeja Scop., ... Was Tibicen properly established (resic) by the simple naming of a well-known species in 1825 or must it be held over until 1829, when one distinguish- ing character (of no value) (sic®) was given and four species ... are named? Amyot and Serville take the latter view and name haematodes as its type. The genus can, however, be much more accurately recog- nised (sic) by the naming of plebeja in 1825 (resic), etc. (loc. cit., pp. 387-388). Non decet! Ce texte, comparé avec ceux de Latreille remé- moreés plus haut, s’avere tissu d’affirmations non fondée. Et, comme tel, il n’est pas acceptable, car vouloir faire dire a un auteur ce qu’il n’a jamais pensé, ni écrit, ni laissé entendre, vouloir au surplus lui faire dire, comme c’est le cas ici, l’?opposé de ses conceptions, est anti-scientifique et a proscrire. Il est temps de s’en apercevoir et je tiens a le souligner. Voila pour le fond, voyons maintenant pour la forme. 21. Van Duzee, en 1914, fit paraitre ses réformes au mépris: (a) des Regles de la Nomenclature alors en usage, adoptées et amendées par les Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie de Paris 1889, Moscou 1892, Berlin 1901 et Berne 1904. Ces Régles stipulaient expressément, d’une part, que ‘les noms génériques ... doivent étre latins ou latinisés’—Ce n’est pas le cas dans le livre de Latreille publié en 1825 et seul pris en compte par Van Duzee —et, d’autre part, que: ‘le nom attribué a chaque genre ... est le plus anciennement divulgué a la condition que ce nom ait été clairement et suffisamment défini ... ou ait été accompagné d’une indication’ — ce n’est pas le cas pour la citation sibylline de Latreille, ni surtout pour la transcription précise de Berthold ®Character of no value... que Van Duzee appréciera pourtant de tout premier plan par la suite, en 1915 et en 1917, particuli¢rement! 174 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 ou (cf. alinéa 18b) plebeia, réaffirmée Cicada, ne peut étre judicieusement considérée comme I’indication monotypique d’une espéce utilisable pour Tibicen,’? qui reste nomen nudum. Par ailleurs et dés 1905, les Regles recommandaient d’éviter le choix de noms génériques qui ne different d’autres que ‘par la désinence ou une légére variation orthographique’. Aussi, méme a considérer Tibicen comme établi, le simple bon sens ett voulu qu’a l’observation du tandem ‘Tibiceninae—Tibicininae’, on cherchat une autre solution et qu’on ne se bornat point, a n’importe quel prix, au choix d’une espéce citée seule apres l’indication de deux genres, quand l’exégése démontre que cette espece: -en aucun cas, n’a été ‘proposée’ pour le second genre par son auteur (cf. alinéa 19) et -en tous cas, était connue et reconnue comme type du premier alors par tous (cf. alinéa 21b, ci-dessous). (b) de la Commission internationale de Nomenclature zoologi- que qui, dans l’Opinion no. 11 rendue au moment du 8eme Congrés Int. de Zool. (Graz. 1910) avait validé la désignation des génotypes par Latreille 100 ans plus tét. Jpso facto, en 1912, la fixation de plebeja comme type de Cicada, méme hors les dispositions de l’Article 22 des ‘Régles’ de 1902, n’était plus contestable. Sauf, si cette fixation entrainait plus de confusion que de clarté—ce qui n’était pas le cas pour un usage consacré par un siécle.8 Au surplus, une année avant la parution de ce ‘Tibicen for plebeja’ aux funestes 7On peut faire remarquer que le principe de désignation par monotypie énonce sans étre nommé par Kirkaldy en 1900 (The Entomologist, vol. 31, p. 26), ne sera institué qu’avec les Régles qui parurent en 1907; il n’avait donc pas cours au moment du choix de Van Duzee. 81 Opinion no. 11 ne fut remise en question qu’au 6¢me Congres International d’Entomologie, tenu a Madrid en 1935. De nouvelles dispositions y furent prises, qui justement rejetérent les fixations de Latreille en 1810 lorsque l’espeéce-type choisie n’était pas génériquement incluse a l’origine (Op. rend. Int. comm. Zool. Nomencl., Opinion 136): c’est donc a partir de 1935 que l’article 22 devint applicable pour le cas étudié ici, en vertu du principe de rétroactivite. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 175 conséquences, la Commission avait regu les pleins pouvoirs, lors du 9¢me Congrés Int. de Zool. (Monaco, 1913) pour, précisément, examiner et traiter ce genre de problemes — ce que Van Duzee, a la place qu’il occupait alors, ne pouvait ignorer. On doit souligner en outre ici qu’en ce méme Congrés, la décision fut prise d’admettre tout nom de genre en usage depuis 50 ans a la date de 1890 —ce qui était le cas parfait pour Cicada a type plebeja. La responsabilité de Van Duzee s’alourdit, le simple respect des Régles et des Institutions, un peu d’éthique aussi et le probleme eit recu un tout autre traitement... Mais le réformateur n’en tint pas compte; non plus en 1927 (Pan-Pacif. Entomol, vol. 4, p. 47) ou, dans une sorte de Bulle urbi et orbi, il s’estima au dessus des Régles internationales, soutenant: ‘the case of Tibicen has nothing to do with these Rules’ (sic). (c) des taxinomistes et des systématiciens qui, tous et durant plus de 70 ans, avaient respecté les intentions taxinomiques de Latreille (1825, 1829) et singuliérement celle préconisant Tibicen pour haematodes puisque concrétisée par Amyot et Audinet-Serville (cf. alinéa 13). Ainsi donc, en 1914, la fixation de Tibicen par haematodes était taxinomiquement valide et elle l’est encore: indication essentielle de Latreille respectée, désignation de type par un réviseur notoire choisissant la premiére espéce citée par l’inventeur du genre. La désignation, postérieure, de plebeja pour Tibicen par Van Duzee est taxinomiquement invalide. Dont acte. 22. S’agissant de Tibicen, l'intervention, motu proprio, de Van Duzee donne donc, en fin d’analyse, un résultat aberrant, tout a la fois quant au fond et quant a la forme. 23. Horvath (1926, Annls Mus. Nat. Hung., vol. 23, pp. 93-98), considérant, avec un soin scientifique scrupuleux, les écrits de Latreille ainsi que la nouvelle fixation du taxon Cicada (cf. alinéa 10), créa done le genre Lyristes pour la Cigale plébéienne exclue de Cicada et pour laquelle aucun des taxa génériques connus ne convenait, a son avis. Cet avis €tait aussi celui de bien des auteurs, notamment de Handlirsch qui, en 1925 (in: Schréder, Handb. der Entomol. vol. 3, p. 1117), dans sa refonte des Sous-familles avec énumération des genres inclus, réexamina celle des Cicadinae Distant et y rangea plebeja Scop. en indiquant que cette derniére ‘wird vielleicht mit Rihana Dist. zu vereinigen sein”! (op. cit., loc. cit.). Il convient de faire remarquer ici que, dans la classification de Handlirsch, Tibicina est présent mais non Tibicen et sa Suite, les Tibiceninae étant alors rebaptisées ‘Platypleurinae’, A lencontre, Horvath maintint Tibicen, n’acceptant pas les tentatives qui avait abouti a remplacer ce mot dans I’une de ses acceptions par Tibicina. B) Tibicen, nomen incertum: création de Tibicina 176 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 24. A la suite de la courte diagnose en note infrapaginale remémorée alinéa 19, Latreille n’a toutefois pas désigné de type pour Tibicen; il a donné les noms de quatre espeéces qui, si elles ont effectivement les timbales a découvert (avec une restriction pour hyalina), présentent par ailleurs de telles differences (elles furent, par la suite, placées dans des genres distincts) que de nomen nudum en 1825, Tibicen devint nomen incertum en 1829. Et par voie de conséquence inapplicable. Deux rhynchologues de grand renom, en méme temps qu’ils allaient distinguer taxinomiquement Cicada plebeja, C. orni et C. haematodes au niveau du groupe genre, allaient laisser pour compte; et le mot Tibicen, de définition incertaine, et son attribution spécifique, aléatoire. 25. En 1847, Amyot (Annls Soc. entomol. Fr. (2), vol. 5, pp. 143-157) a séparé les trois Cigales suivant le critere €voqué par Latreille en les placant respectivement (cf. alinéa 8) dans les taxa: ‘Cicada Réaum. — Linn. — Geoffr.’ (p. 149), Tettigia nov. (p. 152) et Tibicina nov. (p. 154). Dix années plus tard, Kolénati (Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, sect. Biol., vol. 30, pp. 400, 404 et 415) dota formellement les taxa précédents de leur étiquette linnéenne en leur attribuant le rang de sous-genre, ratifiant ainsi les désignations d’espéces par Amyot comme leurs types respectifs. 26. En raison de la limpidité de ces nouvelles dispositions, la plupart des taxinomistes et des systématiciens, non seulement les adopterent, mais les adapterent. Notamment Fieber, qui fit de Tibicina un genre a part entiere (1872, Katalog europ. Cicad., p. 1; 1876, Les Cicadines d’Europe, p. 20) et Distant, pour qui ce genre était le taxon— type de la sous—famille des Tibicininae (1905, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 15, p. 304; 1906, Syn. Cat. Hom. I. Cicad., p. 107). L’un et autre attribuérent la paternité du taxon TJibicina au seul Amyot, ce qui reste valide aujourd’hui. 27. Mais vinrent Van Duzee et sa réforme, et le pernicieux embrouillamini qui en résulta, dans lequel nous sommes empétrés et dont, enfin, il faut se sortir. y) La double proposition de China 28. En 1964, China (Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 21, pp. 154-160), donnant suite aux remarques faites, un an plutot, par Orian (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) vol. 6, 1963, pp. 321-323) lors de la parution du Catalogue de Metcalf consacré aux Cigales, proposa: (a) la suppression du nom de groupe Tibiceninae, comme cela fut suggéré par Orian (op. cit., p. 323) et son.remplacement par Platypleurinae, Handlirsch, 1925, genre-type Platy- pleura Am. & Serv., Schmidt, 1919 (Stett. Ent. Zeitg., vol. 79, p. 378, Platypleurini). (b) le maintien de Tibicen a type plebeja. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 177 29. Le premier volet de cette double proposition, représentant en quelque sorte un progres, fut admis par la plupart des auteurs contemporains dont moi-méme, mais le second le fut beaucoup moins, car non cohérent avec le premier. Cependant, attentivement examinée, la proposition de China s’avére non convenable dans son ensemble. 30. Elle est d’abord mal fondée pour le changement du nom de sous-famille: on sait que chaque taxon du groupe famille se trouve défini par référence a son genre-type et que ce dernier |’est par l’espéce—type. Dans le cas qui nous préoccupe, c’est C. plebeja Scopoli qui, par ses caractéres propres et l’ancienneté de sa description, détermine le taxon générique sur lequel repose le nom de groupe qui lui est lié; si le nom de genre appliqué ne convient pas, il doit étre changé mais non I’espéce caractérisant le taxon. Le changement proposé par China (comme par Handlirsch) est illégitime et, comme tel, inacceptable. 31. D’autre part, en maintenant Tibicen a type plebeja, China non seulement s’inscrivit en faux vis-a-vis de Latreille (en omettant de mentionner les travaux de celui—ci parus en 1825 et 1829), mais: (a) il ne tint pas compte de la fixation réguliére effectuée par Amyot & Audinet-Serville en 1843 (Tibicen haematodes, cf. alinéa 21c) que, d’ailleurs, il oublia également de citer; (b) il ne fit que reculer d’un cran, de la sous-famille a la tribu,? l’épineuse question linguistique, déja évoquée notamment par Jacobi en 1907 (Abhandl. u. Ber. k. Zool. u. Anthrop.- Ethnog. Mus. Dresden, vol. 11, p. 14, note infrapaginale) et par Kato, en 1956 (Biol. of Cicadas, p. 65). 32. Rien n’est alors résolu; au contraire, une complication supplémentaire est apparue avec le remplacement de Tibiceninae par Platypleurinae. . . *L’espece plebeja ne peut étre placée dans la tribu des Platypleurini; elle caractérise une tribu qui lui est propre et tour a tour appelée: Cicadini Distant, 1904, p. 329; Tibicenini Van Duzee, 1916, p. 55; Lyristarini Gomez-Menor, 1957, p. 28; Lyristini Boulard, 1972, p. 169. 178 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 D. SOLUTION ET CONCLUSION 33. Par tout ce qui précede, il appert que l’utilisation du mot Tibicen mal défini a l’origine, de fixation ambigué et, par suite, diverse- ment interprété, est la cause de graves désordres dans la superfamille des Cicadoidea. J’ai démontré l’incongruité de la réforme de Van Duzee en 1914 et remis en évidence que |’acception taxinomiquement fondée pour Tibicen est celle fixée par Amyot & Audinet-Serville en 1843. Toutefois, conserver ce terme risque, au point ou nous en sommes, de perpétuer le chassé-croisé des espéces, de multiplier les bévues et les méprises, de s’opposer au progres scientifique et, par conséquent d’étre nuisible, au sens actuel des Regles. 34. Aussi suis-je amené a préconiser la SUPPRESSION TOTALE de l’usage du nom de genre Jibicen, ainsi que des noms de groupes qui en sont dérivés (Tibicenini, Tibiceninae et Tibicenidae) et la Commission est priée d’user de ses pleins pouvoirs a cet effet. 35. Cette suppression, si elle est acceptée et ratifiée, aurait pour effet de clarifier définitivement la nomenclature fondamentale des Cicadoidea et d’éliminer tous malentendus a ce niveau, de permettre enfin une bonne compréhension de la superfamille. Elle ne causerait pas de perturbation outre mesure par les rectifications conséquentes (en fait: le remplacement de Tibicen par Lyristes dans le catalogue mondial de Metcalf) qui auraient l’avantage d’étre radicales; certaines déja ont été apportées (cf. Haupt, 1935, Die Tierw. Mitteleur. vol. 4, p. 150; Matsumura, 1939, Jns. Mats., vol. 13, pp. 47-51; Gomez Menor Ortega, 1957, Monografia de Cicadidos (Homoptera) de Espana, pp. 1-88). 36. Partant de cette suppression, les dénominations les plus anciennes, convenablement définies a l’origine des taxa génériques ser- vant de bases dans |’établissement de la classification supérieure des Cicadoidea seront les suivantes, accompagnées du nom des espéces- types puis de celui des sous-familles caractérisées: (a) Cicada (Linné, 1758) Van Duzee 1912, espéce-type: Cicada orni L., 1758, Van Duzee 1914; genre-type des CICADI- NAE (Horvath, 1911) Van Duzee 1915 [=Gaeaninae Distant 1905, 1906]. (b) Tibicina (Amyot, 1847) Kolénati, 1857, espeéce-type: C. haematodes Scopoli, 1763 (Amyot, 1847); genre-type des TIBICININAE Distant, 1905, 1906 [=Tibiceninae Dist., 1889; =Tibiciniinae Van Duzee 1915]. (c) Lyristes Horvath 1926, espéce-type: C. plebeja Scopoli, 1763, Horvath, 1926; genre-type des LYRISTINAE (Gomez-Menor Ortega; 1957) [=Cicadinae Distant, 1899, 1906; = Tibicinae Van Duzee, 1915; =Tibiceninae Van Duzee, 1917, Metcalf, 1963; =Platypleurinae Handlirsch, 1925, China, 1964]. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 179 37. Ayant changé ce qui devait étre changé, nous obtiendrons le tableau simple suivant des principales sous-familles de Cicadoidea ou Cicadae verae’: espéces> types Genres Tribus Sous-familles Familles orni Cicada Cicadini Cicadinae Linné, 1758 Linné, 1758 Van Duzee, Van Duzee, 1915 1915 Cicadidae Van Duzee, plebeja Lyristes Lyristini Lyristinae 1915 Scopoli, 1763 Horvath, Gomez-Menor,| Gomez-Menor 1926 1957 1957 haematodes Scopoli, 1763 Tibicinidae Distant, 1905 Tibicininae Distant, 1905 Tibicina Tibicinini Amyot, 1847] Distant, 1905 CONCLUSION: TWO ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 9. There would appear to be two alternative solutions to the problem so thoroughly analysed by M. Boulard. One would entail the suppression of Tibicen; M. Boulard argues strongly for this course, and it is the one preferred by eight of the specialists listed in para 4 above. The other would entail a ruling that the stem of Tibicen, for the purposes of Article 29, is TIBICEN-. (Either solution would require the use of '0Je crois bon de souligner a nouveau que la superfamille des Cicadoidea ne renferme plus aujourd’hui que les vraies Cigales ou Cicadae verae de Latreille. Certains auteurs utilisent encore Cicadoidea avec l’acception ancienne de Cicadariae Latreille, 1802 ou Cicadaires et qui correspond a la section des Homopteres Auchenorhyncha (Dumeéril, 1806). Cette dualité cause quelques embarras, particuliérement au niveau de la bibliographie, autre probleme... La notation correcte est: Cicadoidea (Latreille, 1802) Metcalf, 1939. 180 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 the plenary powers.) However, the presence of two tribe names and two subfamily names with the stems TIBICEN — and TIBICIN — respecti- vely in the same superfamily is an undeniable source of confusion. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked, first, to vote for or against the use of the plenary powers in the present case and then to vote for one or other of the follow- ing alternatives: ALTERNATIVE A (1) to use the plenary powers (a) to suppress the generic name TJibicen Berthold, 1827 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the genus Cicada Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate Cicada orni Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (a) Cicada Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Cicada orni Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Tibicina Amyot, 1847 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Distant, July 1905., Cicada haematodes Scopoli, 1763; (c) Lyristes Horvath, 1926 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Ciada plebeja, Scopoli, 1763; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) orni Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cicada orni (specific name of type species of Cicada Linnaeus, 1758); (b) haematodes Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cicada haematodes (specific name of type species of Tibicina Amyot, 1847); (c) plebeja Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cicada plebeja (specific name of type species of Lyristes Horvath, 1926); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) CICADIDAE Berthold, 1827 (as ‘Cicadariae’) (type genus Cicada Linnaeus, 1758); (b) TIBICININAE Distant, 1905 (type genus Tibicina Amyot, 1847): (c) LYRISTINAE Gomez-Menor, 1957 (type genus Lyristes Horvath, 1926); Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 181 (5) to place the generic name Tibicen Berthold, 1827, as sup- pressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. ALTERNATIVE B (1) to use the plenary powers (a) to rule that the stem of the generic name Tibicen Berthold, 1827, for the purposes of Article 29, is TIBICEN-; (b) as (1) (b) in Alternative A; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) and (b) as in Alternative A; (c) Tibicen Berthold, 1827, (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Cicada plebeja Scopoli, 1763; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) and (b) as in Alternative A; (c) plebeja Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cicada plebeja (specific name of type species of Tibicen Berthold, 1827); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) and (b) as in Alternative A; (c) TIBICENINAE Van Duzee, 1916 as nomenclaturally vali- dated under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above (type genus Tibicen Berthold, 1827). REFERENCES AMYOT,C. J. B. 1845. Entomologie francaise. Rhynchotes. Méthode monony- mique. Préface. Ann. Soc. entomol. France (2), vol. 3, pp. 369-385. — 1847. Ibid., Ordre deuxieme, Homoptéres. Homoptera. Latr. [bid., (2), vol. 5, pp. 143-238. — & AUDINET-SERVILLE, J. G.1843. Homopteres. Homoptera Latr. Hist. nat. Ins. Hémipt., p. 455-648. BOULARD, M. 1972. Les positions génériques réelles des Cigales frangaises et leur classification. L’Entomol., vol. 38 (6), pp. 167-171. — 1976. Un type nouveau d’appareil stridulant accessoire pour les Cicadoi- dea; révision de la classification supérieure de la superfamille. J. nat. Hist. 1976, (10), pp. 399-407. BERGROTH, E. 1913. Bibliographisches tiber Hemipteren.- Entomol. Mitt, vol. 2, pp. 10-12. CHINA, W.E. 1964. Tibicinidae VAN DUZEE, 1916 (Insecta Cicadoidea) pro- posed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Platypleuridae SCHMIDT, 1918, Z.N(S.) 1626. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 21 (2), p. 154-160. 182 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 CHINA, W. E. et FENNAH, R. G. 1945. On the Genera Tetigonia Geoff., Tetti- gonia F., Tettigoniella Jac., and Jassus Fab. (Hemiptera-Homoptera). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 12, pp. 707-712. C.I.N.Z. 1914. The designation of genotypes by Latreille, 1810. Opinion 11 in: Régles int. Nom. Zool., 1X Cong. int. Zool. Monaco, 1913, p. 911. C.LN.Z. 1924. Opinion 79. Case of Lamarck’s (1801A) Systeme des Animaux sans vertébres. Smith. misc. coll., vol. 73 (2), pp. 15-16. C.I.N.Z. 1963. Opinion 686: Amyot, méthode mononymique: placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 20 (6), p. 423 DISTANT, W. L. 1889. A Monograph of Oriental Cicadidae. Parts | and 2. 48 pp. — 1904. Rhynchotal notes. XXVII. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 14, pp. 329-336. —— 1905. Rhynchotal notes. XXX. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 15, pp. 304-319. —— 1906. A synonymic catalogue of Homoptera. Part 1. Cicadidae. 207 pp. DUPUIS, C. 1965. Notions essentielles en nomenclature zoologique et botani- que. Cahiers des Nat., Bull. N.P. (n.s.) vol. 21 (1), pp. I-11. GOMEZ MENOR ORTEGA, J. 1957. Monografia de Cicadidos (Homoptera) de Espana. Mem. r. Acad. Cienc. Madrid (Cienc. nat.) vol. 19, 88 pp. HANDLIRSCH, A. 1925. Uberfamilie: Stridulantes Latr. (Singzikaden) in: Schroder, Hand. d. Entomol., vol. Ill, p. 1115-1117. HAUPT, H. 1935. Homoptera. Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. 4 (3), pp. 115-221. HERRMANNSEN, A. N. 1852. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Supplementa et Corrigenda. HORVATH, G. 1911. Nomenclature des familles des Hémipteres. Ann. Hist. nat. Mus. Hung., vol. 9, pp. 1-34. —— 1926. Les noms génériques de nos trois grandes Cigales indigenes. /bid., vol. 23, pp. 93-98. ISHIHARA, T. 1961. Hemiptera: Cicadidae. /nsecta japonica, ser. 1, part 2, 36 pp. KATO, M. 1932. Monograph of Cicadidae. 332 pp. 32 pls (en japonais). 1954. The classification of Cicadidae. Kontyi vol. 21 (3-4), pp. 971-999, en japonais. — 1956. The biology of the Cicadas. Bull. Cicad. Mus., Iw. shoten publ. Tokyo. 319 p. (en japonais, sous-titré en anglais). — 1961. Cicadidae (Insecta). Fauna japonica; Biogeo. Soc. Jap. publ., 72 pp., 34 pl. KIRKALDY, G. W. 1900. On the nomenclature of the genera of the Rhynchota, Heteroptera and Auchenorhynchous Homoptera. The Entomol. vol. 33, pp. 262-265. — 1908. Bibliographical and nomenclatorial notes on the Hemiptera, no 8. Tbid., vol. 41, pp. 123-124. LAMARCK, J. B. 1801. Insectes Hémipteres. in: Systeme des Animaux sans vertébres. 432 pp. LATREILLE, P. A. 1810. Table des genres avec I’indication des espéces qui leur servent de type. in: Considérations générales sur l’Ordre naturel des Ani- maux composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes, pp. 421-444. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 183 — 1825. Homopteres. Homoptera. in: Familles naturelles du Réegne Animal, 570 pp. — 1827. Ibid., traduction allemande de BERTHOLD, A., augmentée de remarques et de suppléments. — 1829. Hémiptéres. Homopteéres (Homoptera). in: CUVIER, Régne Animal, 5, pp. ILE-XXIV, 1-556. LINNE, C. 1758. Hemiptera. in: Systema Naturae. Editio decima, reformata. 824 pp. MATSUMURA, S. 1939. On the Genus Lyristes Horvath and two new species of Cicadidae. Ins. Mats., vol. 13 (2-3) pp. 47-51. MELICHAR, L. 1896. Cicadinen (Hemiptera- Homoptera) von Mittel- Europa, 381 pp. MEQUIGNON, A. 1932. Latreille et le Génotype. Soc. entomol. France, Livre du centenaire, pp. 149-156. METCALF, Z. P. 1939. Hints on bibliographies. J. soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. vol. | (9), pp. 241-248 (p. 241: fam. et sous-fam. des Auchénorhynques). — 1963. Cicadoidea. General Catalogue of the Homoptera, vol. VI. MULLER, H. J. 1956. Cicadidae Latreille, Stridulantia, Singzirpen, Cicadas. in: Sorauer, Handb. Pflanzenkrankh., vol. V (3), pp. 190-199. MYERS, J. G. 1928. Cicadidae. Insects of Samoa and other Samoan terrestrial Arthropoda, vol. 2 (2), pp. 55-65. — 1929. Insect Singers. A Natural History of the Cicadidae, G. Routledge ed. London: 324 pp. OLIVIER, G. A. 1790. Cigale, Cicada. Encyclop. méth. hist. nat. Ins., vol. 5, pp. 735-760. ORIAN, A. J. E. 1963. A new genus of Cicadidae (Homoptera) from the Island of Rodriguez with notes on nomenclature of the family. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (13) vol. 6, pp. 321-328. OSHANIN, V. P. 1912. Katalog der Paldarktischen Hemipteren, pp. I-XVI, 1-187. POCHE, F. 1908. Supplement zu C. O. Waterhouses Index Zoologicus. Zool. Anzeiger, vol. 2, pp. 273-343. — 1909. Uber die angeblich von Latreille in seinen ‘Familles Naturelles du Regne Animal’ eingefiihrten Gattungsnamen. Deutsche entomol. Zeitschr. 1909, pp. 413-414. — 1913. Uber die Zeit der Einfiihrung der Namen der von Latreille in seinen ‘Familles naturelles du Regne Animal’ neu unterschiedenen Gattungen. Entomol. Mitt. vol. 2, 1913, pp. 144-145. — 1933. Uber den nomenklatorischen Status der Gattungsnamen in Latreilles ‘Familles Naturelles du Regne Animal’ im allgemeinen und iiber den gil- tigen Gattungsnamen fiir Cicada plebeja Scop. im besonderen. Konowia, vol. 12, pp. 326-331. PUTON, A. 1875. Catalogue des Hémiptéres (Hétéroptéres, Cicadines et Psyllides) d’Europe et du bassin de la Méditerranée. — 1886. Catalogue des Hémiptéres (Hétéroptéres, Cicadines et Psyllides) de la faune paléarctique. 100 pp. — 1899. Ibid. 121 pp. SCHEDL, W. 1973. Zur Verbreitung, Bionomie und Okologie der Singzikaden. Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha, Cicadidae) der Ostalpen und ihrer benachbarten Gebeite. Ber. nat.-med. Ver. Innsbruck vol. 60, pp. 79-94. 184 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 SCHMIDT, E. 1918. Platypleura frontalis, ein neue Singzikade von Sumatra. (Rhynchota-Homoptera). Stettin. entomol. Zeitg. vol. 79, p. 378. —— 1919. Beitrage zur kenntnis ansereuropdischer Zikaden. (Rhynchota- Homoptera) I. Ugada Hahnei, eine neue Singzikade von Kamerun. Jbid. vol. 80, pp. 365-368. SCOPOLI, J. A. 1763. Entomologia carniolica, pp. 112-118. SERVADETI, A. 1967. Rhynchota (Heteroptera, Homoptera, Auchenorrhyncha). Catalogo topografico e sinonimico. Fauna d'Italia, vol. 1X, ed. Calderini, Bologna. STAL, C. 1861. Genera nonnulla nova Cicadinorum. Ann. Soc. entomol. France (4) vol. 1, pp. 613-622. VAN DUZEE, E. P. 1912. Hemipterological gleanings. Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci. vol. 10 (2), pp. 477-512. — 1914. Nomenclatural and critical notes on Hemiptera. Canad. entomol., vol. 46, pp. 387-388. — 1915. A preliminary review of the West Coast Cicadidae. J. N. Y. entomol. Soc., vol. 23, pp. 2144. — 1916. Suborder Homoptera Latr. 1810. Section Auchenorrhyncha A. S. 1843. Check list of Hemiptera (excepting the Aphidae, Coccidae, and Aleurodidae) of America, North of Mexico, pp. 55-85. — 1927. On the Standing of the genus Tibicen Latr. Pan- Pacific Entomol. vol. 11, p. 47. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 185 RANA MACULATA BROCCHI, 1877 AND ELEUTHERODACTYLUS RICHMONDI STEJNEGER, 1904 (AMPHIBIA, SALIENTIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)1750 Report by the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In 1966 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 23, pp. 169-173) Smith, Lynch & Reese applied for the suppression of Rana maculata Daudin, 1801 for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and those of the Law of Homonymy. Their object was to conserve the junior homonym Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877 and the junior synonym Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904. They stated that Rana maculata Daudin was a nomen dubium that had not then been used as a valid name for 150 years. 2. No comment was received on that application, which was sent for a vote between 12 June and 12 September 1968. Although the 20 affirmative votes received easily justified the plenary powers action requested, the one negative vote (from Dr Sabrosky) caused me to cancel that voting paper with a view to publishing Dr Sabrosky’s objection and the applicants’ reply. The former was published in 1969 (vol. 26, pp. 119-120) and the latter in 1970 (vol. 27, pp. 66-67). Further objection to the proposal from the nomenclature committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists was received from the late Dr James A. Peters, who, speaking for himself, thought that no appli- cation to the Commission ought ever to have been made. The main points at issue are set out in greater detail below. POINTS FROM THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 3. The applicants showed that Daudin’s type specimen was miss- ing from a comparatively early date, since no mention is made of it by Dumeéeril & Bibron, 1841, and they apparently could not find it, and Guibé, 1950, does not mention it. Neither the species nor the specimen on which it was based is mentioned in any of the major synopses of anurans. 4. In 1877 Brocchi described both Rana maculata (a new species, distinct from Daudin’s) and R. macroglossa. Smith, 1959, pp. 212-216, synonymised the two names and (p. 214), acting as first reviser, chose R. maculata as the valid name. Stuart, 1963, p. 45, rejected Smith’s first reviser action on the grounds that his paper was not ‘revisionary’ and used R. macroglossa as the valid name. The applicants then proceeded to designate lectotypes for the two nominal species in such a way as to make R. macroglossa a junior synonym of R. pipiens Schreber, 1782, thus removing it from consideration in connexion with their application. 186 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 They pointed out that if R. maculata Brocchi was allowed to fall as a junior homonym, the valid name for the species would be R. melanosoma Ginther, 1900, a name never used as valid since its estab- lishment. They then asked, as mentioned above, for the suppression of R. maculata Daudin, 1801; but they did not ask for either R. maculata Brocchi, 1877, or Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904 to be placed on the Official List because ‘their specific relationship to adjacent taxa remains to be determined with finality’. DR SABROSKY’S COMMENTS 5. Dr Sabrosky started by pointing out that several possible sol- utions to the applicants’ problem existed and that the Commission should have been presented with a choice between them. He set out four: A. Application of the Code, without use of the plenary powers or Article 23b [then in force]. Result: E. richmondi would fall as a synonym of E. maculatus (Daudin); R. maculata Brocchi would fall as a junior homonym and be replaced by R. melanosoma Giinther, 1900; B. Application of the Code and use of Article 23b. Result, R. maculata Daudin would fall as a nomen oblitum and E. richmondi would stand; R. maculata Brocchi would be replaced by R. melanosoma as under A. C. The original proposal. Result: R. maculata Daudin is sup- pressed; E. richmondi becomes nomenclaturally valid; R. maculata Brocchi becomes nomenclaturally valid through the suppression of its senior homonym and because the lectotype selection has sunk R. macroglossa as a junior synonym of R. pipiens. D. Dr Sabrosky’s proposal: Suppression of R. maculata for priority but not for homonymy and suppression of the pro- posers’ lectotype designation of lectotype for R. macro- glossa, followed by designation of the Paris Museum lectotype (or a paralectotype) of R. maculata Brocchi as lectotype of R. macroglossa. Result: E. richmondi becomes nomenclaturally valid as the applicants desired. R. macro- glossa becomes valid over R. maculata Brocchi (whose status as a junior homonym is not altered) in accordance with ‘fairly well entrenched usage’ according to Stuart, 1963. 6. Dr Sabrosky pointed out that the applicants’ designation of a lectotype for macroglossa altered the usage of that name between 1941 and 1959, thereby generating confusion that had not existed before. He recommended Alternative D because it would preserve that part of the applicants’ aims that concerned synonymy (conservation of E. richmondi— though no supporting evidence of the desirability of that Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 187 step had been provided) but not that which concerned homonymy. He added that the applicants by their lectotype designation had closed cer- tain options to the Commission that ought to have been left open to it. By that action they had created a disadvantage to the preservation of a previously stable nomenclature. 7. Dr Peters, on behalf of the nomenclature committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, gave the names of six herpetologists who supported Sabrosky’s Alternative D and one who supported Alternative A. He reported that two of the original appli- cants stuck to their original position. Smith and Lynch, in rebutting Sabrosky’s case (see below), said that R. maculata Brocchi had been used twice before 1959 and about half a dozen times since [up to 1970] and that R. macroglossa had not been used at all before 1959 and about 20 times since [up to 1970]. In his view, action within the limits imposed by the Code could and should have been taken, in which case no application to the Commission would have been necessary. In the circumstances of 1970, however, he supported Sabrosky’s Alternative D. REPLY BY DR SMITH AND DR LYNCH TO DR SABROSKY 8. Dr Smith and Dr Lynch strongly supported their original decisions. In view of the small amount of usage of R. macroglossa they did not regard stability of nomenclature as an important factor in the choice between that name and the simultaneously published R. maculata Brocchi. They attached weight to two other factors: (1) the precise type locality of R. maculata Brocchi vis-a-vis the vague one of R. macroglossa; and (2) the taxonomic unity among the syntypes of R. maculata Brocchi vis-a-vis the taxonomic mixture among the syntypes of R. macroglossa, thus making the application of the former unambi- guous compared to that of the latter. They denied that R. macroglossa could be said to be well entrenched in usage. 9. In 1979 Dr Lynch sent me, at my request, particulars of eight uses of the disputed names since 1970. These were: 1971. Meyer, J. R. & Wilson, L. D. Contrib. Sci. Los Angeles County Mus., no. 218, p. 31 (R. macroglossa) 1972. Villa, J. Anfibios de Nicaragua, pp. 74-77 (R. maculata Brocchi) 1972. Wilson & Meyer. Herpetol. Rev., vol. 4, p. 219, review of Villa (R. maculata Brocchi with R. macroglossa as a junior synonym) 1974. Greding, E. J., Jr. J. Herpetol., vol. 8, p. 189 (R. macro- glossa) 1975. Henderson, R. W. & Hoevers, L. G. Contrib. Biol. Geol. Milwaukee pub. Mus., no. 5, p. 17 (R. maculata Brocchi) 1976. Lee, J. C. Herpetologica vol. 32, pp. 211-214 (Rana maculata Brocchi with R. macroglossa as junior synonym) 188 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 1977. Webb, R. G. & Korky, J. K. Herpetologica, vol. 33, pp. 73-82 (R. maculata Brocchi with R. macroglossa as junior synonym) 1978. Webb, R. G. Contrib. Sci. Los Angeles County Mus., no. 300, pp. 10-12 (R. maculata Brocchi with R. macroglossa as junior synonym) Dr Lynch would have supported any alternative that would remove the threat of R. maculata Daudin within Eleutherodactylus. Once that ques- tion is settled (by any solution except Sabrosky’s Alternative A) the choice between maculata Brocchi, macroglossa and melanosoma for that species can be considered. The usages he cited support Alternative C, but no great issue is involved because there is general awareness of the competition between maculata Brocchi and macroglossa, as shown by the frequency of citations in the form ‘maculata (= macroglossa) or its equivalent. REQUEST FOR ADVICE 10. From all the above it appears that Sabrosky’s Alternative A would not provide an acceptable result; his Alternative B is no longer relevant in view of the 1972 changes to the former Article 23b. The choice is therefore between his alternatives C and D, and the Commis- sion seeks the advice of workers on this group of anurans on this choice. Usage since 1979 may have some influence on this, though probably not of very much weight. Smith & Lynch, in replying to Sabrosky, showed that Alternative C requires only one use of the plenary powers whereas Alternative D needs three. This is a subjective factor compared to the objective criteria used by the applicants in preferring maculata Brocchi to macroglossa. The main purpose of this report is to prepare the ground for a clear-cut decision by the Commission. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 189 HYPOCRYPHALUS MANGIFERAE (STEBBING, 1914), (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2142 By Stephen L. Wood (Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah) Stebbing (1903, p. 68) described Hypothenemus (?) sp. Later (Stebbing, 1914, p. 542) he named it Cryphalus (Hypothenemus) mangi- ferae from specimens collected in Eastern Dun, United Provinces, India, from newly matured specimens taken from mango (Mangifera indica) on 11 May, 1902. This species has spread to virtually all tropical parts of the world where mangoes are grown. The species was transferred to Hypocryphalus by Beeson (1929, p. 226). Numerous references to this well known, economically important species occur in the literature. 2. I was unable to find Stebbing’s specimens of this species at the Forest Research Institute at Dehra Dun; however, four callow specimens labelled ‘India, E. P. Stebbing, 1902-309’ were found in the British Museum (Natural History); the first two also bear the label ‘Mango twigs’. These four specimens bear the determination label ‘Cryphalus mangiferae Stb., C. Beeson det.’. Since Stebbing did not label types in the modern sense, these specimens are recognized as his syntypes. The first specimen, a female from ‘Eastern Dun, India’, was designated as lectotype for Cryphalus mangiferae Stebbing, now in Hypocryphalus, in Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, vol. 6, p. 871 (1982). 3. During my recent review of North and Central American species of this family, two previously undetected senior synonyms of H. mangiferae were found. These include: (a) Cryphalus inops Eichhoff (1872, p. 331) that was based on one female in very poor condition from Guadeloupe Island and now in the Brussels Museum, and (b) Hypothe- nemus griseus Blackburn (1885, p. 194) that was based on one female from Oahu, Hawaiian Islands and now in the British Museum (Natural History). The few published references to C. inops (4) and H. griseus (3) cite the original establishment of the name or the type specimen and provide no additional information. The holotype of C. inops is in very poor condition and is recognised as this species with great difficulty; the holotype of H. griseus is recognizable. 4. One homonymous junior synonym, Hypocryphalus mangi- Jerae Eggers (1928, p. 85), was named from Brazil; the lectotype is in the U.S. National Museum. This lectotype, as well as all other type material referred to above, has been examined and compared to my series of this species. 5. In order to conserve the established name of a common, widely distributed, economically important species, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 190 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 3, August 1984 (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name mangiferae Stebbing, 1914, as published in the binomen Hypocryphalus mangiferae is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name inops Eichhoff,. 1872, as published in the binomen Cryphalus inops and griseus Blackburn, 1885, as published in the binomen Hypothene- mus griseus, by anyone who considers that these three names denote the same taxon; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) mangiferae Stebbing, 1914, as published in the binomen Hypocryphalus mangiferae, with an endorse- ment that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Cryphalus inops Eichhoff, 1872 and Hypothenemus griseus Blackburn, 1885, by anyone who considers that these three names denote the same taxon; griseus Blackburn, 1885 and inops Eichhoff, 1872, with an endorsement that they are not to be given nomencla- tural priority over mangiferae Stebbing, 1914, by anyone who considers that these three names denote the same taxon. (b ~— REFERENCES BEESON, C. F. C. 1929. Platypodidae and Scolytidae. Insects of Samoa, vol. 4 (4), pp. 217-248. BLACKBURN, T. 1885. Jn: Blackburn & Sharp, Memoirs on the Coleoptera of the Hawaiian Islands. Trans. r. Soc. Dublin, (2) vol. 3, pp. 119-300. EGGERS, H. 1928. Ipidae (Coleoptera) da America do Sul. Archiv. Inst. Biol. Def. Agric. Anim., vol. 1, pp. 83-99. EICHHOFF, W. J. 1872. Neue exotischen Tomiciden-Arten. Berliner Entomol. Zeitschr., vol. 15, p. 136. STEBBING, E. P. 1903. H. hypothenemus (?) sp. Indian Museum Notes, vol. 6, p. 68. —— 1914. Indian Forest Insects of Economic Importance. Coleoptera. Eyre and Spottiswoode, London. 648 pp. A list of ten references to the use of Hypocryphalus mangiferae since 1925 is held in the Commission’s Office. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express y the Trustees of the British its appreciation of the facilities provided b Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. CONTENTS Officers and Members of the Commission Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements BR Eat he Os Comments On the type species of Anolis Daudin, 1802. E.E. Williams & H.M. Smith; A.F. Stimson On the proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the holotype and to designate a neotype for Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 (Primates, Galagidae). W.F.H. Ansell On the proposed designation of a type species for Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida). M.R. Siddiqi; Q.H. Baqri . On the proposal to emend Z. N. (S. 2401 by designating ‘Apis pilipes as type species of Megilla Fabricius. C.D. Michener New and revived cases Explication du vote sur le projet de la troisieme édition du Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique. C. Dupuis International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: amendment pro- posed to third edition. Proposal concerning Article S5lc. R.J. Gagné & F.C. Thompson and L.V. Knutson : International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: proposed amend- ment to third edition: Article 59b. Z. Boucek Request for a declaration clarifying the meaning of the expressions ‘Suppressed for Nomenclatural Purposes’ and ‘Rejected for Nomenclatural Purposes’ and the status of information in works that are rejected under Articles 8 and 9 of the Code, L.B. Holthuis, W.D.L. Ride and C.W. Sabrosky A proposed amendment to Article 70b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature on misidentified type species. C.W. Sabrosky Comment on Dr Sabrosky S ‘proposed amendment to Article 70. The Secretary Williamia Monterosato, 1884 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. H.B. Rehder : Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926 (Insecta, Hemip- tera, Homoptera): proposed conservation by the suppression of Tibicen Berthold, 1827. R.V. Melville and R.W. Sims , Arguments pour la suppression du nom de genre Tibicen et de ses dérivés dans la nomenclature de la superfamille des CICADOI- PBALM: Boland sag cscs cane teks ice peer estas apne Secaes Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877 and Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904 (Amphibia, Salientia): proposed conservation. The Secretary . Hypocryphalus mangiferae ‘(Stebbing, 1914), (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. S.L. Wood 132 136 137 138 141 149 151 152 156 158 159 163 166 185 189 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Za HX “430 November 1984 Volume 41 Part 4 pp. vii-viii, 191-288, T.P., I-VI ISSN 0007-5167 The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Published by: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux On behalf of: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Orders and enquiries concerning subscriptions and back numbers should be sent to: CENTRAL SALES COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX FARNHAM ROYAL SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K. © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1984. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- duced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechan- ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ey MUSSUM | vii nok THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON he JAN 1700 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7 LIBRARY 4 A. The Officers of the Commission ‘ 2 eal 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 Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor ) Crustacea Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 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. 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) 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 (Jnstitute of Biology and Geology, University of Troms6é, 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) (Councillor) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Viil 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) Herpetology Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitatsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari Dr. SHUN-ICHI 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 Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. Per Brinck Prof. J.H. Callomon, F.R.S.C. Prof. ©. B.CGox E.G:s. Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.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, F.1.Biol. Dr. L.B. Holthuis Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. 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. M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) Mr. J.D.D. Smith, F.G.S. ( Administrator) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 19] BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 41, part 4 (pp. vii—viii, 191-288, T.P., I-VI) 30 November 1984 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 appli- cation. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b): *(1) THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 (Aves): appli- cation to place on Official List of family-group names in zoology and to give precedence over PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838 and other competing family-group names. Z.N.(S.) 2136. E. Eisenmann (deceased), E. Mayr & K.C. Parkes. (2) Cricetodon minus [sic] Lartet, 1851 (Mammalia, Rodentia): revised request for a ruling on interpretation. Z.N.(S.) 1854. The Secretary. (3) Report on Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidop- tera): Z.N.(S.) 2115. The Secretary. (4) Octolasion Orley, 1885 (Annelida, Oligochaeta, Lumbri- cidae): ratification of the designation of the type species and the introduction of Octolasion (Octodrilus) by Omodeo, 1956 in accordance with usage, with the suppression of the designation of the type species and of the names Octolasion (Uncolore) and Octolasion (Purpureum) by Omodeo, 1952. Z.N.(S.) 2469. R.W. Sims. (5) Leptosia Hibner, 1818 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): correction to Opinion 584 and to the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 1324. C.F. Cowan. (6) Revised submission regarding the nominal genus Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859 (Ascidiacea), and proposed alternative designation of Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841, as type species of Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841. Z.N.(S.) 1766. F.W.E. Rowe. 192 (7) *(8) *(9) *(10) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Drymus ryeii Douglas & Scott, 1865 (Hemiptera, Lygaeidae): proposed ratification of the status of a lectotype with a request to set the neotype aside. Z.N.(S.) 1214. L. Jessop. Aphodius rufus Moll, 1782 and Aegialia rufa Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation under the plen- ary powers by suppression of Aphodius scybalarius Fabricius, 1792. Z.N.(S.) 2318. Z. Stebnicka. Proposed use of plenary powers to conserve certain junior synonyms in the family PYGOPIDAE (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 2300. F.A. Middlemiss. Delphinus truncatus Montagu, 1821 (Mammalia, Cetacea): proposed conservation by suppression of Delphinus nesarnack Lacepéde, 1804. Z.N.(S.) 2082. D.W. Rice. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 41(3) on 23 August 1984 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a—b and 79b): (1) (2) (3) (4) *(5) *(6) (7) *(8) Elachista Treitschke, 1833 and ELACHISTIDAE Bruand, 1850 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Elachistidae): proposed conser- vation. Z.N.(S.) 2481. E.S. Nielsen & I.W.B. Nye. The authorship and dates of Sowerby’s Mineral Conchology of Great Britain. Z.N.(S.) 2483. C.W. Wright & R.J. Cleevely. Olpium L. Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida, Olpiidae): proposed designation of type species and related problems. Z.N.(S.) 2484. M.S. Harvey & V. Mahnert. Cholus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser- vation, Z.N.(S.) 2485. C.W. O’Brien & G.J. Wibmer. Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2486. C.W. O’Brien & G. Osella. Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2487. C.W. O’Brien & G.J. Wibmer. Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2488. C.W. O’Brien. Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2489. C. W. O’Brien & G. J. Wibmer. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature November 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 193 FINANCIAL REPORT FOR YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1983 The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature brought in £11,306 during 1983 and of this £10,000 is due to the arrangement with the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux under which the Bureaux manages printing and sales. The sum received is £3,476 less than the previous year when income was greatly augmented by the collection of outstanding debts prior to the arrangement with C.A.B. New grants from three Research Councils (Agri- culture and Fisheries Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council) and from the Royal Society brought in £7,000 against £3,791 from other sources in the previous year. The Appeal for funds raised £41,793 (£5,168 in 1982) and Covenanted Income was £2,880 (£2,406 in 1982). Bank interest received was £4,410 (£4,952). Expenditure on salaries almost doubled due to the appoint- ment of Mr Adrian Penrose to assist Mr Richard Melville, but this increase was balanced by the absence of printing costs for the Bulletin, these being borne by the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. An electric typewriter was purchased to replace an obsolete model (£459). The switch to billing in advance by the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux for sales of the Bulletin has led to confusion and it is proving diffi- cult to collect money for the Trust’s sales in 1981 paid in arrears, £1,707 being outstanding. Surplus funds were invested in National Savings Income Bonds (£45,000 Appeal Money, £40,000 Trust Money, total £85,000). The number of creditors was reduced (£125 versus £1,786). Deposited Covenants were similar (£3,475 versus £4,650). Total reserves increased from £56,703 to £106,697, of which £18,159 is earmarked for the printing of the 3rd Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Largely as a result of the Appeal for Funds ably managed by Mr Richard Melville, the grants received from the Royal Society and the Research Councils, and the arrangements with the Commonwealth Agri- cultural Bureaux, the Trust’s financial position greatly improved in 1983. The reserves generate income which assists in the payment of staff and will provide a buffer against impending changes in the staffing of the Secretariat in London, and changes in the structure and functioning of the Commission worldwide shortly to be proposed by its President, Dr W.D.L. Ride. F.G.W. JONES Secretary 4th June 1984 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 194 6ST 815 (002) 000° 000° 6S€6 IPOD pasiAdy Jo sardos0j,0Y “ssaT UOT 99JJ 1S919}U] spun, snip wo suoneudoiddy suoljeuog oy1oedg :SMOT[OJ SB dn spew si ainyejoUSWION [edIZO[OOZ Jo apoD [euoNeUsa}U] 9y) JO UONIpPY pg oy} Jo Bunjurid s0j uorstaosd oy, “LON L69°901F 6ST'8I 8ES‘88 L69‘901 009°¢ L67‘OIT 7L9°601 S79 p61‘0S PPE'8E SLY'€ scl EIS‘IZ 000°S8 csv LOL'I ved 6ST'I 6SP 008 UOISIAOIg OYI90dg £861 10J snjding ZR6[ “JOQUIZINC] IS|¢ 18 9OUL[eg FAUASAY ANNAATa SGNNA GaALVTNWNDOV JOUBAPY Ul Poalaooy sjUPUSAOD poysodsq s1OjIpatg Arpung SHILITIGVIT LNFAANO pueyY Ul pue yueg ye ysea }UDUUI}SOAUT J[QLIDAOOI SOXB | J9YIO pure dWIOdUT sajeg WOJJ onp syunowYy SLASSV LNAaddNO uoneidsideg poyenunsoy -ssaT Jevak oy} SULINP SUOHIPpY 4s09 12 INAWdINOd AOIAO SLASSV GaxI14 €861 ‘UAAWNAOAC SIE LV SV LAAHS YONV IVE AUNLVIONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YOd LSNUAL TVNOILVNUALNI €OL‘9SF 6SE°8I preset €0L‘9S 9E'9 6E1°€9 06°79 Sc C861 Oe FI peo ve 0S9'r 98L'T p90'6S C8 910°E 195 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 sjuRJUNOsOY poloyeyD P86 ‘API 416Z ‘OO 8 AODIMAVAD ‘ATTUOW VNI [dS ‘uopuoT ‘plex prox ssury ‘¢ “0861 01 8P6I SOV sotuRdUIO|D 943 YIM A[duIOD pure o}ep Jey} UO popud Iv9K dy} 10J sn[ding SuNeiodo ay} Jo pue EgG] ‘IOQUIIDNq IS[E 1B SITEYe JO 9}e}S 94} JO MOIA IIVJ pUuv dNJ} B SAIS UONUSAUOD 1809 [VdIIO}SIY 94} Jopun poredoid usaq sAvY YSIYM JsNI] sy} JO s}UNODOY 94} UOTUIdO INO UT SYOLIGNV AHL AO LYUOdaAu p61 ‘OSF LIdHS JONV IVE Ole blF ——— 0} paleo YVWAA AHL YON SNTdUNS ——— 607 LI 98I‘LI 69 LINAWdINOd JOMsO AO NOILVIOdUddaad 97 81 SNOILVOITANd oEs‘s dO NOILNEIMLSIG GNV DNILNIYd = SLddd GVd YO NOISIAOUd LEE S71 qqad LIGnv S71 Srl‘Z SASNAd Xd FOIMAO gss‘z 7S8'P1 SHIUVIVS 019'8 ‘SSOT €0r‘L9 96r' IE €80°9S LI€9I OIr'r LISAYaLNI ANVA 76 088‘Z INVNAAOO JO Sdagad 90r7 €6L Iv GNNd TVdddV 891s 000°L SLINVUD 16L‘€ OzEII 6LI‘SI I suortutdg L67@ = SISIT [PIO €6 €I apo” [euOTeUIO}UT L 90€‘IT dIN}LOUSWION] [BOISO[OOZ Jo unaying 78L‘b1 SNOILVOITANd AO ATVS C861 €861 ‘UAAWAOAC IS1€ GAGNA UVAA AHL YOA LNNOOOV AUMNLIGNAdXA GNV AWOONI AYNLVIONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YOd LSNUL TVNOILVNUYALNI ee 196 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE THIRD EDITION Publication of the third edition of the Code is now scheduled for 31 December 1984. The price remains at £15+ £1.50 packing and postage. Pre- paid orders sent to Publications Department, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD will attract a 10 per cent dis- count (i.e. the price will be £13.50+£1.50 packing and postage) if received before 31 March 1985. As it is always possible that publication may be delayed, and in view of the time that must elapse before the Code becomes generally available, readers may like to have notice of the most important new provisions that will come into force on 1 January 1985. These are: (1) A species-group name may be added in parentheses after the generic name, or interpolated in parentheses between the generic and specific names to denote an aggregate of species (e.g., a group of sibling species) within a genus or subgenus; and a species-group name may be interpolated between the specific and subspecific names to indicate an aggregate of subspecies (e.g., an exerge) within a species (Article 6b). Such interpolated names are not counted among the names in a binomen or trinomen but are deemed to be consistent with the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature. (2) The mandatory provisions concerning the formation and treat- ment of species-group names that were present in the first edition (1961) but were reduced to a Recommendation in the second edition (1964) are restored and extended (Article 31). (3) If a vowel in a name formed from a German word bears an umlaut, the umlaut is simply to be deleted (prior to 1985, the letter ‘e’ is to be inserted after that vowel). If there is any doubt that a name is based ona German word, it is to be so treated (Article 32d(i) (2)). (4) A new name published before 1961 for a ‘variety’ or a ‘form’ is of subspecific rank unless the context clearly reveals that infrasubspecific rank was meant. The name is then of infrasubspecific rank unless, before 1985, it was treated as an available name of specific or subspecific rank (Article 45g(1i) (1)). (5) In extant species of protozoa, if the name cannot be interpreted by reference to a single animal or part of one, the type may consist of a series of directly related individuals representing differing stages in the life cycle (hapantotype) (Article 72c(iv)). (6) Lastly, a work published before 1986 must be produced in ink on paper by some conventional printing process. After 1985 a work produced by any other method (e.g., xeroxing) must, to be available, contain a state- ment by the author that any new name or nomenclatural act in it is intended for permanent, public, scientific record; and information showing that the work was produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies must be given in the work itself (Article 8c, d). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 197 R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature November 1984 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF CAPYS HEWITSON, 1865.Z.N.(S.)1748 (see vol. 41, pp. 119-121) By C. F. Cowan (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria, LA11 7DR, U.K.) I support this proposal, but cannot agree with its method of presentation. I mainly agree with paragraphs | to 6. Scoptes Hiibner, 1819 was dealt with by Hemming, 1967 (op. posth., edited by Riley: Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist.( Ent.) Suppl. 9, p. 407) where he firmly stated that Butler’s action in ‘1869’ [1870] made alpheus the type species. This was a positive designation by Hemming and he made it quite clear that he considered it the type species; thereby fully satisfying Article 69a(iii). Thus paragraphs 7-11 on page 120 are irrelevant, as is paragraph 12(1)(a), in which ‘alphaeus ... p. 31 etc.’ should read alpheus . .. p. 131. Accordingly, I recommend that the request to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature be shortened by the omission of subparagraph (1) (a). CORRECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION CONCERNING HELICONIUS ERATO AURIVILLIUS, 1882. Z.N.(S.)1759 (see vol. 41, pp. 43-44) By John R. G. Turner (Department of Genetics, University of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England) I am grateful to Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan and Professor Dr L. B. Holthuis for the following factual corrections to my application: paragraph 3, line 3 should begin ‘B (red form). Clerck (1764, Jcones, part 2, pl. 40, fig. 1)’. Clerck’s figure bears the number ‘5’ beside it; but the other figures on this plate bear numbers scattered among the hundreds, and the Index numbers them 1-4 from the top down, giving the number | to P. erato. paragraph 3, lines 7-8 should read: ‘Species B (blue form) Papilio doris Cramer, (1777, Uitl. Kapellen, vol. 2, p. 33, pl. 119, fig. A)...’ paragraph 3, lines 9-10. Linnaeus died in 1778, and never cited Cramer. Posthumous editions (e.g. Gmelin, 1790; Turton, 1806) cite Cramer’s figure as P. erato. paragraph 6, lines 5—6, the locality of the neotype should have been cited as ‘Berg en Dal’, not “Berg. en Dal’. 198 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING STERNOTHERUS GRAY, 1825 AND PELUSIOS WAGLER, 1830. Z.N.(S.)2278 (see vol. 37, pp. 124-128) By Roger Bour and Alain Dubois (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Reptiles et Amphibiens, Paris) The correct spelling of the generic name Sternotherus Gray, 1825 was recently debated by Smith, Smith & Chiszar, 1980; those authors there acknow- ledged the availability of the generic name Sternothaerus Bell, 1825 and considered some consequences of the priority of that name over Pelusios Wagler, 1830, at present universally used. At about the same time we independently submitted the first draft of a paper on the same subject, but including wider implications. The present paper is a revised form of that draft. In it we examine those wider impli- cations at both genus-group and family-group levels, consider several possible courses of action and their consequences, and request the Commission to choose the course that we believe will best secure stability of nomenclature. Our paper should be read in conjunction with Smith, Smith & Chiszar’s application to the Commission in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 124-128. 2. We agree with those authors’ analysis of the relationship between Sternotherus Gray, 1825 and Sternothaerus Bell, 1825, and take up the historical sequence of events with the work of Wagler, 1830. He did not expressly designate a type species for Sternothaerus but restricted the genus to S. trifasciatus Bell. He also (p. 137) established the new genus Pelusios with three included nominal species: Emys castanea Schweigger, 1812, p. 314; Testudo subnigra Lacépéde, 1788, p. 446; and Sternothaerus leachianus Bell, 1825 (already designated as type species of Sternothaerus by Bell, 1828, p. 514). 3. A junior synonym of Pelusios that does not appear in Wermuth & Mertens’s (1977, pp. 115-116) synonymy of the generic name, is Cheliphus Rafinesque, 1832. This name was first introduced by Rafinesque (1815, p. 75) as a nomen nudum. Later (1832, p. 64) he gave a diagnosis of the genus but did not include any species in it: ‘Cheliphus Raf. Water turtles with valved shells, 5 claws and toes to all the feet.’ The name seems never to have been used and no species have ever been referred to the genus. The diagnosis is, however, quite clear. The combination of characters given therein is met with in only one genus of Recent turtles, Pe/usios Wagler (type species, by subsequent designation by Fitzinger, 1843, p. 29, Testudo subnigra Lacépéde, 1788). Fortunately, Pelusios has priority over Cheliphus. We hereby designate Testudo subnigra Lacépéde, 1788 as type species of Cheliphus Rafinesque, 1832, which thereby becomes a junior objective synonym of Pelusios Wagler, 1830. 4. Gray, 1831, p. 37, gave a new definition and content to Sternotherus (which he still credited to Bell). He did not designate a type species. He included the following two species in the genus as newly understood: Emys castanea Schweigger (with which he considered Sternothaerus leachianus Bell to be synonymous) and Testudo subnigra Lacépéde. (Smith, Smith & Chiszar, 1980, p. 126, consider S. leachianus to be a junior synonym of T. subnigra. Bell’s type specimen is still extant in the collections of the Oxford University Museum (OUM 8618). We have examined it and agree with Gray that the name is a synonym of Emys castanea Schweigger, 1812). In 1844 Gray followed the same arrangement but added two further species to the genus. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 199 5. In a list of genera, Swainson, 1839, p. 344, mentioned Sternotherus as a subgenus of Kinosternon Spix, 1824, p. 17. Holbrook, 1842, p. 133, used Sternothaerus Bell with the same meaning, i.e. for the species Testudo odorata Latreille. Fitzinger, 1843, p. 29, was the first formally to designate Testudo odorata Latreille as type species of Sternothaerus Bell, but that is invalid because subsequent to Bell’s 1828 designation of S. leachianus. In the same work, p. 29, Fitzinger designated Testudo subnigra Lacépéde as type species of Pelusios Wagler and that action is valid. 6. In 1855, p. 51, Gray at last used Bell’s spelling Sternothaerus for the genus he had since 1825 called Sternotherus. He mentioned Bell’s 1828 type-species designation and considered Pelusios to be a synonym of Sternothaerus. Smith. Smith & Chiszar overlooked this use by Gray of Bell’s spelling. 7. For nearly half a century from 1855, the use of Sternothaerus in the sense of Bell, 1828, and Gray, 1855 was almost general (see e.g. Strauch, 1862, p. 43; Boulenger, 1889, pp. 191-197) and Pelusios was treated as a synonym of Sternothaerus. That stable usage was upset by Stejneger, who in 1902, p. 237, con- sidered Testudo odorata as the type species of both Sternotherus and Sternothaerus and synonymised both with Kinosternon Spix. He used Pelusios as the valid name for the genus that until then had been called Sternothaerus. 8. Brown, 1908, p. 114, used Sternothaerus sensu Stejneger (= Sternotherus Gray) for Testudo odorata, which he clearly mentioned as the type species, as a genus distinct from Kinosternon; Wright & Funkhouser, 1915, p. 114, used Sternothaerus in the same sense for Aromochelys carinata Gray, 1855, p. 47. Stejneger, 1923, p. 1, also without explanation, separated Sternotherus Gray from Kinosternon and referred three species to it. From that date, this use of Sternotherus has been accepted by most authors. A few authors (Lindholm, 1929, p. 277; Tinkle, 1958, p. 5; Conant, 1958, pp. 35-39) used the spelling Sternothaerus, which Tinkle thought was justified on etymological grounds, but this was rightly refuted by Albrecht (1967, p. 82). Sternotherus Gray is currently considered as the valid generic name for four species of North American turtles: see e.g. Ernst & Barbour, 1972, pp. 33-49. Sternothaerus Brown, 1908 is a junior homonym of Sternothaerus Bell. It is also an unjustified emendation of Sternotherus Gray with its own author and date, and is a junior objective synonym of that name. 9. Schmidt, 1919, pp. 401-402, 411-415, followed Stejneger’s 1902 use of Pelusios as the valid name for Sternothaerus Bell and referred six species to the genus. From that date— but not from 1902 on, as stated by Smith, Smith & Chiszar, 1980, p. 126—this usage has been generally accepted (see e.g. Hewitt, 1927, p. 375; FitzSimons, 1932, p. 37; Mertens, Miller & Rust, 1934, p. 64; Loveridge, 1941, p. 481; Miller & Hellmich, 1954, p. 54; Laurent, 1956, p. 31; Villiers, 1958, p. 230; Wermuth & Mertens, 1961, p. 286; Laurent, 1965, p. 1; Pritchard, 1967, p. 224; Raw, 1978, p. 287). All the species concerned are fresh- water turtles with a hinged plastron. Species with this character were at first believed to be closely related, but they are now placed in the three families EMYDIDAE, PELOMEDUSIDAE and KINOSTERNIDAE. 10. In the same paper in which he established Sternothaerus, Bell erected for it a new subfamily STERNOTHAERINA which he placed in the EMYDIDAE — a family in fact established by Gray one month earlier. Cope, 1868, p. 119, proposed STERNOTHAERIDAE as a new name without referring to Bell, but under Article 36 the name is available as of Bell, 1825. In the same paper, p. 119, Cope erected the PELOMEDUSIDAE for Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830, p. 136 (type species, by monotypy, Testudo galeata Schoepff, 1792, p. 12 = Testudo subrufa Lacépéde, 1788, 200 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 p. 446). Gray, 1870, pp. 70, 77, independently proposed PELOMEDUSIDAE for a family containing Sternothaerus Bell, 1825, Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830 and Dumerilia Grandidier, 1867. 11. As was recognized later by most authors, Sternothaerus Bell (= Pelusios Wagler) and Pelomedusa Wagler are closely related and belong to the same sub- family. STERNOTHAERIDAE Bell, 1825 and PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868 are therefore subjective synonyms. Baur at first (1887, p. 102; 1888a, p. 420) recognized both families as valid, but later (1888b, p. 738) placed both genera in one family for which he chose the name STERNOTHAERIDAE. However, except for another paper by him (Baur, 1891, pp. 417, 420), that name does not seem to have been used subsequently, because Boulenger, 1889, p. 191, chose PELOMEDUSIDAE as the name for this family with STERNOTHAERIDAE as a synonym. This usage has been followed by all herpetologists until now (see e.g. Siebenrock, 1909, p. 554; Schmidt, 1919, p. 411; Mertens, Miller & Rust, 1934, p. 64; Loveridge, 1941, p. 465; Laurent, 1956, p. 30; Villiers, 1958, p. 222; Wermuth & Mertens, 1961, p. 284; Laurent, 1965, p. 1; Pritchard, 1967, p. 220; Raw, 1978, p. 287). 12. The family to which Sternotherus Gray belongs since Stejneger’s 1902 paper was given the name CINOSTERNOIDAE by Agassiz, 1857, p. 346. This name was based on Cinosternon Wagler, 1830, p. 137, an unjustified emendation of Kinosternon Spix. Gray, 1869, p. 180 proposed two family-group names based on Kinosternon: KINOSTERNA for a ‘section’ (subfamily) and KINOSTERNINA for a tribe. KINOSTERNIDAE, first used as such by Baur, 1893, p. 674, is available as of Gray, 1869 (Article 36). Although CINOSTERNOIDAE (which should be corrected to CINOSTERNIDAE) has priority over KINOSTERNIDAE, the latter has replaced it since Stejneger & Barbour, 1917, p. 111 and has won general acceptance, either as a family name or a subfamily name (see e.g. Lindholm, 1929, p. 277; Mertens, Miller & Rust, 1934, p. 43; Pope, 1939, p. 34; Carr, 1952, p. 73; Schmidt, 1953, p. 87; Tinkle, 1958, p. 5; Conant, 1958, p. 35; Wermuth & Mertens, 1961, p. 8; Pritchard, 1967, p. 33; Ernst & Barbour, 1972, p. 33). It should therefore be maintained in the interests of stability of nomenclature. As Cinosternon Wagler is a junior objective synonym of Kinosternon Spix, Article 40 applies and the name should be cited as KINOSTERNIDAE Gray, 1869 (1857). 13. The rediscovery of Bell’s type-species designation for Sternothaerus could lead to major changes in the currently accepted nomenclature of turtles. These are three in number: (a) Sternothaerus Bell should replace Pelusios Wagler. This might be accepted since Sternothaerus was in general use for almost a century, while Pelusios was resurrected only by Stejneger, 1902. However, Pelusios is now well established (from 1919 on — see paragraph 9) and this change would be considered by some authors as a threat to stability. STERNOTHAERIDAE Bell, 1825, which does not seem to have been used as a valid name since Baur, 1891, would become the valid name for the family now universally known (see paragraph 11) as PELOMEDUSIDAE. We believe this change would be most disturbing to stability. (c) The co-existence of two generic names, Sternotherus and Sternothaerus, in different families would be a certain cause of confusion, especially among non-systematists. (b ~~ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 201 14. We believe these consequences would disturb stability and cause confusion. Action by the Commission is therefore necessary. We see seven possible courses: (a) (b ~— (c) (d ~— (e) (f) Suppression of Sternotherus Gray (type species, by subsequent designation by Stejneger, 1902, Testudo odorata Latreille). This would prevent consequence 13c, but Pelusios would still have to be replaced by Sternothaerus and PELOMEDUSIDAE by STERNOTHAERIDAE. Sternotherus would be replaced by its junior objective synonym Aromochelys Gray, 1855, p. 46, given the same type species by Strauch, 1862, p. 38. Ruling that Gray’s 1825 paper is to be considered as later than Bell’s 1825 paper. Sternotherus Gray would then be an incorrect subsequent spelling of Sternothaerus Bell and would have no status in nomencla- ture. The result of this action would be as in (a), except that the family name EMYDIDAE would be credited to Bell (its true author) rather than to Gray (who merely used a manuscript name of Bell’s). Suppression of Bell’s designation of Sternothaerus leachianus Bell as type species of Sternothaerus and its replacement by Testudo odorata Latreille, as requested by Smith, Smith & Chiszar. Sternothaerus Bell would then become a junior objective synonym of Sternotherus Gray and consequence 13c would be avoided. The current use of Pelusios and of PELOMEDUSIDAE would be preserved. But STERNOTHAERIDAE Bell would replace KINOSTERNIDAE as the valid name of the family containing Sternotherus Gray. This consequence is not taken into account by Smith, Smith & Chiszar. Suppression of all previous designations of type species for Sternothaerus Bell (Bell, 1828, S. leachianus; Fitzinger, 1843, T. odorata; Stejneger, 1902, T. odorata) and designation of S. trifasciatus Bell as type species (thus ratifying Wagler’s 1830 concept of the genus). S. trifasciatus is currently referred to Cuora Gray, 1855, p. 41, but has in the past (e.g. Boulenger, 1889, p. 133) been referred to Cyclemys Bell, 1834, p. 17. This designation would upset the stability of Cuora, which has been in general use for over 50 years (since Smith, M. A., 1931). A further consequence would be a change in the sub- familial nomenclature in the EMYDIDAE: STERNOTHAERINAE Bell, 1825 would replace BATAGURINAE Gray, 1869, a well- established name since McDowell, 1964. Finally, consequence 13c would not be avoided. Conservation of both Sternotherus Gray and Sternothaerus Bell, but suppression of STERNOTHAERINA Bell, 1825. This action is tech- nically impossible, for so long as Sternothaerus remains available and nomenclaturally valid, any zoologist has the right to recognize it as the type genus of a family-group taxon. Moreover, none of the conse- quences spelt out in paragraph 13 would be avoided, because, as a result of Baur’s first reviser action (1888b, p. 738), STERNOTHAERIDAE Cope, 1868 would still have precedence over PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868. As (e), but suppressing either STERNOTHAERIDAE Cope, 1868 as well, or Baur’s first reviser action so as to make PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868 nomenclaturally valid. This would be technically 202 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 impossible for the same reason as that given in (e) and consequences 13a and 13c would not be avoided. (g) Suppression of Sternothaerus Bell, 1825. STERNOTHAERINA Bell, 1825 and all family-group names based on the generic name would automatically become nomenclaturally invalid. All the consequences envisaged in paragraph 13 would be avoided. Sternotherus Gray, 1825 (KINOSTERNIDAE) and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 would remain valid names as currently used and PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868 would be conserved. We believe this action would avoid the introduction of sources of confusion and would preserve stability of nomenclature. 15. We accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Sternothaerus Bell, 1825 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (i) Sternotherus Gray, 1825 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Stejneger, 1902, Testudo odorata Latreille, 1801; (ii) Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Fitzinger, 1843, Testudo subnigra Lacépéde, 1788; (iii) Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Testudo galeata Schoepff, 1792; (iv) Kinosternon Spix, 1824 (gender: neuter), type species, by subsequent designation by Bell, 1828, Kinosternon longicaudatum Spix, 1824; (c) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (i) odorata Latreille, 1801, as published in the binomen Testudo odorata (specific name of type species of Sternotherus Gray, 1825); (ii) subnigra Lacépéde, 1788, as published in the binomen Testudo subnigra (specific name of type species of Pelusios Wagler, 1830); (iii) galeata Schoepff, 1792, as published in the binomen Testudo galeata (specific name of type species of Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830); (iv) longicaudatum Spix, 1824 as published in the binomen Kinosternon longicaudatum (specific name of type species of Kinosternon Spix, 1824); (d) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (i) PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868 (type genus Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830); (ii) KINOSTERNIDAE Gray, 1869 (1857) (type genus Kinosternon Spix, 1824); (e) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (i) Sternothaerus Bell, 1825, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (a) above; (ii) Sternothaerus Brown, 1908, a junior homonym of Sternothaerus Bell, 1825; (f) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology STERNOTHAERINA Bell, 1825 (type genus Sternothaerus Bell, 1825, suppressed under the plenary powers in (a) above). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 203 REFERENCES AGASSIZ, L. 1857. Contributions to the natural history of the United States, Monogr. |, pts 2 and 3, 1xii+ 643 pp., 34 pls. Boston (Little Brown). ALBRECHT, P. W. 1967. The cranial arteries and cranial arterial foramina of the turtle genera Chrysemys, Sternotherus and Trionyx, etc. Tulane Studies Zool., vol. 14, pp. 81-99. BAUR, G. 1887. Osteologische Notizen tiber Reptilien, II. Zool. Anz., vol. 10, pp. 96-102. 1888a. Osteologische Notizen ber Reptilien, III. Zool. Anz., vol. 11, pp. 417-424. 1888b. Osteologische Notizen tiber Reptilien, V. Zool. Anz., vol. 11, pp. 736-740. 1891. Notes on some little-known American fossil tortoises. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, for 1891, pp. 411-430. 1893. Notes on the classification and taxonomy of the Testudinata. Proc. amer. philos. Soc., vol. 31, pp. 210-225. BELL, T. 1825. A monograph of the tortoises having a moveable sternum, with remarks on their arrangement and affinities. Zool. J., vol. 2, pp. 299-310. 1828. Characters of the order, families and genera of the Testudinata. Zool. J., vol. 3, pp. 513-516. 1834. Cyclemys, Cyclemys orbiculata. Proc. zool. Soc. London, for 1834, p. 17. BOULENGER, G. A. 1889. Catalogue of the Chelonians, Rhynchocephalians and Crocodiles in the British Museum (Natural History). London (British Museum), x+ 311 pp., 6 pls. BROWN, A. E. 1908. Generic types of nearctic Reptilia and Amphibia. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 60, pp. 112-127. CARR, A. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Ithaca (Cornell Univ. Press), xv +542 pp., 82 pls. 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., 40 pls. COPE, E. D. 1868. An examination of the Reptilia and Batrachia obtained by the Orton Expedition to Equador and the Upper Amazon, with notes on other species. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, for 1868, pp. 96-140. ERNST, C. H. & BARBOUR, R. W. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Lexington (Univ. Kentucky Press), x + 347 pp., 24 pls. FITZINGER, L. 1843. Systema Reptilium, fasc. 1, Amblyglossae. Vienna (Braumiller & Seidel), 106 pp. FITZIMONS, V. F. 1932. Preliminary description of new forms of South African Reptilia and Amphibia from the Vernay-Lang Kalahari Expedition, 1930. Ann. Transvaal Mus., vol. 15, pp. 35-40. GMELIN, J. F. 1789. Caroli a Linne... Systema Naturae...ed. 13, vol. 1, pt. 3. Lipsiae, pp. 1033-1516. GRANDIDIER, A. 1867. Liste des reptiles nouveaux découverts en 1866 sur la cote sud-ouest de Madagascar. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2), vol. 19, pp. 232-234. GRAY, J. E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and Amphibia, with a description of some new species. Ann. Philos. (2) vol. 10, pp. 193-217. 1831. Synopsis Reptilium or short descriptions of the species of reptiles. I, 204 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Cataphracta, tortoises, crocodiles and enaliosaurians. London (Treuttel Wurtz), viii+ 85 pp., 11 pls. 1844. Catalogue of the tortoises, crocodiles and amphisbaenians in the collection of the British Museum. London (Brit. Mus.), viii+ 80 pp. 1855. Catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum I. Testudinata (tortoises). London (Brit. Mus.), 79 pp., 42 pls. 1869. Notes on the families and genera of tortoises (Testudinata) and on the characters afforded by the study of their skulls. Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1869, pp. 165—225, pl. 15. 1870. Supplement to the catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum, 1. Testudinata (tortoises). London (Brit. Mus.), ix+ 120 pp. HEWITT, J. 1927. Further descriptions of reptiles and batrachians from South Africa. Rec. Albany Mus., vol. 3, pp. 371-415, pls 20-24. HOLBROOK, J. E. 1842. North American herpetology, 2nd. edit, vol. 1, Philadelphia (J. Dobson), xv+ 152 pp., 24 pls. LACEPEDE, B. G. E. DE 1788. Histoire naturelle des quadrupédes ovipares et des serpens, vol. 1. Paris, 18+651 pp., 41 pls., ‘Synopsis methodica’. LATREILLE, P. A. 1801 in Sonnini & Latreille, Histoire naturelle des reptiles, vol. 1. Paris (Déterville), xii+ 280 pp., pls. LAURENT, R. F. 1956. Contribution 4 ’herpétologie de la région des grands lacs de Afrique Centrale. Ann. Mus. roy. Congo belge (8vo), vol. 48, 190 pp., 21 pls. 1965. A contribution to the knowledge of the genus Pelusios Wagler. Ann Mus. roy. Afr. centr. (8vo), Zool. vol. 135, 33 pp., 3 pls. LINDHOLM, W. A. 1929. Rediviertes Verzeichniss der Gattungen der rezenten Schildkréten nebts Notizen zur Nomenklatur einiger Arten. Zool. Anz., vol. 81, pp. 275-295. LOVERIDGE, A. 1941. Revision of the African terrapins of the family Pelomedusidae. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 88 (6), pp. 465-524. McDOWELL, S. B. 1964. Partition of the genus Clemmys and related problems in the taxonomy of the aquatic Testudinidae. Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 143, pp. 239-279. MERREM, B. 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Tentamen Systematis Amphibiorum. Marburg (J. C. Krieger), xv+ 191 pp., 2 pls. MERTENS, R., MULLER, L. & RUST, H. T. 1934. Systematische Liste der lebenden Schildkréten. B/. Aquar.-und-Terrarienk., vol. 45 (3), pp. 42-45; (4), pp. 59-67. MULLER, L. & HELLMICH, W. 1954. Zur Kenntnis einiger Pelusios Arten (Testudines). Ver. zool. Stattssamml. Miinchen, vol. 3, pp. 51-79, 2 pls. POPE, C. A. 1939. Turtles of the United States and Canada. New York & London (A. A. Knopf), xviii +343 pp. +v, 99 phot. PRITCHARD, P. C. H. 1967. Living turtles of the world. Jersey City (TFH), 288 pp. RAW, L. R. G. 1978. Taxonomic notes on the hinged terrapins, genus Pelusios, of Natal (Testudinata: Pelomedusidae). Durban Mus. Nov., vol. 11 (17), pp. 287-294. SCHOEPFF, J. D. 1792-1801. Historia testudinum iconibus illustrata. Erlangen (J. J. Palm), xii+ 136 pp., 32 pls. SCHMIDT, K. P. 1919. Contributions to the herpetology of the Belgian Congo, etc. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 39, pp. 385-624, pls 7-32. 1953. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Chicago (Univ. Chicago Press), viii+ 280 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 205 SCHWEIGGER, F. 1812. Prodromus monographiae cheloniorum. Konigsberger Arch. Naturwiss. Math., vol. 1, pp. 271-368, 406-462. SIEBENROCK, F. 1909. Synopsis der rezenten Schildkréten mit Beriicksichtigung der in historischer Zeit ausgestorbenen Arten. Zool. Jahrb., Syst., Suppl. 10, pp. 427-618. SMITH, M. A. 1931. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia I. Loricata, Testudines. London (Taylor & Francis), XXVili+ 185 pp., 2 pls. SPIX, J. B. DE 1824. Animalia nova, sive species novae testudinium. Miinchen, 24 pp. STEJNEGER, L. 1902. Some generic names of turtles. Proc. biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 15, pp. 235-238. 1923. Rehabilitation of a hitherto overlooked species of musk turtle of the southern states. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 62 (6), pp. 1-3. ——— & BARBOUR, T. 1917. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. Cambridge (Harvard Univ. Press), iv+125 pp. STRAUCH, A. 1862. Chelonische Studien mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung auf die Schildkréten Sammlung der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu St Petersburg. Mem. Acad. imp. Sci., (7) vol. 5 (7), 196 pp., | pl. SWAINSON, W. 1839. On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians and reptiles, or monocardian animals. I. London (Longman & Co.), i-vi, 452 Pp. TINKLE, D. W. 1958. The systematics and ecology of the Sternothaerus carinatus complex (Testudinata, Chelydridae). Tulane Stud. Zool., vol. 6, pp. 3-56. VILLIERS, A. 1958. Initiations africaines, XV. Tortues et crocodiles de | "Afrique noire francaise. Dakar (IFAN), 354 pp. WAGLER, J. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien, etc. Munchen, Stuttgart & Tubingen (Cotta), vi+354 pp., 11 pls. WERMUTH, H. & MERTENS, R. 1961. Schildkréten, Krokodile, Brtickenechsen. Jena (G. Fischer), xxvi+422 pp. WRIGHT, A. H. & F UNKHOUSER, W. D. 1915. A biological reconnaissance of the Okefinokee Swamp in Georgia, I. Turtles, lizards and alligators. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 67, pp. 107-139, pls 1-2. GNATHODUS PANDER, 1856 (CONODONTA): NOTIFICATION OF A NEW PROPOSAL THAT POLYGNATHUS BILINEA TUS ROUNDY, 1926 BE THE TYPE SPECIES OF THAT GENUS. Z.N.(S.) 2279 (see vol. 36, pp. 57-62, 201-202: vol. 37, p. 67; vol. 39, pp. 7-13) By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature As will be seen from the above list of references to the Bulletin, this case has aroused intense interest and widespread discussion. The basic issue remains: it is whether, in the interests of stability of nomenclature, the plenary powers should be used to designate a Lower Carboniferous species as type species of Gnathodus Pander, 1856; or whether Pander’s originally monotypic type species, which is agreed to be inadequately figured and described, and of which the type material is lost, should be allowed to stand. 206 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 In an effort to provide evidence to help the Commission to reach a clear-cut decision on this case, I asked Professor Walter C. Sweet (Ohio State University), President of the Pander Society, to canvass the members of the Society (The Pander Society is the only international society for students of conodonts). In the Society’s Newsletter No. 15, issued 16 August 1983, he briefly summarised the problem and then called for answers to the following questions: ‘Which, if any, of the following solutions do you favour for the Gnathodus problem? If you have a solution that has not been suggested, please describe it in the space at the bottom of the page. 1. Restrict Gnathodus to G. mosquensis and assign Lower Carboniferous species to Dryphenotus (in other words, let the existing Rules apply; the concept of Gnathodus would be clarified only if the type specimens of G. mosquensis are found). 2. Set aside G. mosquensis Pander, 1856, as type species of Gnathodus and establish G. texanus Roundy, 1926 as type species. (This action would preserve the widely understood concept of Gnathodus based on Lower Carboniferous species). 3. Suppress both Gnathodus and Dryphenotus and set up two new names for the Lower and Upper Carboniferous species-groups they represent. 4. I have a completely different idea what should be done. My idea is as follows. ‘By 1 December 1983, 235 members from 30 countries had responded to the general questionnaire and 124 (or 53%) participated in the Gnathodus discussion. In the latter group, preference is clearly for solution 2 above (86%), not only among the 61 persons who deal regularly with Carboniferous conodonts (85%), but also within the group of 63 persons who do not (87%). ‘From comments submitted with questionnaires, it is obvious that the over- whelming support of Pander Society members for solution 2 above is based primarily on the fact that its implementation by the Commission would provide for stability in nomenclature and concept of a group of species that is important in Lower Carboniferous biostratigraphy, and would also prevent, at some time in the future, a revision of unknown scope in generic-level nomenclature for species commonly used in Upper Carboniferous biostratigraphy should the type specimens of Pander’s Gnathodus mosquensis ever be located. ‘Several members who work regularly with Lower Carboniferous conodont faunas, and who expressed general preference for solution 2, nevertheless ques- tioned the wisdom of establishing Gnathodus texanus Roundy, 1926 as type species of Gnathodus. Those persons point out that the complete skeletal apparatus of G. texanus is unknown (or at least undescribed) and that the species is perhaps the least representative of the group that forms the basis of current concepts of Gnathodus. The lack of knowledge of the full skeletal apparatus of G. texanus makes it difficult at present to assess its relations to much better-known species such as G. bilineatus and G. girtyi, for which the complete apparatus is known. ‘In summary, the Pander Society, acting as a “Committee of the Whole”, expresses clear preference for solution 2 in the above-cited list, which is the proposal submitted to the Commission by Lane & Ziegler (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 57-62), largely on the objective and practical grounds that implementation of that proposal by the Commission will provide nomenclatural stability of nomenclature within a group of conodont species widely used in Carboniferous biostratigraphy. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 207 ‘In considering the weight of the opinion expressed above, the Commission should be advised that the Pander Society represents some 250 students of conodonts in 30 countries and is the official working group on conodonts of the International Paleontological Association. Furthermore, tabulation of the results of the questionnaire on the ““Gnathodus question” by country, continent, and area of specialization shows no significant difference, exhibits no geographic or political bias, and indicates to me that those members who were concerned with the question at all considered the alternatives strictly on their merits.’ (Professor Sweet to Secretary, 16 December 1983). Some explanation of the taxonomic considerations underlying the choice of a substitute type species for Gnathodus may be in order. From the first discovery of conodonts by Pander in 1856 until 1934, they were known only as isolated single skeletal elements of very diverse tooth-like forms. A large number of genera based on these elements were erected to contain, eventually, over 4,000 species. From 1934 on there began to be collected specimens in which a number of skeletal elements occurred, apparently in a natural relationship to one another, and in most cases consisting of sets of markedly different elements that had been referred to different single-element genera. For a while these discoveries gave rise to a dual nomenclature in conodonts, but since 1966 a single apparatus-based nomenclature, applying the Law of Priority to single element-based names, has become universal. If, therefore, the Commission’s decision in this case is to produce the desired stability of nomenclature, it is clearly desirable that so important a genus as Gnathodus, to which some 80, mainly Lower Carboniferous, species have been referred, should be based on a type species whose taxonomic position is secure by present-day criteria. This is not true of G. texanus Roundy, 1926, and still less so of G. mosquensis Pander, 1856. It is, however, true of Polygnathus bilineatus Roundy, 1926, a species now referred to Gnathodus. Dr Ziegler and Dr Lane, the original applicants in this case, have just published in Senckenbergiana Iethaea, vol. 65, nos. 1-2, pp. 257-263, 1 pl., 1984, an illustrated account of a complete apparatus of G. bilineatus (Roundy) and propose that this, rather than G. texanus Roundy, should be designated as the type species of Gnathodus. This entails the following changes to the formal proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 61: in paragraph 10(1), for Gnathodus texanus Roundy, 1926, read Polygnathus bilineatus Roundy, 1926; in paragraph 10(3), for texanus Roundy, 1926 as published in the binomen Gnathodus texanus, read bilineatus Roundy, 1926 as published in the binomen Polygnathus bilineatus. CAECILITIDAE IN AMPHIBIA AND INSECTA (PSOCOPTERA): REPLY TO SMITH, LANHAM AND POLHEMUS. Z.N.(S.)2333 (see vol. 40, pp. 124—128; vol. 41, pp. 108-109) By Thomas E. Moore (University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079, U.S.A.) Ronald A. Nussbaum, Edward L. Mockford and I had considered and rejec- ted the name CAECILIAIDAE because of its inherent difficulty in pronunciation, 208 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 because of its unexpected spelling and form, and because our recommended move follows normal priority. We had similarly rejected CAECILIUSIDAE. We still strongly favour our original proposal. Our choice of CAECILIONIDAE was based on priority, ease of pronunciation, ease of spelling, and ease of association with psocid names previously used under CAECILIIDAE. CAECILIONIDAE seems far more euphonious to us than CAECILIAIDAE or CAECILIUSIDAE. Psocids are not particularly widely or popularly discussed animals, the family-group names surrounding CAECILIIDAE have been in a state of flux between 1903 (first use) and 1978 (Mockford’s summary of the usage of names), and only a relatively few authors have used this group name in insects; so very few would have to change their ways. We recognise here no special case based on usage or significance or probable confusion to justify not following the nomenclatural principle of priority. We hope our proposal will satisfy the preferences of most current herpetologists and entomologists, particularly specialists on psocids. In case there are substantial numbers who think that it is too farctotehed to claim that the stem of Caecilius, for the purposes of Article 29, can ever be CAECILION-, we reluctantly suggest that Caecilius Curtis, 1837, be replaced by a junior synonym; and since we know of no such synonym in the literature, we hereby propose Caecilionis (arbitrary combination of letters; gender: masculine), type species Caecilius fenestratus Curtis, 1837, as a new replacement name. The stem of this name, for the purposes of Article 29, is CAECILION-. The generic name can only become nomenclaturally valid by the suppression of Caecilius Curtis, 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and we add a request for the use of the plenary powers to that effect to our original proposals. A COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE FOR ADIANTHUS BUCATUS AMEGHINO, 1891 (MAMMALIA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2430 (see vol. 41, p. 56-57) By Robert M. Schoch (Division of Science, College of Basic Studies, Boston University, 871 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass., 02215 U.S.A.) Cifelli & Soria, 1984, propose that a hemimandible (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Ameghino Collection no. 1812 = M.A.C.N. no. A1812) be designated the neotype of Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891. They make this proposal explicitly in order to apply the name Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891, to a species different from that to which this name was originally applied. I believe that their arguments and reasoning are of insufficient strength to warrant such a radical move by the Commission. 2. As Cifelli & Soria (1984, p. 56) admit, Ameghino’s (1891, p. 134, fig. 31) description and figure of the original type specimen upon which the name Adianthus bucatus is based are adequate to recognise this distinct species and to make the name available. In the course of that original description of Adianthus bucatus, Ameghino also coined the name ADIANTHIDAE Ameghino, 1891, initially including only Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 209 the genus Adianthus. Furthermore, although the type specimen was probably lost during Ameghino’s lifetime, Cifelli & Soria (1984, p. 57) admit that ‘it is likely that additional materials pertaining to this species will be recovered when the fauna from which it is derived is better known’. In compliance with Article 75 of the Code, any neotype designated for Adianthus bucatus should be consistent with Ameghino’s original 1891 description and illustration of the type specimen and, as nearly as practicable, come from the original type locality and geological horizon. Thus, it is logical to wait until more material of Adianthus bucatus is collected from the fauna from which it is derived and to designate one such future specimen the neotype. 3. In 1894 Ameghino described, and in 1897 figured, M.A.C.N. no. A1812 as a specimen of Adianthus bucatus. M.A.C.N. no. A1812 was collected from a differ- ent locality, and probably from a different geological horizon, than the type specimen of Adianthus bucatus (Cifelli & Soria, 1984). In the course of describing M.A.C.N. no. A1l812 Ameghino, 1894, further diagnosed the family- level taxon ADIANTHIDAE Ameghino, 1891 (type-genus Adianthus). Ameghino later (1901) referred to M.A.C.N. no. A1812 in referring other genera and species to the ADIANTHIDAE. 4. Scott, 1910, and Soria, 1981, mistakenly took M.A.C.N. no. A1812 to be the type or neotype of Adianthus bucatus. However, Patterson, 1940, and Simpson & Minoprio, 1949, recognised and used Ameghino’s original type of Adianthus bucatus, as figured and described by Ameghino in 1891, when dealing with this taxon. Thus, workers have not universally applied the name Adianthus bucatus to the same species. Sometimes it is applied to the species represented by Ameghino’s 1891 original, and presumably lost, type and sometimes to the species represented by M.A.C.N. no. A1812. 5. Adianthus bucatus (and thus the ADIANTHIDAE) is usually considered a member of the South American ungulate order Litopterna (Simpson, 1945; Romer, 1966; Savage & Russell, 1983). Cifelli & Soria, 1984, make the otherwise unpublished, and thus to date unsubstantiated, claim that in actuality the original type specimen of Adianthus bucatus pertains to a caviomorph rodent, perhaps a dasyproctid or an erethizontid, whereas M.A.C.N. no. A1812 does indeed pertain to a litoptern as presumably do the other taxa that are usually referred to the ADIANTHIDAE. Thus, according to Cifelli & Soria, 1984, Adianthus bucatus must be removed from the Litopterna and placed in the Caviomorpha, a new generic and specific name must be coined for M.A.C.N. no. A1812, and a name other than ADIANTHIDAE must be applied to the family-level taxon containing the species represented by M.A.C.N. no. A1812. They argue that following this line of action will upset stability of nomenclature for the family-level taxon containing M.A.C.N. no. A1812, usually referred to as ADIANTHIDAE or ADIANTHINAE, and thus they propose that the name Adianthus bucatus be transferred to M.A.C.N. no. A1812 by designating this specimen the neotype of Adianthus bucatus. 6. It is unclear why Cifelli & Soria feel that the line of action they propose is in the best interest of nomenclatural stability. As they point out (and see paragraph 4 above), the name Adianthus bucatus has been applied to both the species represen- ted by Ameghino’s original 1891 type specimen and to the species represented by M.A.C.N. no. A1812. Further, it seems convenient for Cifelli & Soria that the original type specimen of Adianthus bucatus has been lost. If the name Adianthus bucatus is transferred to the species represented by M.A.C.N. no. A1812, then the species represented by Ameghino’s original specimen will be left without a name and eventually will have to be renamed. Either way, a new generic and specific name will have to be proposed for one or the other species. 210 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 7. If the claims of Cifelli & Soria that Adianthus bucatus is a caviomorph rodent and M.A.C.N. no. A1812 is a litoptern are substantiated, then transferring the name Adianthus bucatus to M.A.C.N. no. A1812 will merely serve to super- ficially reify the mistaken notions of certain previous workers that Adianthus bucatus (as based on the original type specimen, as clearly indicated by Ameghino in his original 1891 publication, and not on M.A.C.N. no. A1812) is a litoptern. Yet confusion will remain in the older literature as the name Adianthus bucatus has not been universally applied to only one species. Such confusion cannot simply be cleared up by the designation of M.A.C.N. no. A1812 as the neotype of Adianthus bucatus. A more productive approach would encompass (1) publication of the revisionary work currently in progress (Cifelli & Soria, 1984) demonstrating that Adianthus bucatus (as based on the original type specimen) must be transferred to the Caviomorpha; (2) a published demonstration that M.A.C.N. no. A1812 does indeed pertain to the family-level taxon conceived and referred to by some workers previously as ADIANTHIDAE; (3) publication of a new name for the species represented by M.A.C.N. no. A1812; and (4) application of a family-level name other than ADIANTHIDAE to the family-level taxon containing the species represented by M.A.C.N. no. A1812. At the least, it would seem premature for the Commission to designate M.A.C.N. no. A1812 the neotype of Adianthus bucatus for the reasons given by Cifelli & Soria, 1984, before details of the revisionary work there alluded to are published and subjected to critical appraisal. REFERENCES AMEGHINO, F. 1891. Caracteres diagndosticos de cincuenta especies nuevas de mamiferos fosiles argentinos. Rev. Argentina Hist. nat. vol. 1, pp. 129-167. 1894. Enumération synoptique des espéces de mammiféres fossiles des formations éocénes de Patagonie. Bol. acad. Nac. Cien. Cordoba vol. 13, pp. 259-452. 1897. Mammifeéres crétacés de l’Argentine. Deuxiéme contribution a la connaissance de la faune mammalogique des couches a Pyrotherium. Bol. inst. Geogr. Argentino vol. 18, pp. 406-521. 1901. Notices préliminaires sur des ongulés nouveaux des terrains crétacés de Patagonie. Bol. acad. Nac. Cien. Cordoba vol. 16, pp. 349-426. CIFELLI, R. L. & SORIA, M. F. 1984. Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia): proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pt. 1, pp. 56-57. PATTERSON, B. 1940. An adianthine litoptern from the Deseado formation of Patagonia. Geol. ser. Field Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 8, pp. 13-20. ROMER, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. 3rd edn. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago. SAVAGE, D. E. & RUSSELL, D. E. 1983. Mammalian Paleofaunas of the World. Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Reading, Massachusetts. SCOTT, W. B. 1910. Mammalia of the Santa Cruz beds. Part 1. Litopterna. Repts. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patagonia vol. 7(1), pp. 1-156. SIMPSON, G. G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 85, pp. 1-350. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 211 SIMPSON, G. G. & MINOPRIO, J. L. 1949. A new adianthine litoptern and associated mammals from a Deseadan faunule in Mendoza, Argentina. Am. Mus. Novitates 1434, pp. 1-27. SORIA, M. F. 1981. Los Litopterna del Colhuehuapense (Oligoceno tardio) de la Argentina. Rev. Mus. Argentino Cien. nat. vol. 3, pp. 1-54. COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING ATRACTOCERA LATIPES MEIGEN, 1804. Z.N.(S.) 2393 (see vol. 41, pp. 83-86. 86-93) (1) By D. C. Currie (Department of Entomology, Univeristy of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T8G 2E3) I wish to express my support for Dr Crosskey’s request for alternative action to Dr Rubtsov’s proposed conservation of Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 in its former, misidentified, sense. The restriction by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, of the scope of the concept of latipes is a proper and necessary first step in the resolution of what is a large and taxonomically difficult species complex. Dr Rubtsov’s contention that members of the complex have ‘great medical and veterinary importance’ is not supported by thé literature. Indeed, I am not aware of a control programme ever having been directed against members of this complex. Dr Rubtsov’s second contention, that the change of names introduces confusion, seems ill timed, as a new stability has been attained in the 12 years since Crosskey & Davies introduced the change. Only two workers (I. A. Rubtsov and L. Rivosecchi) have persisted in using the name Jatipes in the sense of Edwards, non Meigen, since the name change to vernum Macquart was made in 1972. On the other hand, virtually all taxonomic treatments dealing with members of the complex have followed the lead of Crosskey and Davies during the same interval. In my opinion the action proposed by Dr Rubtsov is retrograde and would only result in unnecessary confusion. (2) By T. K. Crosby (Entomology Division, DSIR, Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand) I support the proposal of Crosskey that the specific name /Jatipes Meigen, 1804 should be interpreted by reference to the specimen recognized by Crosskey and Davies, 1972, as the holotype of the species. I do not support the proposal of Rubtsov that /atipes should be interpreted in its former misidentified sense of Edwards, Rubtsov, and Davies. 212 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 OPINION 1277 PTILIUM GYLLENHAL, 1827 AND PTENIDIUM ERICHSON, 1845 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all fixations of type species hitherto made for Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 are hereby set aside and Ptilium caesum Erichson, 1845 is hereby designated as type species of that nominal genus; (b) Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Anisarthria Stephens, 1830, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (c) the specific name pusillum Gyllenhal, 1808, as published in the binomen Scaphidium pusillum, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name melas Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Dermestes melas. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 (gender: neuter), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Ptilium caesum Erichson, 1845 (Name Number 2216); Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 (gender: neuter), type species, by subsequent designation by Thomson, 1859, Scaphidium pusil- lum Gyllenhal, 1808, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Anisarthria Stephens, 1830 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms (Name Number 2217); (c) Anisarthria Stephens, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Westwood, 1838, Dermestes melas Marsham 1802, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Ptenidium Erichson, 1845, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2218). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) caesum Erichson, 1845, as published in the binomen Ptilium caesum (specific name of type species of Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1808) (Name Number 2898); (b) pusillum Gyllenhal, 1808, as published in the binomen Scaphidium pusillum (specific name of type species of Ptenidium Erichson, 1845) with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name melas Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Dermestes melas, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms (Name Number 2899); (b — Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 213 (c) melas Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Dermestes melas (specific name of type species of Anisarthria Stephens, 1830) with an endorsement that it is not to have priority over the specific name pusillum Gyllenhal, 1808, as published in the binomen Scaphidium pusillum, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2900). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2244 An application for the conservation of the generic names Prilium Gyllenhal, 1827 and Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 was first received from Dr Hans Silfverberg (University Zoological Museum, Helsinki) on 29 December 1977. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 8 May 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 167-170. 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 comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (83)9 for or against the pro- posals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 168-169. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were received from Cocks and Alvarado and a late negative vote from Heppell. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen and Savage. Ride commented: ‘I should prefer to see Anisarthria suppressed. It has remained an unused name for over 80 years. The relative precedence procedure should be used when there is a difference of opinion over a sub- jective synonymy, but not to keep an unused name alive with the added confusion of an inapplicable date.’ (To have adopted this suggestion would have entailed publication of a note in the Bulletin and advertisement of a hitherto unannounced use of the plenary powers. In view of the delay that would have caused, it was decided to prepare the Opinion immediately. R.V.M.) 214 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Anisarthria Stephens, 1830, Jilustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 3, p. 61 caesum, Ptilium, Erichson, 1845, Naturgeschichte der Insekten Deutschlands, vol. 3, p. 26 melas, Dermestes, Marsham, 1802, Entomologia britannica, p. 78 Ptenidium Erichson, 1845, Naturgeschichte der Insekten Deutschlands, vol. 3, p. 34 Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827, Insecta suecica, part 4, p. 292 pusillum, Scaphidium, Gyllenhal, 1808, Insecta suecica, part 1, p. 189. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (83)9 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1277. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 7 June 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 215 OPINION 1278 THE GENERIC NAME RHINCODON A. SMITH, 1829 (PISCES): CONSERVED RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Rhiniodon A. Smith, 1828, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species, under Article 68b, Rhiniodon typus A. Smith, 1828, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2219. (3) The specific name typus A. Smith, 1828, as published in the binomen Rhiniodon typus (specific name of type species of Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2901. (4) The family name RHINCODONTIDAE Miller & Henle, 1841 (as Rhinodontes, invalid under Article 32c(iii)) (type genus Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 559. (5) The generic name Rhiniodon A. Smith, 1828, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2141. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2090 An application for the conservation of the spelling Rhincodon of the generic name for the whale shark was first received from Dr C. Richard Robins and Dr Robert N. Lea (University of Miami) on 7 October 1974. It was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 163-167. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to five general serials and one ichthyological serial. The application was opposed by Dr R. K. Brooke and Dr A. J. Bass (Durban Museum, Durban, RSA), (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 4-5), who drew attention to Smith’s manuscript corrections in his own copies of Smith, 1828 of Rhiniodon to Rhineodon and Rineodon; and by the late Dr C. L. Hubbs (Scripps Institute, La Jolla), Dr L. J. V. Compagno (Stanford University) and Dr W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences), all in California (vol. 33, pp. 70-71). It was supported by Dr Camm Swift (Los Angeles County Museum, California) (vol. 34, pp. 67-68) and by Dr Alwyne Wheeler (British Museum (Natural History), London) (vol. 39, p. 6). 216 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 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)18 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 6. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fourteen (14) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Uéno, Schuster, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Brinck, Savage, Cocks, Starobogatov, Heppell, Ride Negative Votes — six (6) received in the following order: Willink, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cogger, Dupuis, Bayer. Sabrosky abstained. Welch returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by Alvarado, Bernardi, Binder and Lehtinen. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their votes: Kraus: ‘With regard to the established usage of Rhincodon since 1948 I vote for the proposal.’ Brinck: ‘I was in some doubt after having read the application and the U.S. opponents, but Mr Wheeler’s comments are to the point and good, and I vote for.’ Savage: ‘I wish to change my vote to support this petition. I did not have access to the arguments of Robins & Lea when I first voted and was unduly influenced by the position of Hubbs, Compagno & Follett. This is clearly a case where Rhincodon has a very wide usage outside systematic ichthyology and it should be conserved.’ Hahn: ‘I cannot confirm that in recent years Rhincodon is more widely used than other spellings. In six books published since 1960 I have found the following spellings: Rhincodon twice (Grzimek’s Tierleben and Traité de Zoologie) Rhineodon three times (Systema schywuschtschich, German edition; Gilbert, Sharks, skates and rays; Norman, Synopsis orders of fishes) Rhinocodon once (Herald, Living fishes of the world). Therefore I cannot see a reason for the conservation of Rhincodon and vote against it.’ Dupuis: ‘La seule proposition raisonnable est celle que Hubbs, Compagno & Follett appuyent sur l’étymologie. Rhincodon est a ce point dénué d’étymologie qu’aucun des vieux auteurs, qui savaient du grec, n’a songé — de Miiller & Henle, 1841 a Giinther 1870 — a introduire la lettre “‘c”’ dans les noms des taxa supragénériques fondés sur Rhin(i)odon.’ Cogger: ‘Given the inconsistent usage of the names involved I accept the contention of Hubbs er al. that stability is best served by application of the Law of Priority.’ Bayer: ‘Reaching a decision in this case has not been an easy matter. When names published in ephemera such as the South African Commercial Advertiser threaten predominant usage of names later published in bona Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 217 fide scientific journals, strict adherence to the principle of priority comes into serious question. In the Present case, however, the usage that is threatened appears to be recent usage, dating from Bigelow & Schroeder’s volume in Fishes of the Western North Atlantic, 1948, rather than the usage that has predominated overall. In view of Smith’s statement (1828 fide Hubbs, Compagno & Follett, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 70) that the small teeth of the animal are arranged so as to resemble a file, it can hardly be doubted that when the typesetter of the South African Commercial Advertiser set “‘Rhiniodon”’ he misinterpreted as “i” the “e” of Smith’s handwritten “‘Rhineodon”’. Neither can it be seriously questioned that the typesetter of Zool. Journ. in 1829 similarly misinterpreted the same letter as “ce”, as pointed out by Gudger when he adopted Miiller & Henle Rhineodon (Hubbs et al., p. 71). As the spelling Rhineodon has apparently had more usage than Rhincodon; as the original author himself evidently had no clear preference for (or in any event no control Over) any one spelling, as pointed out by Wheeler; as the name Rhiniodon has an obvious etymological relationship to a character of the animal mentioned in the original description and at the same time is closer in pronunciation to the predominating Rhineodon; and as there can in any case be little doubt as to what animal is meant by any of the permutations of spelling, it is better to let priority prevail here and revert to Rhiniodon.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Heft 2, p. 77 Rhiniodon A. Smith, 1828, South African Commercial Advertiser, vol. 3, no. 145, p.2 typus, Rhiniodon, A. Smith, 1828, South African Commercial Advertiser, vol. 3, no. 145, 3 Oe CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)18 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1278. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 June 1984 218 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 OPINION 1279 CHRYSOLINA MOTSCHULSKY, 1860 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the generic name Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, is to be given precedence over the generic name Atechna Chevrolat, 1837, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms; (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) Chrysomela Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation of Latreille, 1810, Chrysomela populi Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2220); (b) Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation, Chrysomela staphylaea Linnaeus, 1758, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Atechna Chevrolat, 1837, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2221); (c) Atechna Chevrolat, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation of Chevrolat, 1843, Chrysomela quatuordecimguttata Fabricius, 1787, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2222); (3) the following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) populi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela populi (specific name of the type_species of Chrysomela Linnaeus, 1758) (Name Number 2902); (b) staphylaea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela staphylaea (specific name of the type species of Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1806) (Name Number 2903); (c) duodecimguttata Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Chrysomela duodecimguttata (the valid name at the date of this ruling of the type species of Atechna Chevrolat, 1837) (Name Number 2904). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.((S.)2291 An application for the conservation of Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 was first received from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum of the University, Helsinki, Finland) on 10 November 1978. After some correspon- dence, it was sent to the printer on 16 October 1979 and published on 8 May Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 219 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 57-61. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to nine general and seven entomological periodicals. A comment was received from Dr J. R. Vockeroth and Dr L. Lesage (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) and published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 13-14. A reply from Dr Silfverberg was received in which he accepted its correctness and the proposals were modified as mentioned in the same Bulletin. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)1 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 59-60 and as modified in vol. 39, p. 14. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Binder, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Kraus, Heppell, Dupuis Negative Votes — four (4): Schuster, Cogger, Ride, Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. Dr P. T. Lehtinen commented: ‘The proposal should be withdrawn. The tasks of the Commission do not include prognostic judgement of obscure cases. The proposal does not list any reference directly placing Atechna duodecimguttata (Thunberg, 1758) and Chrysolina staphylaea (Linné, 1758), the type species of the genera involved, into the same genus by taxonomic argumentation. The generic affiliation of the “South African species of Chrysomela s. lat” seems not to be clarified, at least not according to information afforded in the proposal.’ Dr Silfverberg replied: ‘I do not understand the reason behind the objection. I gave a reference to Bechyné, 1950, where the two groups in question are included in the same genus. As for prognostic judgment, my intention is to make sure that the name of the large and important, mainly palaearctic, genus does not depend on what status is given to the South African group (as I mentioned, Maulik in 1925 treated it as a separate genus). I did not ask the Commission to make a taxonomic statement, but to give Chrysolina nomenclatural precedence over Atechna. I can give an additional reference where Atechna is listed as a subgenus of Chrysolina with C. duodecimguttata (Thunb.) given as type species of Atechna. It is Daccordi, M., 1980, I sottogeneri afrotropicali di Chrysolina con des- crizione di una nuova specie (Coleoptera Chrysomelidae), Rev. Zool Afr. vol. 94, pp. 299-310. I hope this explains anything that was previously not clear. I am sure nobody would wish to throw the name Chrysolina into confusion.’ 220 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling giving in the present Opinion: Atechna Chevrolat, 1837, in Dejean, J. A., Catalogue des Coléopteéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. (edn. 3). Paris, p. 427 Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, Schrenck’s Reisen und Forschungen im Amur-Lanae, vol. 2, p. 210 Chrysomela Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10), vol. 1, p. 368 duodecimguttata, Chrysomela, Thunberg, 1787, Mus. Nat. Acad. Upsaliensis, part 4, p. 44 populi, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758. Systema Naturae (ed. 10), vol. 1, p. 370 staphylaea, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10), vol. 1, p. 370. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)1 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 1279. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 June 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 221 OPINION 1280 RAFINESQUE, C:S., 1822 ‘ON THE TURTLES OF THE UNITED STATES’: SUPPRESSED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the work by C. S. Rafinesque, 1822, ‘On the turtles of the United States’, Kentucky Gazette (n.s. 1), vol. 36, no. 21, 23 May, is hereby suppressed and it is hereby ruled that no name acquires the status of availability by reason of having been published therein. (2) The title of the work suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology with the title number 88. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2289 An application for Rafinesque’s 1822 newspaper article ‘On the turtles of the United States’ to be suppressed was received in June 1979 from Professor Hobart M. Smith, Dr David Chiszar and Mrs Rozella B. Smith (University of Colorado). It was sent to the printer on 1 August 1979 and published on 8 May 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 53-56. 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 to two herpetological serials. A comment by Professor Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) was replied to by the senior applicant and published, with a further comment from Mr A. F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London) in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 236-237. These comments discussed the proposition that Rafinesque’s English (not North American Indian) vernacular names, which were descriptive, could or could not serve as descriptions or indica- tions in the meaning of the Code. They did not affect the substance of the case. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were asked to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1984)2 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 56. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Binder, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Corliss, Brinck, Alvarado, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen Negative Vote — Dupuis No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. The following comments were returned by members of the 222 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘To suppress a work because one name in it threatens stability of nomenclature seems like using a cannon to kill a fly. I vote for, because I must protest against Mr Stimson’s reasoning that a vernacular name may be accepted as a description. This certainly is not and never has been the intention of the Code, and to accept his reasoning as correct would cause many instances of nomenclatural confusion.’ Bayer: ‘The key to the status of at least 10 of the 12 names proposed by Rafinesque, 1822, was succinctly stated by Stimson (vol. 38, p. 236). The vernacular names associated with the species involved are quite evidently not aboriginal vernaculars (which may or may not be descriptive) but descriptive phrases applied as common names by Rafinesque himself. All but two (Fighting Tarapen and Biting Tarapen) convey objective characters (colour pattern, sculpture, nature of claws, etc) and it seems to me that they can only be interpreted as descriptive. The only safe way to avoid future difficulties is to suppress the work as a whole.’ Heppell: ‘I think the general point raised as to whether a vernacular name can constitute a description (as distinct from an indication) is of sufficient importance that the Commission should make this unambiguous in the Code. It should also be made clear whether the mention of weight or dimensions alone is acceptable as a description (for nomenclatural pur- poses) in the absence of other stated characters [I would be opposed to either of these suggestions].’ Dupuis: ‘Je m’oppose, par principe, a toute suppression d’ouvrage, et plus encore d’un ouvrage qui, réimprimé, n’en devient que plus access- ible! Je vote, donc, contre la proposition originale. Je ne serais pas oppose, par contre, a la suppression de tel ou tel des noms inclus dans l’ouvrage.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCE The original reference to the work suppressed by the ruling given in the present Opinion is that given in paragraph (1) of the Ruling. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast in V.P.(84)2 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. 1280. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 June 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 223 OPINION 1281 ACMAEA LIMATULA CARPENTER, 1864 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name mamillata Reeve, 1855, as published in the binomen Patella mamillata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name /imatula Carpenter, 1864, as published in the binomen Acmaea limatula, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2905. (3) The specific name mamillata Reeve, 1855, as published in the binomen Patella mamillata, 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 1134. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2268 An application for the conservation of Acmaea limatula Carpenter, 1864 was first received from Dr David R. Lindberg (California Academy of Sciences) on 30 June 1978. It was sent to the printer on 3 July 1979 and published on 8 May 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 51-52. 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 seven general and three malacological serials. The application was supported by Dr Barry Roth (California Academy of Sciences). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1984)3 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 52. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Binder, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. Hahn commented: ‘If, as I suppose, Patella mamillata and Acmaea limatula are subjective synonyms, I should have preferred to use the relative precedence procedure.’ 224 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 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: limatula, Acmaea, Carpenter, 1864, Rep. brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. for 1863, p. 650 mamillata, Patella, Reeve, 1855, Conchol, icon., vol. 8, species 140. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)3 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1281. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 June 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 225 OPINION 1282 PANOPEUS H. MILNE EDWARDS, 1834 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species for the nominal genus Panopeus H. Milne Edwards hitherto made are hereby set aside and Panopeus herbstii H. Milne Edwards, 1834, is hereby designated as the type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Panopeus herbstii H. Milne Edwards, 1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2223. (3) The specific name herbstii H. Milne Edwards, 1834, as published in the binomen Panopeus herbstii, and as interpreted by reference to the lectotype designated by Holthuis, 1979, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 159 (specific name of type species of Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2906. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2236 An application for the designation of a type species for the genus Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (a genus based on a misidentified type species) was first received from Professor Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rikjsmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) on 10 October 1977. It was sent to the printer on 12 April 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 158-160. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Builetin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and one specialised serial. An objection by Dr Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad) that Panopeus herbstii should have been treated as a new replacement name for Cancer panope Herbst, 1801, was rebutted by Dr Holthuis (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 161-162). No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)6 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 160. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) recéived in the following order: Melville, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, 226 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Brinck, Alvarado, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Dupuis Negative Vote — one (1): Lehtinen. Holthuis abstained from voting. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. Dupuis commented: ‘L’argumentation de Kerzhner est trés intéres- sante et pourrait étre excellement défendue (n’était le formalisme et la définition hélas orthographique et non pas étymologique de l’homonymie — donc de la tautonymie — dans le Code) a l’aide de I’Article 68d qui traite du type par tautonymie absolue. Ce point de droit rappele, il ne parait pas souhaitable, en pratique (c’est a dire du point de vue de lusage) — et d’ailleurs Kerzhner ne le souhaite pas — que panope demeure, conformement a la désignation de Desmarest, le type de Panopeus. Je vote, donc, en faveur du lectotype désigné par Holthuis pour herbstii et de la désignation de cette espéce come type du genre Panopeus.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: herbstii, Panopeus, H. Milne Edwards, 1834, Hist. nat. Crustacés, vol. 1, p. 403 Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834, Hist. nat. Crustacés, vol. 1, p. 403. The following is the original reference to a lectotype designation ratified by the ruling given in the present Opinion: of the original of Say, 1817, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. \ (1), pl. 4, fig. 3 as lectotype of Panopeus herbstii H. Milne Edwards, 1834, by Holthuis, 1979, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 159. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1282. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 June 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 pA | OPINION 1283 LYMANTRIIDAE HAMPSON, [1893] GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER ORGYIIDAE WALLENGREN, 1861 AND DASYCHIRIDAE PACKARD, 1864 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) (1) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group name LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] (type genus Lymantria Hubner, [1819]) is to be given precedence over the family-group names ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 (type genus Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810) and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (type genus Dasychira Hubner, ]1809[) when applied to the same biological taxon at any level in the family group. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Lymantria Hubner, [1819] (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Moore, [1833], Phalaena monacha Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2224); (b) Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1831, Phalaena antiqua Linnaeus 1758 (Name Number 2225); (c) Dasychira Hubner, [1809] (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Dasychira tephra Hubner, [1809] (Name Number 2226); (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) monacha Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena monacha (specific name of type species of Lymantria Hubner, [1819]) (Name Number 2907); (b) antiqua Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena antiqua (specific name of type species of Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810) (Name Number 2908); (c) tephra Hubner, [1809], as published in the binomen Dasychira tephra (specific name of type species of Dasychira Hubner, [1809]) (Name Number 2909). (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) LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] (type genus Lymantria Hubner, [1819], with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 and over DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 when applied to the same family-group taxon at any level in the family group (Name Number 560); 228 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 (b) ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 (type genus Orgyia Ochsen- heimer, 1810) with an endorsement that it is not to be used in preference to LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] when applied to the same family-group taxon at any level in the family group (Name Number 561); (c) DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (type genus Dasychira Hiibner, [1809], with an endorsement that it is not to be used in preference to LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] when applied to the same family-group taxon at any level in the family group (Name Number 562). (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Laria Schrank, 1802, a junior homonym of Laria Scopoli, 1763 (Name Number 2142); (b) Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810, a junior homonym of Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (Name Number 2143). (6) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) LARIIDAE Newman, 1832 (as ‘Lariae’), invalid because the name of its type genus is a junior homonym (Name Number 498); (b) LIPARIDAE Boisduval, 1834 (as ‘Liparides’), invalid because the name of its type genus is a junior homonym (Name Number 499). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2216 An application for the grant of nomenclatural precedence to the family name LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson [1893] over two senior synonyms was first received from Dr I. W. B. Nye, Dr D. S. Fletcher (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr D. C. Ferguson (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) on 14 February 1977. It was accompanied by statements in support by Dr I. F. B. Common (CSIRO Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia), Dr U. Dall’Asta (Musée royal de l'Afrique centrale, Tervuren, Belgium), Dr G. Ebert (Landessammlungen fiir Naturkunde, D75 Karlsruhe 1, BRD), Dr H. Inoue (Biological Laboratory, Otsuma Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan), Dr E. G. C. Pinhey (National Museum, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe) and Dr J. C. E. Riotte (Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii). The application was sent to the printer on 9 October 1979 and published on 8 May 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 40-48. While it was passing through the press additional expressions of support were received from Dr L. Vari (Transvaal Museum, RSA) and Dr P. Viette (Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, Paris). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 229 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 eight entomological serials. No further comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1984)8 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 42-44. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobo- gatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. 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: antiqua, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 503 Dasychira Hubner, [1809], Sammi. exot. Schmett., vol. 1, pl. [178] DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864, Proc. entomol. Soc. Philadelphia, vol. 3, p. 331 Laria Schrank, 1802, Fauna Boica vol. 2 (2), p. 150 Lariae Newman, 1832, Sphinx vespiformis: an essay, table facing p. 31, pp. 40, 44 Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810, Schmett. Europas, vol. 3, p. 186 Lymantria Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannter Schmett., (9)-(11), p. 160 LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893], Fauna British India, Moths, vol. 1, p. 432 monacha, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 501 Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810, Schmett. Europas, vol. 3, p. 208 ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861, K. svenska Fregattes Eugenies Resa. C.A. Virgin aren, 1851-1853, (Zool.) vol. 1, (10, Lepidoptera), p. 369 tephra, Dasychira, Hiibner, [1809], Samml. exot. Schmett., vol. 1, pl. [178]. The following are the original references to type-species designations accepted in the present Opinion: of Phalaena monacha Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Lymantria Hubner, [1819] by Moore, [1883], Lepid. Ceylon, vol. 2, p. 99; of Phalaena antiqua Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810 by Curtis, 1831, British Entomol., vol. 8, p. 378. 230 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)8 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. 1283. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 June 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 231 OPINION 1284 PEGGICHISME KIRKALDY, 1904 (HEMIPTERA, HETEROPTERA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species for the nominal genus Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 hitherto made are hereby set aside and the nominal species Davila consanguineus [sic] Distant, 1893, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Davila consanguinea Distant, 1893, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2227. (3) The specific name consanguinea Distant, 1893, as published in the binomen Davila consanguineus [sic] (specific name of type species of Peg- gichisme Kirkaldy, 1904) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2910. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2197 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 was first received from Dr Merrill H. Sweet (Texas A & M University) on 7 September 1976. It was sent to the printer on 3 July 1979 and published on 8 May 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, 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 seven general serials and seven entomological serials. Support was received from Professor L. B. Holthuis. No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule in Voting Paper (1984)9 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 39. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. The following comments were returned by members of the 232 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Commission with their voting papers: Ride: ‘Why are we asked to conserve “‘consanguineus [sic] on the Official List? If Davila is feminine, it is mandatory to correct the specific name.’ [This has been done. R.V.M.]. Heppell: ‘It is possible that Distant and Gray both named Davila after Don Pedro Francisco Davila and for that reason regarded it as masculine.’ Dupuis: ‘S’agissant d’un simple cas d’espéce-type mal identifiée, je vote en principe pour. Malheureusement, le Code, Appendice D, I, 9, n’apprécie pas beaucoup les noms susceptibles d’une prononciation “comique” et, selon Mayr, Linsley & Usinger (1953, p. 262) “ridiculous names involving a play on words, such as Kirkaldy’s (1904) Peggichisme (pronounced Peggy kiss me)... were condemned by the Zoological Society of London”’. Jose espérer que cette grave question ne sera pas souleveée.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: consanguinea, Davila, Distant, 1893, Biol. centr.-Amer., Heteroptera, vol. 1. Suppl., p. 395 Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904, Entomologist, vol. 37, p. 280. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (84)9 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1284. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 July 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 233 OPINION 1285 BARBUS ALTIANALIS BOULENGER, 1900 AND B. RUEPPELLI BOULENGER, 1902 (PISCES, CYPRINIDAE): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ruep- pellii Pfeffer, 1896, as published in the binomen Labeo rueppellii, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Barbus rueppelli by Boulenger, 1902, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) altianalis Boulenger, 1900, as published in the binomen Barbus altianalis (Name Number 2911); (b) rueppelli Boulenger, 1902, as published in the binomen Barbus rueppelli (Name Number 2912). (3) The specific name rueppellii Pfeffer, 1896, as published in the binomen Labeo rueppellii, 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 1135. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2164 An application for the conservation of Barbus altianalis Boulenger, 1900 and B. rueppelli Boulenger, 1902 was first received from Dr Gordon McG. Reid on 2 February 1976. It was sent to the printer on 1 August 1979 and printed on 18 February 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 249-251. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to seven general and three ichthyological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (84)10 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 250. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Ueno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen Negative Votes — two (2): Hahn, Dupuis. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. The following comments were sent in by members of the 234 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Commission with their voting papers: Hahn: ‘I vote against because the problem is not presented clearly enough. On p. 249 it is said that there is no doubt that the holotypes of L. rueppellii and B. altianalis are conspecific, but on p. 250 it is shown that they belong to different subspecies: rueppellii rueppellii=altianalis radcliffii and altianalis altianalis =rueppellii altianalis. It cannot be excluded that some author will treat them as different species and therefore the relative precedence procedure would have been preferable. Moreover, it is not clearly stated why Barbus rueppelli Boulanger, 1902 should be conserved.’ Dupuis: ‘De Vavis du requérant “the name Barbus rueppelli Boulenger is of uncertain status in the present state of knowledge of this group’. Ceci illustre les difficultés bien connues de |’étude populationnelle et biogeographique des poissons des lacs africains. Il me parait donc assez contradictoire, ou en tout cas prematuré, de vouloir trancher en termes de nomenclature un probléme taxinomique qui peut réserver des surprises.’ 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: altianalis, Barbus, Boulenger, 1900, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 6, p. 159 rueppelli, Barbus, Boulenger, 1902, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 10, pp. 423, 427, 428 rueppelii, Labeo, Pfeffer, 1896, Die Fische Ost-Afrikas in Die Thierwelt Deutsch-ost-Afrikas u.d. Nachbargebiete (3), pp. 51-52. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes on V.P. (84)10 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 12835. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 July 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 235 OPINION 1286 CHERMES FUSCA ZETTERSTEDT, 1828 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name fusca Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Psy/la fusca, is not to be used in preference to the specific name fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Chermes fusca, whenever those names are combined with the generic name Psylla Geoffroy, 1762. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Chermes fusca, with an endorsement that it is to be preferred to the speci- fic name fusca Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Psylla fusca, whenever those names are combined with the generic name Psylla Geoffroy, 1762 (Name Number 2913); (b) fusca Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Psylla fusca, with an endorsement that it is not to be used in preference to the specific name fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Chermes fusca, whenever those names are combined with the generic name Psylla Geoffroy, 1762 (Name Number 2914). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2149 An application for the conservation of Psylla fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, through the suppression of Psylla fusca Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 was first received from Dr Pavel Lauterer (Moravske Museum, Brno, zechoslovakia) 18 September 1975. In correspondence with Dr Lauterer it was pointed out that Psylla fusca, being a nomen dubium, was not suitable for suppression on that ground alone; and that the homonymy involved being secondary, and thus subjectively based, the alternative option of the relative precedence procedure might be considered. Dr Lauterer agreed to this suggestion. His paper was sent to the printer on 23 January 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 159-162. 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 seven entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)11 for or against 236 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 160. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen, Dupuis Negative Votes — two (2): Ride, Heppell. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘1 am unhappy with the wording of paragraph 6(1) of the application. Even if fusca Fourcroy in Geoffroy is not used, as long as it remains an available name Psylla fusca Geoffroy remains a senior homonym of Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt). Would it therefore not be better to suppress Psylla fusca Geoffroy, 1785 and all its uses before the publication of Zetterstedt’s name, for the purposes of both priority and homonymy? The loss of Psylla fusca Geoffroy cannot be very serious, and it has a junior objective synonym in Chermes castanea Gmelin, 1789. ‘Another solution would be (but I cannot judge its taxonomic merits) to designate as neotype of Psylla fusca Geoffroy a specimen that does not belong to the genus Psylla as now understood. This would remove Psylla fusca Geoffroy from Psylla and the name then ceases to be a threat to its junior secondary homonym, Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt).’ Ride: *Psylla fusca Geoffroy, 1785 is a forgotten name and its use is contrary to the purpose of the Law of Priority (Article 23 a—b). No case is made to preserve it. The Commission should be asked to suppress it under the plenary powers, as appears to have been Lauterer’s original intention.’ [No evidence has been presented to show that Psylla fusca Geoffroy, 1785 is a senior synonym of a name in general current use. R.V.M.]. Heppell: ‘To place Psylla fusca Geoffroy on the Official List makes a mockery of that list. From the applicant’s evidence that taxon is either (a) completely unidentifiable, in which case its name can be suppressed without loss, or (b) not a Psylla and probably not even an homopteran, in which case Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt) is not a secondary homonym under the revised homonymy rules adopted at Monaco. I sympathize with the appli- cant’s wish to conserve Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt) but feel that he has been ill advised on the method chosen to achieve this result.’ [Unfortunately for this argument, Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt) had been replaced as a junior secondary homonym before 1961 by Psylla perspicillata Flor, 1861. R.V.M.] ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fusca, Chermes, Zetterstedt, 1828, Fauna Insectorum lapponica, p. 552 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Pai fusca, Psylla, Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, Entomologia parisiensis, sive catalogus insectorum qui in agro parisiensi reperiuntur, p. 224. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (84)11 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1286. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 July 1984 238 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 OPINION 1287 SESIA ANDRENAEFORMIS LASPEYRES, 1801 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name anthraciniformis Esper, 1798, as published in the binomen Sphinx anthra- ciniformis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801, as published in the binomen Sesia andrenaeformis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2915. (3) The specific name anthraciniformis Esper, 1798, as published in the binomen Sphinx anthraciniformis, 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 1136. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2139 An application for the conservation of Sesia andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801, was first received from Dr N. P. Kristensen (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) on 1 August 1975. It was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 156-158. 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 eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)12 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 157. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Binder, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Mroczkowski Negative Votes — two (2): Hahn, Cogger. Dupuis abstained. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. Hahn commented: ‘Important details are missing here: are anthra- ciniformis and andrenaeformis objective or subjective synonyms, are their types preserved and, following this, should the relative precedence procedure not have been better used? These things are not clear, and so I vote against.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 239 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: andrenaeformis, Sesia, Laspeyres, 1801, Sesiae europaeae iconibus et descriptionibus illustratae, p. 20 anthraciniformis, Sphinx, Esper, 1799, Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen, Suppl. Bd. (2 Abschnitt), Abendschmett., p. 29. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (64)12 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adop- ted 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 Number 1287. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 July 1984 240 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 THRESKIORNITHIDAE RICHMOND, 1917 (AVES): APPLICATION TO PLACE ON OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY- GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY AND TO GIVE PRECEDENCE OVER PLATALEINAE BONAPARTE, 1838, AND OTHER COMPETING FAMILY-GROUP NAMES. Z.N.(S.)2136 By the late E. Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.), E. Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.), and K. C. Parkes (Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S.A.) The family-group name THRESKIORNITHIDAE and the sub- family name THRESKIORNITHINAE for the typical ibises (17 genera and about 27 species) are today in general (almost universal) use for the birds well-known in English as ibises (French: ibis; German: Ibisse). This application is submitted, in accordance with Code Art. 23d(ii), because an earlier family-group name, PLATALEIDAE, based on PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838 (Geogr. comp. list birds Europe and N. America p. 48) (type genus Platalea Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10, p. 139), type species Platalea leucorodia Linnaeus, 1758, (Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 139), by subsequent designation (Gray, 1840, List Gen. Birds, p. 167)), has technical priority. PLATALEINAE is the accepted name for a small, highly special- ised group, the spoonbills (French: spatules; German: Léffler) consisting of 3 genera with 6 species, which group is usually considered a subfamily of the ibises, although formerly it was often treated as a separate family (see Sharpe, 1898, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. vol. 26). Until the adoption of the 1961 Code, priority did not apply to family-group names. A majority of those who included spoonbills and ibises in the same family used the ibis family name. 2. To accept PLATALEIDAE for the ibis family as a whole would [to use the language of Art. 23d(ii)] ‘upset general usage’, which is now overwhelmingly in favour of THRESKIORNITHIDAE (an unpublished Appendix is held on file in the I.C.Z.N. office). Moreover, extension to all the ibises of the name PLATALEIDAE, which has long been restricted by most ornithologists as the family (or subfamily) name of the small, highly-specialised spoonbill group, might be confusing. The Code itself (Recommendation 64A) recommends that family names be based on genera ‘representative of the family’. This is true of THRESKIORNITHIDAE but would not be true of PLATALEIDAE. 3. For along period, the family name used for the ibises (whether or not the spoonbills were included) was IBIDIDAE (Coues, 1884, Key N. American Birds, Ed. 2, pp. ix + 648; Sharpe, 1898, Cat. Birds. Brit. Mus., vol. 26, p. 2), based on the subfamily name IBINAE proposed by Bonaparte (1853, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. 37, no. 18, p. 643), type genus Ibis Cuvier, 1817 [type species, by tautonymy, Tantalus aethiopicus Latham]. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 241 4. Richmond called to the attention of Mathews (1913, Auk vol. 30, p. 93 et seq.) that Ibis Cuvier, 1817, was preoccupied by an earlier genus Jbis (in the family CICONIIDAE) Lacépéde, 1799, the type species, by tautonymy, of which was a stork, Tantalus [or Ardea] ibis Linnaeus [currently called Jbis ibis or Mycteria ibis]. The genus Jbis of Cuvier was replaced by its next senior synonym, Threskiornis Gray (1842, Appendix List Gen. Birds: 13), which had the same type species, Tantalus aethiopicus Latham, 1790 (Indian Orn., vol. 2, p. 706, by original designation). In accordance with the then established principle of preserving the same tax- onomic concept in family names, Richmond (1917, Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. vol. 53, p. 636) proposed the new family name THRESKIORNITHIDAE. This family name (with the subfamily names THRESKIORNITHINAE and PLATALEINAE) was adopted in the important paper on family classification by Wetmore and Miller (1926, Auk vol. 43, p. 341). Eventu- ally, throughout the world almost all ornithologists adopted this nomen- clature. Meanwhile, however, Mathews (1913, op. cit.) had proposed the name PLEGADIDAE, based on the genus Plegadis Kaup, 1829, (Skizze Ent-Gesch. eur. Thieno, p. 42), type species by monotypy Tantalus falcinel- lus Linnaeus, 1766 (Syst. Nat. ed. 12, p. 241), apparently on the erroneous theory (cf. Code Art. 64) that family names should be based on the oldest included generic name. Actually, there was already in the literature a long unused older family-group name, EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854 (see para. 9 infra). 5. The principle of continuing the taxonomic concept when a family-group name had to be replaced, by basing the new name on the next available generic name for the same taxon when homonymy required the replacement, was recognised in the Code, as originally published in 1961 [Arts. 39a and 39a(i); see also the somewhat analogous Art. 40a]. Under these provisions, THRESKIORNITHIDAE would automatically have become the replacement name and would have taken the date of IBIDIDAE (Bonaparte’s IBINAE), which it replaced. For technical reasons (not here relevant), the special provisions as to automatic replace- ment of family group names based on generic homonyms [Art. 39a and a(i)] were deleted by Code amendment at the 1963 Washington Congress. How- ever, the broad provision designed to preserve ‘general usage’ as against strict priority in family group names [Art. 23(d)(i1)], remains applicable, but under this article one must resort to the International Commission for decision. 6. That general usage overwhelmingly supports THRESKI- ORNITHIDAE is indubitable. Wetmore’s (1930) classification for birds of the world (which had revised editions in 1934, 1940, 1951 and 1960) had consistently used THRESKIORNITHIDAE (as well as THRESKI- ORNITHOIDEA and THRESKIORNITHINAE), and is followed nomenclaturally (with some irrelevant modifications, chiefly in regard to the passerine families) by almost all ornithologists currently active. Peters’ Check-List of Birds of the World, (ed. Mayr & Cottrell, 1979), vol. 1, p. 283, 242 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 which has set some nomenclatural standards, adopted THRESKI- ORNITHIDAE (with THRESKIORNITHINAE and PLATALEINAE as sub-families). The American Ornithologists’ Union Check-List of North American Birds in its most recent editions (1957 and 1983) adopted the same treatment, and has been followed by the large number of regional books (state and provincial handbooks and check-lists), field-guides, and numerous articles in the United States and Canada that traditionally con- form to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list nomenclature. The same family and subfamily names were adopted by Hellmayr and Conover (1948), Catalogue of Birds of the Americas, regarded as the standard nomenclatural source for works dealing with neo-tropical birds, and widely followed in the abundant literature on the birds of the West Indies as well as Middle and South America (see also Meyer de Schauensee, 1966, 1970). In Europe, the authoritative Witherby et al., Handbook of British Birds, (1939) vol. 3, p. 118; (1941) vol. 5, p. 303) used THRESKIORNITHIDAE (includ- ing the spoonbills in the family) and was widely followed. Some authors adopted PLATALEIDAE or even PLEGADIDAE, especially writers on African birds. However, when Ripley’s (1961) systematic Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan and Vaurie’s prestigious Birds of the Palearctic Fauna, Non Passeriformes, vol. 2, p. 77 (1965) adopted THRESKI- ORNITHIDAE, a shift to that name occurred even in countries where at one time another family name had been used for the ibises. 7. The Appendix includes a list of current books and other works using THRESKIORNITHIDAE and has been prepared chiefly to indicate the world-wide overwhelming majority usage of this name in recent works. By additional bibliographic effort the number of publications adopting the name could probably be doubled, especially for works on birds of the New World, where usage since 1931 has been almost unanimous. Included in the list are some popular books and field guides, because they affect usage of family names. Scientific names of bird families are widely employed by other zoologists, and the vast army of non-taxonomic bird students—not merely by ornithological systematists. Because of the enormous literature, preserving the stability and universality of such names is of special import- ance. This was recognised on the adoption of the 1961 Code, which, when it introduced the priority principle for family-group names, created difficult problems not only because it changed previously employed principles but because there were no adequate available synonymies for family-group names, at least in the vertebrate classes with the most abundant literature. For these reasons Art. 23d(ii), and similar provisions, were included to preserve existing general usage (see discussion and references in Mayr, 1969, Principles of Systematic Zoology, p. 357). We believe that the inclu- sion of Art. 23d(ii) was intended to allow the disregard of strict priority in favour of general usage for family-group names without resort to the two-thirds vote needed for exercise of the plenary powers. 8. The present overwhelming use of THRESKIORNITHIDAE by current authors throughout the world was not attained immediately on the Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 243 abandonment of IBIDIDAE, but was certainly already the majority usage in 1961. Mathews’ name PLEGADIDAE for a time obtained a following in Australian and even in certain African publications, although long since replaced on both continents. PLATALEIDAE of Bonaparte had consider- able use by British authors in the 1950’s and to some extent on the con- tinents of Europe, Africa and Asia. But the current British publications of the British Ornithologists’ Union, such as Landsborough Thomson’s New Dictionary of Birds (1964) and The Status of Birds in Britain and Ireland (1971), (which is the current British Check-list), and the most recent British handbooks, guides, and check-lists, use THRESKIORNITHIDAE. It is of interest that such careful systematists as Voous (1973) (Holarctic) and Serventy (1962) (Australia), who at one time employed PLATALEIDAE, have switched to THRESKIORNITHIDAE to conform with majority usage. One current author who employs PLATALEIDAE (with sub- families THRESKIORNITHINAE and PLATALEINAE) is Brodkorb (1963, Catalogue of Fossil Birds (Bull. Fla. State Mus. vol. 7, no. 4, p. 277), on the theory of strict priority, in disregard of Code Art. 23d(ii). Condon (1975, Check-list of Birds of Australia, Pt. 1) adopted PLATALEIDAE (with subfamilies PLEGADINAE and PLATALEINAB), stating in a note that THRESKIORNITHIDAE and THRESKIORNITHINAE ‘are equally well known’—certainly an understatement. So far as we are aware, Brodkorb has not been followed except to the extent that Condon has done so. Other recent Australian works use THRESKIORNITHIDAE (e.g. Serventy and Whittell, 1962; Frith, 1969; Slater, 1970; Macdonald, 1973). 9. Brodkorb has been of service nomenclaturally in calling attention to long-unused family-group names that must be considered in conserving the names in general use. Among these is EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854, Ann. Sci. nat. (Paris), vol. 38, p. 142, based on the type genus Eudocimus Wagler, 1832, Isis (Oken), p. 1232 (type species Scolopax rubra Linnaeus, 1758, Syst Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 145, by subsequent designation by Reichenow, 1877, J. Ornithol. vol. 25, p. 145), a family-group name apparently unused for a century or more. Considering their insistence on priority, it is surprising that Brodkorb and Condon failed to adopt this as the subfamily name for the ibises. 10. A question arises as to how the names EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte and PLEGADIDAE Mathews should be treated, the former not in current use at all, the latter adopted by Condon as a subfamily name. They are subjective senior synonyms of THRESKIORNITHIDAE and THRESKIORNITHINAE, but based on different genera. Conceivably at some future time systematists might wish to erect a tribe for either or both of these ibidid genera and immediate allies. It therefore seems undesirable to totally suppress the names or to place them on the Official Index; it suffices for the Commission to rule that they shall be denied precedence over, and shall not displace, THRESKIORNITHIDAE and derived family-group names (see comment by I. W. B. Nye, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 30, p. 14). 244 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 11. The Commission is therefore requested to use its plenary powers to take the following action: (1) (2) (3) that the name THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 (type genus Threskiornis Gray, 1842) with its coordinate family-group names is to be given nomenclatural precedence over PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838 (type genus Platalea Linnaeus, 1758), PLEGADIDAE Mathews, 1913 (type genus Plegadis Kaup, 1829), EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854 (type genus Eudocimus Wagler, 1832) and their coordinate family-group names, by any zoologist who attributes their respective type genera, or any of them, to the same family- group taxon as Threskiornis Gray, 1842; to place the name THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family-group names PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838, EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854,and PLEGADIDAE Mathews, 1913, by anyone who attributes their respective type genera, or any of them, to the same family-group taxon as Threskiornis Gray, 1842; to place the names PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838, PLEGADIDAE Mathews, 1913 and EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with endorsements that none of them is to be given priority over THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 by anyone who considers their respective type genera, or any of them, to belong to the same family-group taxon as Threskiornis Gray, 1842. Editorial Note Dr Parkes asks for an explanation of the delay in publishing this application, which was first received in 1975. This is mainly due to pressure of work (especially on the third edition of the Code, and in managing the Trust’s appeal for funds) and to shortage of staff in the Commission’s office. Delays in correspondence beyond the control of the Secretariat and following the death of the late Dr Eisenmann were additional contributory factors. R.V.M. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 245 CRICETODON MINUS [sic] LARTET, 1851 (MAMMALIA, RODENTIA): REVISED REQUEST FOR A RULING ON INTERPRETATION. Z.N.(S.)1854 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In 1969 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25, pp. 178-183) Dr M. Freudenthal (Rijksmuseum van Geologie en Mineralogie, Leiden, Netherlands) and Dr V. Fahlbusch (Jnstitut fiir Geologie und historische Geologie, Miinchen, Germany) jointly asked for a ruling on the interpretation of the name Cricetodon minus [sic; correctly minor] Lartet, 1851. The species is one of three species of fossil hamster from the Miocene at Sansan (Gers), France. The name Cricetodon minor (the species is the nominal type species, by original designation, of Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964) has been used in two different ways for the past 20 years: French-speaking and Dutch- speaking workers use the name in the sense of Schaub, 1925; German- speaking workers use it in the sense of Fahlbusch, 1964. The two applicants thus represented the two schools of usage. 2. In October 1969 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, p. 122) Professor Pierre Mein (Université de Lyon, France) urged the Commission to ratify Schaub’s usage but asked for a delay pending the publication of the work of Madame Baudelot of Toulouse. In her 1972 thesis (unpublished, so far as I know, in any other form), she followed Schaub’s usage but did not examine the nomenclatural problem as such. In fact, the two schools of usage differ in their interpretations of certain taxonomic facts, and it is essential to state these first before clear proposals for resolving the nomenclatural confusion can be put forward. 3. In October 1983 I reopened the file on this case. I am indebted to both Dr Freudenthal and Dr Fahlbusch for further advice. I have also consulted Dr B. Engesser (Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland) and Dr R. Daams (Geologisch Instituut, Rijksuniversiteit, Groningen, Netherlands) and am grateful for their help. THE TAXONOMIC FACTS 4. Lartet, 1851, described the new genus Cricetodon from the Miocene of Sansan with three included species, all new: C. sansaniense: ‘Un peu plus grand que le Hamster’ C. medium: ‘D’un tiers moindre que le Cricetodon sansaniense et plus petit que notre rat noir’ C. minus: ‘Plus petit que notre souris domestique’. (The specific names should all be masculine in termination.) No type species was designated until 1925, when Schaub designated C. sansaniensis. 246 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 5. Gervais, 1859, pl. 44, figs 21-26, figured, ‘quelques débris de Cricetodons de Sansan qui m’ont été donnés par M. Lartet’. Although no names are given to the figures and the specimens are lost, Dr Freudenthal recognises C. minor sensu Schaub among them. 6. Schaub, 1925, recognised five species of Cricetodon at Sansan. These included C. helveticus Schaub, 1925, C. gaillardi Schaub, 1925 and C. affinis Schaub, 1925, but not C. medius Lartet, 1851, which Schaub could not recognise in the fauna. Schaub used the name C. minor Lartet for the smallest species present, and his usage of the name was generally followed thereafter until 1964. 7. In 1964 Fahlbusch described the new genus Democricetodon and designated C. minor Lartet, 1851 as its type species. He designated a lectotype for this species from among specimens in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, but not all workers accept that these specimens are syntypes of the three species described by Lartet. Freudenthal points out that although C. minor is the commonest species at Sansan, where it forms 25% of the hamster fauna, it is not represented in the collection supposed to be Lartet’s. There is no documentary evidence of the origins of this collection, nor any original labels by Lartet. 8. In the same work Fahlbusch also described Megacricetodon as a new subgenus of Democricetodon and designated C. gregarius Schaub, 1925 as its type species. In this subgenus he placed C. schaubi sp. nov. for C. minor Schaub non Lartet, and designated a holotype from the Basel Museum. In the subgenus D. (Democricetodon) he also placed D. minor brevis (Schaub, 1925). In his treatment of Schaub’s taxa he upset nomenclatural usages that had been stable for nearly 40 years. DIFFERENCES OF OPINION 9. Dr Freudenthal holds that Schaub’s treatment of C. minor is closer to Lartet’s original concept than is Fahlbusch’s; moreover, his C. minor is the smaller of the two. It is consistent with Lartet’s description ‘plus petit que notre souris domestique’ while Fahlbusch’s is not. He recog- nises two small species at Sansan and thinks that Lartet may have confused them under C. minor. He places the true C. minor of Lartet (and, for him, of Schaub) not in Democricetodon but in Megacricetodon. He rejects Fahlbusch’s lectotype as invalid and would like a suitable neotype to be designated for the species. For this he proposes the holotype of M. schaubi Fahlbusch. At the same time, he would like D. brevis crassus Freudenthal, 1969 to be designated as type species of Democricetodon, since that corresponds with Fahlbusch’s concept of the genus. Both actions require the use of the plenary powers. 10. Dr Fahlbusch agrees that Lartet probably confused two small species of Cricetodon from Sansan, but holds to the validity of the lectotype that he designated for C. minor. He asks that his interpretation of that species be ratified by placing its name, as applied by reference to his lecto- Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 247 type, on the Official List. This would automatically give validity to his usage of the genus-group names involved. 11. Dr Freudenthal’s view is supported by Dr Daams; Dr Fahlbusch’s view is supported by Dr Engesser. THE EVIDENCE OF USAGE 12. The following references show usage since 1964 in the respective senses of Schaub and Fahlbusch: Usage in the sense of Schaub AGUILAR, J. F. 1979. C.r. Acad. Sci. Paris, ser. D, vol. 288, no. 5, pp. 473-476. — 1980a. Palaeovertebrata vol. 9, part 6, pp. 155-203. —— 1980b. Palaeovertebrata, Mém. jubil. R. Lavocat, pp. 355-364. — & MAGNE, J. 1978. Bull. Soc. géol. France, ser. vol. 20, pp. 803-805. BAUDELOT, S. 1964. Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Toulouse, vol. 99, parts 1-2, pp. 195-204. —— 1965. C.r. somm. Séances Soc. géol. France for 1965, fasc. 7, p. 222. —— 1969. Tray. Lab. Géol.-pétr. Fac. Sci. Toulouse, no. 35, 2 pp. — 1972. Etude des chiroptéres, insectivores et rongeurs du Miocéne de Sansan. (Thesis, Toulouse). — & COLLIER, A. 1978. Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Toulouse, vol. 114, parts 1-3, pp. 194-206. BULOT, C. 1972. Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Toulouse, vol. 108, parts 3-4, pp. 349-356. DAAMS, R. 1976. Proc. k. nederl. Akad. Wet., Ser. B. vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 152-181. — 1981. Utrecht micropal. Bull., Spec. Publ. 3, pp. 1-115. —, FREUDENTHAL M. & v.d. WEERD, A. 1977. News/. Stratigr. vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 42-SS. FREUDENTHAL, M. 1965. Proc. k. nederl. Akad. Wet., Ser. B, vol. 68, No. 5, pp. 293-305. — 1968. Proc. k. nederl. Akad. Wet., Ser. B, vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 52-72. — & SONDAAR, P. Y. 1964. Proc. k. nederl. Akad. Wet., Ser. B, vol. 67, No. 5, _ pp. 473-490. GUERIN, C. & MEIN, P. 1971. Docum. Lab. Géol. Univ. Lyon, N.S., pp. 131-170. HARTENBERGER, J. L. 1967. Palaeovertebrata, vol. 1, part 2, pp. 47—-64, 4 pls. LACOMBA, J. I. in press. Scripta Geol. LOPEZ, M., SESE, C. & SANZ, J. L. Trab. Nedgeno/Quaternario, vol. 8, pp. 47-73. MEIN, P. & CORNET, C. 1973. C.r. somm. Soc. géol. France, 1973, 2 pp. —— & FREUDENTHAL, M. 1971. Scripta Geol., vol. 2, pp. 1-37. SAVAGE, D. E. & RUSSELL, D. E. 1983. Mammalian palaeofaunas of the world. London, Addison-Webley. SESE, C. 1977. Trab. Neogeno-Quaternario, vol. 8, pp. 127-180. Usage in the sense of Fahlbusch DEHM, R. 1978. Mitt. bayer. Staatsammil. Paldont. hist. Geol., vol. 18, pp. 289-313. ENGESSER, B. 1972. Tatigk. Ber. naturf. Ges. Baselland, vol. 28, pp. 37-363. FEJFAR, O. 1974. Palaeontographica Ser. B, vol. 146, pp. 100-179. 248 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 HEITZMANN, E. 1973. Palaeontographica, Suppl. Bd. 8, part 5B, pp. 1-95. WU WENYU, 1982. Zitteliana, vol. 9, pp. 1-80. NOMENCLATURAL CONSIDERATIONS 13. Apart from usage, which is strongly in favour of Schaub’s inter- pretation, the principal nomenclatural issue at stake is the status of Fahlbusch’s lectotype of Cricetodon minor Lartet, 1851. This is one of a group of specimens in the Paris Museum which has no certain connection with Lartet. It does not contain any representative of C. minor sensu stricto, although that is the commonest species of the genus at Sansan. The only specimens for which there is evidence of a direct connection with Lartet are those figured by Gervais, 1869. These include representatives of C. minor sensu Schaub, but are lost. 14. Under these circumstances, it seems to me unsafe to accept Fahlbusch’s lectotype as valid. The presumption surely must be that it is invalid in the absence of stronger evidence in support of its validity than any that has so far been produced. At the same time both taxonomic and nomenclatural confusion clearly exists, so that there is good justification for the designation of a neotype. The only neotype so far designated is No. Ss. 1235 in the Basel Museum (Freudenthal, 1969, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25, p. 180). The Commission can accept this without using its plenary powers; or it can use those powers to set aside Freudenthal’s neotype and set up Fahlbusch’s lectotype as neotype in its place. 15. The Commission is accordingly asked to choose one of the following alternatives: ALTERNATIVE A (1) to rule that the lectotype designated by Fahlbusch, 1964, for Cricetodon minor Lartet, 1851, is invalid; (2) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964, hitherto made, and to designate Democricetodon crassus Freudenthal, 1969, as the type species of that genus; (3) to place the generic name Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in A(2) above, Democricetodon crassus Freudenthal, 1969, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) minor Lartet, 1851, as published in the binomen Cricetodon minus [sic], as defined by reference to the neotype designated by Freudenthal, 1969; (b) crassus Freudenthal, 1969, as published in the combination Democricetodon brevis crassus (specific name of type species of Democriceton Fahlbusch, 1964). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 249 ALTERNATIVE B (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type specimen for the nominal species Cricetodon minor Lartet, 1851, hitherto made, and to designate as neotype of that species the specimen designated as lectotype by Fahlbusch, 1964; (2) to place the specific name minor Lartet, 1851, as published in the binomen Cricetodon minus [sic], and as interpreted by reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in B(1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES FAHLBUSCH, V. 1964. Die Cricetiden (Mamm.) der oberen Siisswasser-Molasse Bayerns. Abh. bayerischen Akad. Wiss., Math.-Naturwiss. Klasse, N.F. vol. 118, pp. 1-136. FREUDENTHAL, M. 1963. Entwicklungsstufen der miozanen Cricetodontinae (Mammalia, Rodentia), Mittelspaniens und ihre — stratigraphische Bedeutung. Beaufortia, vol. 10, no. 119, pp. 51-157. GERVAIS, P. 1859. Zoologie et paléontologie frangaises, 2nd edit., viliit 544 pp., Atlas. LARTET, P. 1851. Notice sur la colline de Sansan, 47 pp. SCHAUB, S. 1925. Die hamsterartigen Nagetiere des Tertiars und ihre lebenden Verwandten. Abh. schweizerischen paldontol. Ges., vol. 45, pp. 1-114. 250 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 REPORT ON GLYPHIPTERIX HUBNER, [1825] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): Z.N.(S.)2115 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature This case began with an application by Diakonoff & Heppner, 1977, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 81—84, for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825], a genus based on a misidentified type species. Bradley & Sattler, 1978, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 71-72, thought that this end could be achieved without the use of the plenary powers. The Commission’s vote on the case in V.P. (82)15 was inconclusive and a new vote must therefore be taken under Bylaw 35. In addition, a comment by Dr Nye on his voting paper has introduced new factors. The essential facts are set out below. 2. Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] was established with three originally included species: Phalaena linneella Clerck, 1759, Tinea aillyella Hubner, [1817] and Tinea humerella Hubner, [1805]. Diakonoff & Heppner gave evidence to show that Htibner misidentified P. /inneella Clerck, and this is not disputed by Bradley & Sattler. All agree that the species intended by Hubner was Tinea bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781. 3. According to Diakonoff & Heppner, the type species of the genus in question was fixed by Westwood, 1840, p. 112 (cited as ‘Glyphipteryx Hb.’) as Phalaena linneella Clerck, 1759. According to Bradley & Sattler, it was fixed by Meyrick, 1914, as Tinea aillyella Hubner, [1817]. This species is congeneric with 7. bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781, which Diakonoff & Heppner wish to see fixed as the type species of Glyphipterix in the superfamily COPROMORPHOIDEA. 4. Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827 was established with Phalaena linneella Clerck, 1759 as type species by original designation. Curtis correctly identified and illustrated the species, which is currently referred either to Glyphipteryx Curtis (by those who regard that name as denoting a nominal genus distinct from Glyphipterix Hubner) or to Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854 (by those who take the opposite view) in the superfamily GELECHIOIDEA. Phalaena linneella Clerck is the type species of Chrysoclista, by subsequent designation by Fletcher, 1928, Cat. Indian Insects, part 16, p. 25. 5. Diakonoff & Heppner claim that the use of the names Glyphipterix and Glyphipteryx for different nominal genera is a cause of confusion and say that ‘the well known and widely used’ Chrysoclista can be used instead of the latter (the two being objective synonyms). Bradley & Sattler deny that confusion is likely because the two genera are placed in different superfamilies. They therefore wish to retain Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827 as the valid name for the genus of which P. linneella Clerck, 1759 is the type species. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 251 6. One question that must clearly be answered before the possible solutions to this case can be clearly assessed concerns the relationship between G/yphipterix Hiibner and Glyphipteryx Curtis. Do these names represent one or two nominal genera? Light was thrown on this by Dr Nye, in the following comment on his voting paper: ‘From my own knowledge and from the cases of the proposers and the critics it is clear that the usages of Glyphipterix Hiibner and Glyphipteryx Curtis have been confused. Curtis knew Hubner’s work and as the name /inneella was the name used for the first species included by both authors it follows that ‘Glyphipteryx Nob.’ of Curtis was intended as an emendation of Hiibner’s name (as stated by Neave, Nomencl. zool., vol. 2, p. 482) and that the first type-species designa- tion was of /inneella by Curtis, 1827, for the genus whose name was spelt in one way by Hubner and in another way by Curtis. However, as Hiibner had misidentified Jinneella, Article 70 must be applied and I agree with the proposers that the designation of Tinea bergstraesserella Fabricius will maintain stability and universality in this important genus. ‘I also agree with the proposers that Glyphipteryx Curtis should be placed on the Official Index, but there is no need to suppress it as it is an unjustified emendation of Glyphipterix Hiibner and thus a junior objective synonym. Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854 is available for the small and little- known genus having the true Phalaena linneella Clerck, 1759 as its type species, but not by original designation as stated by the proposers. The earliest designation is by Fletcher, 1928, Cat. Indian Ins., part 16, p. 25. ‘I cannot agree with the proposers on their spelling of the family-group name based on the generic name Glyphipterix. That GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE should be the correct spelling is not only common sense but matches the existing Microlepidoptera family names COSMOPTERIGIDAE from Cosmopterix and MICROPTERIGIDAE from Micropterix, and most of all maintains the stable usage throughout the world as shown by Bradley & Sattler.’ 7. Dr Nye’s view of the relationship between Glyphipterix and Glyphipteryx corresponds with common sense and with what we know of the habits of Curtis and his contemporaries. There is no doubt that ‘pteryx’ is a more correct latinisation from the Greek than ‘pterix’. Westwood put ‘Glyphipteryx Hb.’ and this emendation has been used both for the genus with the misidentified linneella (= bergstraesserella) as its type species and for the one having the true /inneella as its type species. The potential for confusion therefore clearly exists, and it is surely for those who take Curtis to have proposed a new name to prove their case. The prima facie evidence is clearly in favour of those who take Curtis’s name to be an emendation. 8. The question of the spelling of the family name reveals a conflict between two articles of the Code, to be dealt with under Article 78b(i). Under Article 32e GLYPHIPTERYGIDAE Stainton, 1854 is an incorrect original spelling, to be corrected wherever it is found; under Article 29d, it is an incorrectly formed name established before 1961 and not to be corrected. The Commission must clearly decide which of these provisions is 252 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 to take precedence over the other; it is here proposed that Article 32c be given precedence over Article 29d. 9. The Commission voted on V.P.(82)15 in which a choice was offered between Alternatives A (the proposals of Diakonoff & Heppner) and B (the proposals of Bradley & Sattler). At the close of the voting period, 18 valid and unequivocal votes had been cast, 10 for A and 8 for B. As the former required the use of the plenary powers, and as it received a majority smaller than a two-thirds majority, the case must be presented again. Alternative B, which required only a simple majority, received a minority of votes and is lost. 10. Dr Nye divided his vote between the two alternatives and in this he was independently followed by Dr Mroczkowski and Dr Trjapitzin. All three voted for the use of the plenary powers to designate Tinea bergstraes- serella as type species of Glyphipterix Hubner and for the placing of GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE on the Official List. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore now requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825] and having done so, to designate Tinea bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781 as the type species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Tinea bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781; (b) Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Fletcher, 1928, Phalaena linneella Clerck, 1759; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Tinea bergstraesserella (specific name of type species of Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825]; (b) linneella Clerck, 1759, as published in the binomen Phalaena linneella (specific name of type species of Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854; (4) in the matter of the spelling of the name of the family of which Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] is the type genus, to rule that Article 32c shall have precedence over Article 29d, and having done so to place GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Stainton, 1854 (type genus Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825]) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the generic name Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827 (an unjustified emendation of G/yphipterix Hubner, [1825]) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Pais (6) to place the family-group name GLYPHIPTERYGIDAE Stainton, 1854 (invalid through the ruling given in (4) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 254 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 OCTOLASION ORLEY, 1885 (ANNELIDA, OLIGOCHAETA, LUMBRICIDAE): RATIFICATION OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES AND THE INTRODUCTION OF OCTOLASION (OCTODRILUS) BY OMODEO, 1956 IN ACCORDANCE WITH USAGE, WITH THE SUPPRESSION OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES AND OF THE NAMES OCTOLASION (INCOLORE) AND OCTOLASION (PURPUREUM) BY OMODEO, 1952. Z.N.(S.) 2469 By R. W. Sims (British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) The genus Octolasion was proposed by Orley (1885, p. 13) to accommodate several Hungarian species of earthworms of the family LUMBRICIDAE. Over the years actions by authors have led to nomen- clatural confusion that in part requires the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to exercise its plenary powers to deal with the problems now extant. However, before detailing the application, it is useful to review the results of attempts retrospectively to latinise the spelling of the name. 2. Octolasion was unjustifiably emended to Octolasia by Rosa (1896, p. 3) then, possibly to provide a termination consistent with its original (neuter) gender, the spelling was further changed to Octolasium by Michaelsen (1900, p. 504). As the latter emendation was proposed in Michaelsen’s authoritative monograph, it passed into general usage. How- ever, in 1964 Gerard reverted to the original orthography and since that date there has been discord with some authors complying with the provi- sions of Article 32 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and others, as is evident in the application below, either unaware of an infringement of the Code or unwilling to dispute Michaelsen’s authority. 3. The problems other than matters of orthography, that threaten the stability of the nomenclature of the genus and of its species have arisen mainly from two disparate designations of a type species and descriptions of subgenera. In a review of the genus Octolasium (sic), Omodeo (1952, p. 46): (1) designated Lumbricus complanatus Dugeés, 1828 as the type species, (2) described the subgenera (Jncolore), type species Lumbricus terrestris var. lacteus Orley, 1881, and (Purpureum), type species Allolobophora lissaensis Michaelsen, 1891. But in a review of the family LUMBRICIDAE, Omodeo (1956, p. 206): (1) designated Lumbricus terrestris var. lacteus Orley, 1881 as the type species of Octolasium (sic), Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 252 (2) described the subgenus (Octodrilus), type species Lumbricus complanatus Dugés, 1828. 4. The subsequent review, although invalid, provided the ingredi- ents for total confusion. Fortunately for the stability of nomenclature, Omodeo’s earlier actions of 1952 have been overlooked (except for a notifi- cation of the preparation of this application: Sims, 1983). There has, how- ever, been a unanimity of approval and adoption of the later proposals, for example, Gerard, 1964; Bouche, 1972; Gates, 1973; Perel, 1979; Zicsi, 1981; and Easton, 1983; while the 1956 subgenus (Octodrilus) has been elevated to generic rank and widely accepted as a valid taxon. Clearly the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary powers to regularise the situation, the more so since these species are commonly recorded by ecologists and others unfamiliar with nomenclature. Otherwise if the Code were now rigorously applied then the species currently placed in the genus Octolasion would be transferred to the overlooked Incolore while current members of the genus Octodrilus would be assigned to a new concept Octolasion containing Octodrilus as an objective synonym and Purpureum as a subjective synonym. 5. In addition to the potential confusion detailed above, the diffi- culties could be compounded by the introduction of yet another generic name that has been associated briefly with Octolasion. The name is Alyattes proposed by Kinberg, 1867, type, by tautonymy, Lumbricus alyattes Kinberg, 1867, now regarded (Michaelsen, 1900, p. 506) as a subjective synonym of Octolasion cyaneum (Savigny, 1826). However, the name Alyattes Kinberg, 1867 is a junior homonym of both Alyattes Thomson, 1864 (Coleoptera) and Alyattes Stal, 1865 (Hemiptera), so it must be rejected in favour of the available name of its junior subjective synonym Octolasion Orley, 1885. 6. The following references show the relative usages of the generic names involved. References using the name OCTOLASION Orley, 1885 employing the correct spelling: Easton, E. G. 1983. A guide to the valid names of Lumbricidae. In Satchell, J. E. (ed.) Earthworm ecology, pp. 475-487. London, Chapman & Hall. Edwards, C. A. & Lofty, J. R. 1972. Biology of earthworms, pp. 1-283. London, Chapman & Hall. Gates, G. E. 1973. The earthworm genus Octolasion in America. Bull. Tall Timbers res. Stn vol. 14(8) pp. 29-50. Gates, G. E. 1982. Farewell to North American Megadriles. Megadrilogica, vol. 4(1-2), pp. 12-77. Gerard, B. M. 1964. Lumbricidae (Annelida). Synopses Brit. Fauna vol. 6, pp. 1-58. London, The Linnean Society of London. Jamieson, B. G. M. 1981. The ultrastructure of the Oligochaeta, pp. 1-462. London, Academic Press. Lofs-Holmin, A. 1983. Earthworm population dynamics in different agricultural 256 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 rotations. In Satchell, J. E. (ed.) Earthworm ecology, pp. 151-160. London, Chapman & Hall. Reynolds, J. W. 1972. Earthworms (Lumbricidae) of the Haliburton Highlands, Ontario, Canada. Megadrilogica, vol. 1(3), pp. 1-11. Reynolds, J. W. 1977. The earthworms (Lumbricidae and Sparganophilidae) of Ontario, pp. 1-141. Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum. Sims, R. W. 1983. The scientific names of earthworms. In Satchell, J. E. (ed.) Earthworm ecology, pp. 467-474. London, Chapman & Hall. Sims, R. W. & Gerard, B. M. 1985. Earthworms. Synopses Brit. Fauna (N.S.) (in press). Leiden, Brill. References using the name OCTODRILUS Omodeo, 1956: Bouché, M. B. 1972. Lombriciens de France: Ecologie et Systématique. Annis Zool. Ecol. anim. (Numéro spécial) vol. 72(2), pp. 1-671. Easton, E. G. 1983. A guide to the valid names of Lumbricidae. In Satchell, J. E. (ed.) Earthworm ecology, pp. 475-487. London, Chapman & Hall. Michalis, K. 1975. Die Oligochaeten der Insel Kos. Sci. Annals Fac. Phys. u. Mathem., Univ. Thessaloniki, vol. 15, pp. 187—200. Plisko, J. D. & Zicsi, A. 1970. Octolasium (Octodrilus) rucneri n.sp. €in neuer Regenwurm aus Jugoslawien. Acta zool. Hung. vol. 16, pp. 453-456. Reynolds, J. W. & Cook, D. G. 1976. Nomenclatura Oligochaetologica, pp. 1-217. Fredericton, University of New Brunswick. Sapkarev, J. A. 1972. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Lumbricidenfauna Griechenlands. Maced. Acad. Sci. Arts, vol. 4, pp. 31-36. Sapkarev, J. A. 1977. The fauna of earthworms of Macedonie, 7. The earthworms (Olig. Lumbricidae) of Ohrid-Struga valley. Ann. Fac. Biol. Univ. Kiril et Metodij Skopje, vol. 30, pp. 27-45. Zicsi, A. 1982. Verzeichnis der bis 1971 beschriebenen und revidierten Taxa der Familie Lumbricidae (Oligochaeta). Acta zool. Hung. vol. 28 (3-4), pp. 421-454. Zicsi, A. 1983. Earthworm ecology in deciduous forests in central and southeast Europe. In Satchell, J. E. (ed.) Earthworm ecology, pp. 171-177. London, Chapman & Hall. Zicsi, A. & Michalis, K. 1981. Ubersicht der Regenwurm-Fauna Griechenlands (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae). Acta zool. Hung. vol. 27, pp. 239-264. References using the names OCTOLASIUM (sic) (INCOLORE) Omodeo, 1952 and OCTOLASIUM (sic) (PURPUREUM) Omodeo, 1952: No records. Note. Omodeo’s actions of 1952 are ignored, see: Reynolds, J. W. & Cook, D. G. 1976. Nomenclatura Oligochaetologica, 1-217. Fredericton, New Brunswick. In this work the 1952 type designation of Octolasion and the names Jncolore and Purpureum are omitted, yet the 1956 type designation of Octolasion and the name Octodrilus are accepted as valid. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 psa] 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use the plenary powers: (a) to suppress the genus-group names /ncolore Omodeo, 1952 and Purpureum Omodeo, 1952 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Octolasion Orley, 1885, and to designate Lumbricus terrestris var. lacteus Orley, 1881 as type species thereof; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Octolasion Orley, 1885 (gender: neuter), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Lumbricus terrestris var. lacteus Orley, 1881; (b) Octodrilus Omodeo, 1956 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, Lumbricus complanatus Dugés, 1828; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) lacteus Orley, 1885, as published in the trinomen Lumbricus terrestris var. lacteus (specific name of the type species of Octolasion Orley, 1885); (b) complanatus Dugés, 1828, as published in the binomen Lumbricus complanatus (specific name of the type species of Octodrilus Omodeo, 1956); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic names: (a) Incolore Omodeo, 1952 and Purpureum Omodeo, 1952, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above; (b) Alyattes Kinberg, 1867, a junior homonym of Alyattes Thomson, 1864; (c) Octolasia Rosa, 1893 and Octolasium Michaelsen, 1900 as unjustified emendations of Octolasion Orley, 1885. REFERENCES BOUCHE, M. B. 1972. Lombriciens de France: Ecologie et Systématique. Annis Zool. Ecol. anim. Paris, (INRA) vol. 72-2, pp. 1-671. DUGES, A. 1828. Recherches sur la circulation, la respiration et la reproduction des Annélides abranches sétigéres. Ann. Sci. nat. vol. 15, pp. 285-337. EASTON, E. G. 1983. A guide to the valid names of Lumbricidae (Oligochaeta). In Earthworm ecology from Darwin to vermiculture, ed. Satchell, J. E. pp. 475-487. London, Chapman and Hall. GATES, G. E. 1973. Contributions to North American earthworms (Annelida) No.8. The earthworm genus Octolasion in America. Bull. Tall Timbers res. Sin vol. 15, pp. 1-13. GERARD, B. M. 1964. Lumbricidae (Annelida) with keys and descriptions (Second edition). Synopses of the British Fauna, vol. 6, pp. 1-58. London, The Linnean Society of London. 258 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 KINBERG, J. G. H. 1867. Annulata nova. Ofvers. K. Vetensk Akad. Férh. Stockh. vol. 23, pp. 97-103. MICHAELSEN, W. 1891. Oligochaeten des Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg, IV. Jb. hamb. wiss. Anst. vol. 8, pp. 3-42. MICHAELSEN, W. 1900. Oligochaeta. Tierreich, vol. 10, pp. 1-575. OMODEO, P. 1952. Materiali zoologici raccolti dal Dr Marcuzzi sulle Alpi Dolomitiche. Arch. zool. ital. vol. 37, pp. 29-59. OMODEDO, P. 1956. Contributo alla revisione dei Lumbricidae. Arch. zool. ital. vol. 41, pp. 129-212. ORLEY, L. 1881. A magyarorszagi Oligochaetak Faunaja; Terricolae (Reudszaertani rész). Math. Term. tud. Kézlem, vol. 16, pp. 561-611. ORLEY, L. 1885. A palaearktikus 6vben él6 Terricolaknak revizidja és elterjedése. Ertek. Term. tud. Kor. vol. 15, pp. 1-34. PEREL, T. S. 1979. [Range and regularities in the distribution of earthworms of the USSR fauna (with keys to Lumbricidae and other Megadrili).| \—272. Moscow, Nauka (Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Laboratory of Forest Science). [In Russian: English summary.] ROSA, D. 1896. Allolobophora tigrina ed. A. exacystis n.sp. Boll. Musei Zool. Anat. comp. R. Univ, Torino, No. 246, vol. 11, pp. 1-4. SAVIGNY, J. C. 1826. [La multiplicité des espéces de ver de terre .. .] Mém. Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr. (Phys.) vol. 5, pp. 176-184. SIMS, R. W. 1983. The scientific names of earthworms. In Earthworm ecology from Darwin to vermiculture, ed. Satchell, J. E. pp. 467-474. London, Chapman and Hall. STAL, C. 1865. Hemiptera Africana, vol. 3, pp. 1-200. Holmiae, Officina Nordstediana. THOMSON, J. 1864. Systema Cerambycidarum, pp. 1-578. Liége, Dessain. ZICSI, A. 1981. Weitere Angaben zur Lumbricidenfauna Italiens (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae). Opusc. Zool. Budapest vol. 17-18, pp. 157-180. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 259 LEPTOSIA HUBNER, 1818 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): CORRECTION TO OPINION 584 AND TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.)1324 By Lieut.Col. C. F. Cowan (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria LAI1 7DR, U.K.) Leptosia Hubner, 1818 is name number 1398 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Instalment 2, p. 219). It was so placed by Opinion 584 of 1960 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 (9/11), p. 290, para. 3 (b)) after an Application published in 1958 (ibid. 16 (3) pp. 81-87, para. 12 (3) (b)). 2. In both 1958 and 1960, the subparas 3(b) stated that the type species, Leptosia chlorographa Hubner, 1818, was selected by Butler, 1870, and that detail is incorporated in the Official List. The selection in that sense, which is the valid one, was by Scudder, 1875 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. Boston vol. 10, p. 204), as indeed is stated in the last seven lines of para. 11 of the Application (on p. 86). 3. Hubner, 1818, included only two species when introducing the new name Leptosia: L. chlorographa, a new species, and Papilio alcesta Stoll. Then in [1819] he added to them L. /athyri Hubner (= P. sinapis L.) and a fourth. Butler, 1870, did not select L. chlorographa. His selection, made from the [1819] list, was ‘ZL. /athyri Hibner’. Thus not only is the Official List objectively in error, but Butler’s selection of a species not originally included was invalid. The first valid selection was Scudder’s in 1875. 4. The International Commission is therefore requested to fulfil the intentions of the Opinion and the Official List by: (a) directing that Opinion 584 paragraph 3 (b) be corrected to read Scudder, 1875 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. Boston vol. 10, p. 204) instead of Butler, 1870 (Cist. Ent. 1(3), p. 54), and then (b) amending the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, Instalment 2, p. 219, No. 1398 accordingly. 260 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 REVISED SUBMISSION REGARDING THE NOMINAL GENUS DIPLOSOMA MACDONALD, 1859 (ASCIDIACEA), AND PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE DESIGNATION OF LEPTOCLINUM FULGENS MILNE EDWARDS, 1841, AS TYPE SPECIES OF LEPTOCLINUM MILNE EDWARDS, 1841. Z.N.(S.)1766 By F. W. E. Rowe (Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) In 1966 I submitted (Rowe, 1966b) a detailed proposal outlining a case for firstly, the suppression of the generic name Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 and secondly, the placing of the generic name Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859 (type species by monotypy D. rayneri MacDonald, 1859) and the specific name /isterianum Milne Edwards (in the binomen Leptoclinum listerianum) on the Official List of Generic Names and of Specific Names in Zoology respectively. The case was presented because of confusion existing over the use of the generic names Didemnunr Savigny, 1816, Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 and Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859, species described in the genus Leptoclinum being attributable to either Diplosoma or Didemnum (Rowe, 1966a & b). The argument followed the course that of six species originally described in the genus Leptoclinum by Milne Edwards, 1841, four species had subsequently been referred to the genus Didemnum by Hartmeyer, 1909; that of the remaining two species included in Leptoclinum, (since gelatinosum had been placed in the synonymy of /isterianum by Lahille, 1890), Hartmeyer, 1909, had implied that by elimination /isterianum would be the type species of Leptoclinum; that although Lahille, 1890, had considered Diplosoma rayneri both con- specific and congeneric with Jisterianum, referring listerianum then to the genus Diplosoma. | agreed with Hartmeyer who correctly treated Diplosoma as a junior synonym of Leptoclinum; that Hartmeyer later (1915) reversed this generic synonymy on the grounds of the greater usage of the name Diplosoma; that although the majority of authors subsequently adopted this attitude, others were divided in the use of the names Diplosoma and Leptoclinum, thus compounding a confused situation. 2. Subsequent to my submission Mather (=Kott), 1969, though supporting the case for the suppression of Leptoclinum, believed that I had argued for the validation of L. /isterianum as the type species of Diplosoma. Indeed this was not the case. I proposed, since I was seeking only to validate the generic name Diplosoma, to suppress Leptoclinum but retain the species listerianum. In this event if the synonymy of rayneri with listerianum is accepted, (Dr Kott (= Mather) has recently accepted this synonymy (1981)) then /isterianum becomes the valid name of the type species of Diplosoma provided Leptoclinum is suppressed. Such was the argument I put forward in reply to Dr Mather’s comments (Rowe, 1971). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 261 3. Following subsequent correspondence and advice from Mr R. V. Melville, an alternative proposal to solve the problem is now submitted which would reduce the genus Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841, to the synonymy of Didemnum Savigny, 1816. 4. The genus Didemnum was described by Savigny, 1816, with two species candidum and viscosum, neither of which was designated as the type species by Savigny. Hartmeyer, 1909, was the first author who considered it appropriate to designate candidum as type species of Didemnum. This designation has since been accepted by ascidian taxonomists. Hartmeyer, 1909, also pointed out that four species of Leptoclinum, namely maculosum, asperum, durum and fulgens are congeneric with D. candidum, a view which I fully support. 5. In view of the arguments presented before (Rowe, 1966b) and above (1,2), and in order to restrict the use of the name Leptoclinum in a way that further confusion can be avoided and the generic name Diplosoma not threatened, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 and, having done so, to designate Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841, to be the type species of that genus. (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859 (gender:neuter) type species, by monotypy, Diplosoma rayneri MacDonald, 1859; (b) Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 (gender: neuter) type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841; (c) Didemnum Savigny, 1816 (gender : neuter) type species, by subsequent designation by Hartmeyer, 1909, Didemnum candidum Savigny, 1816; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) listerianum Milne Edwards, 1841 as published in the binomen Leptoclinum listerianum (the valid name at the date of this application of the type species of Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859); (b) fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841, as published in the binomen Leptoclinum fulgens (specific name of the type species of Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841); (c) candidum Savigny, 1816, as published in the binomen Didemnum candidum (specific name of the type species of Didemnum Savigny, 1816). 262 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 REFERENCES HARTMEYER, R. 1909. Zur terminologie der Didemnidae. S.B. Ges. naturf. Freude Berl. p. 575. KOTT, P. 1981. The ascidians of the reef fiats of Fiji. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 105, pp. 147-212, 44 figs. 2 tables. LAHILLE, A. 1890. Recherches sur des Tuniciers des c6tes de France. Toulouse, 330 pp, 177 figs. MATHER, P. 1969. Comments on the proposed validation of Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25, pp. 131-132. MILNE EDWARDS, M. H. 1841. Observations sur les ascidies composées des cOtes de la Manche. Mém. Acad. Sci. Inst. France vol. 18, pp. 217-326, plates 1-8. ROWE, F. W. E. 1966a. A review of the genus Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859, (Ascidiacea, Didemnidae) with a description of the proposed neotype of Diplosoma listerianum (Milne-Edwards), 1841. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (13), vol. 9, pp. 457-467, 5 figs. —— 1966b. Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859 (Ascidiacea): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 23, pp. 245-252. —— 1971. The proposed designation of Leptoclinum listerianum Milne-Edwards as type species of Diplosoma MacDonald (Ascidiacea). Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 28, p. 73. SAVIGNY, M. J. C. L. DE 1816. Mémoires sur les animaux sans vertébres, part 2. Paris, 239 pp. 24 plates. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 263 DRYMUS RYEII DOUGLAS & SCOTT, 1865 (HEMIPTERA, LYGAEIDAE): PROPOSED RATIFICATION OF THE STATUS OF A LECTOTYPE WITH A REQUEST TO SET THE NEOTYPE ASIDE. Z.N.(S.)1214 By L. Jessop (Department of Entomology, British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD U.K.) In their monograph of British Heteroptera, Douglas & Scott, 1865 (p. 197) described a new variety of Drymus sylvaticus (Fabricius, 1794) which they named ryeii. Douglas & Scott stated that the variety was ‘first given to us by Mr E. C. Rye’, but locality data were not given. No holotype was designated. 2. In his review of the genus Drymus Fieber, 1860 (date teste Kirkaldy, 1908, p. 189) in Britain, Le Quesne, 1956 (p. 338) considered ryeii to be a species distinct from sy/vaticus. Le Quesne looked for Douglas & Scott’s specimens at the British Museum (Natural History) and at the University Museum, Oxford and failing to locate original type material he designated a male specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) as neotype. At that time there was no indication of any of Douglas & Scott’s Heteroptera collection being located elsewhere (vide Horn & Kahle, 1935-1937, pp. 60, 253, 333). 3. Following the publication of Hancock & Pettitt’s (1979) list of collections and collectors in North West England I realised that part of Scott’s Heteroptera is now located in Bolton Museum, and borrowed from there material agreeing with original description of Drymus ryeii. The material comprises two males glued side-by-side on a single card on the reverse of which is written in pencil ‘E.C.R.[i.e.E.C.Rye] 3/4/63 Croydon’. The card is pinned, the pin bearing the labels ‘J SCOTT J SCOTT’ and ‘Drymus sylvaticus Fab var ryei’ [sic]. 4. I here designate the specimen on the left of the card, in caudal view, as lectotype. Both lectotype and paralectotype are conspecific with the neotype. 5. In compliance with Article 75f of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature I am referring this rediscovery of the original type specimens to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to: (1) set aside the neotype designated by Le Quesne, 1956; (2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ryeii Douglas & Scott, 1865, as published in the trinomen Drymus sylvaticus ryeii and as defined by reference to the lectotype designated herein. 264 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 REFERENCES DOUGLAS, J. W. & SCOTT, J. 1865. The British Hemiptera. vol. 1. Hemiptera Heteroptera. Ray Society, London. xii—627 pp. HANCOCK, E. G. & PETTITT, C. W. (Eds.) 1979. Collections and Collectors in N.W. England. Manchester Museum. 2 volumes. HORN, W. & KAHLE, I. 1935-1937. Uber entomologische Sammlungen, Entomologen & Entomo-Museologie. Entomol. Berh. Berlin-Dahlem vol. 2-4, 536 pp. LE QUESNE, W. J. 1956. An examination of the British species of Drymus Fieber (Hem. Lygaeidae) with a new subgenus and an addition and a generic reassignment in the British List. Entomol. mon. Mag. vol. 92, pp. 337-341. KIRKALDY, G. W. 1908. Bibliographical and nomenclatorial notes on the Hemiptera. No. 9. Entomol. vol. 41, pp. 188-189. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 265 APHODIUS RUFUS MOLL, 1782 AND AEGIALIA RUFA FABRICIUS, 1792 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS BY SUPPRESSION OF APHODIUS SCYBALARIUS FABRICIUS, 1792.Z.N.(S.)2318 By Zdzislawa Stebnicka (Jnstitute of Systematic and Experimental Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 31-016 Krakow, Poland) In 1781 J. Ch. Fabricius (Spec. Ins. vol. 1, p. 16) described a species called Scarabaeus scybalarius, included now in the genus Aphodius Illiger, 1798, (subfamily APHODIINAE, tribe APHODIINI). 2. C. E. v. Moll, 1782 (in Fuessly, Neues Mag. vol. 1, p. 372) described the same taxon as Scarabaeus rufus, included now in the genus Aphodius Illiger, 1798. 3. Thus, the priority belongs to Fabricius’s specific name scybalarius (1781) before rufus Moll (1782). 4. In 1783 Herbst (Arch. Inst.-Gesch. vol. 4, p. 7) described another new species called Scarabaeus foetidus, included now in the genus Aphodius Illiger, 1798. The type specimen is deposited in the Zoological Museum, Kiel. 5. A number of authors in nearly all fundamental works on the systematics of the SCARABAEIDAE in the 19th and 20th centuries have erroneously used the name Aphodius scybalarius for Herbst’s species foetidus, and the name Aphodius rufus Moll for Fabricius’s scybalarius. 6. The proof of synonymy between Scarabaeus scybalarius and S. rufus, as well as of the misinterpretation of S. foetidus, was presented by Landin (1956) on the strength of authentic material deposited in the Zoological Museum, Kiel and the British Museum (Natural History) Banks Collection, London. Landin applied the Law of Priority for Aphodius foetidus (Herbst), reinstating this name and placing A. scybalarius auct. (nec Fabricius, 1781) in its synonymy. However, he proposed inconsistently to conserve the commonly used name A. rufus (Moll) for the species A. scybalarius (Fabricius), but no application to the Commission was made by him. 7. In 1792 J.Ch. Fabricius (Ent. Syst. vol. 1, p. 39) described another new taxon under the name Scarabaeus rufus, included now in the genus Aegialia Latreille, 1807 (subfamily APHODIINAE, tribe AEGIALIINI). Scarabaeus rufus Fabricius, 1792 is the type species of the subgenus Rhysothorax Bedel, 1911 (Fn. Col. Seine, Scarab., p. 44) by original designation. Aegialia (Rhysothorax) rufa (Fabricius) occurs in Europe and North America. In 1977 Z. Stebnicka listed 24 references to the use of the name rufa or rufus during the years 1801-1976, established a single synonym (Aegialia spissipes Leconte, 1878, Proc. Amer. phil. Soc. vol. 17, p. 611) and recorded two uses of this name (in 1887 and 1931). 266 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 8. It should be noted that the earlier name of Scarabaeus rufus de Geer, 1778 (Mém. Hist. Ins. vol. 8, p. 640) is of uncertain status and no action on it is proposed. 9. In 1977 H. Silfverberg observed the homonymy of the species mentioned above. He introduced Aegialia rufina nom. nov. as a replace- ment name for Aegialia rufa (Fabricius) (suitable synonym: Aegialia spissipes Leconte) and close to Aphodius rufus (Moll) he added the following remarks: ‘Landin (1956) wanted to preserve the well-known name Aphodius rufus, although Aphodius scybalarius (Fabricius, 1781) is a senior synonym (described as Scarabaeus scybalarius in Spec. Ins. vol. 1, p. 16). Because of the homonymy involved, this cannot be, and Aphodius scybalarius is the valid name’. 10. The action of Silfverberg is very unfortunate (although compatible with the Code) and disrupts stability of nomenclature. There- fore, to avoid the confusion resulting from upsetting the long-accepted names and in the interest of stability and uniformity of nomenclature the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby requested to: (1) use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific name scybalarius Fabricius, 1781 as published in the binomen Scarabaeus scybalarius for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to exempt the junior primary homonym Scarabaeus rufus Fabricius, 1792, from the application of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) rufus Moll, 1782, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus; (b) rufus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus; (c) foetidus Herbst, 1782, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus foetidus; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology scybalarius Fabricius, 1781, as published in the bimomen Scarabaeus scybalarius and as suppressed in 1(a) above. REFERENCES LANDIN, B. O. 1956. The Fabrician Species of Aphodiini and Aegialiini (Col., Lamellicornia). Opusc. Entomol. vol. 21, pp. 203-228. SILFVERBERG, H. 1977. Nomenclatoric notes on Coleoptera Polyphaga. Notulae Entomol. vol. 57, pp. 91-94. STEBNICKA, Z. 1977. A Revision of the World Species of the Tribe Aegialiini (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Aphodiinae). Acta. zool. cracov. vol. 22, pp. 397-505. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 267 PROPOSED USE OF PLENARY POWERS TO CONSERVE CERTAIN JUNIOR SYNONYMS IN THE FAMILY PYGOPIDAE (BRACHIOPODA). Z.N.(S.)2300 By Frank A. Middlemiss (Department of Geography and Earth Science, Queen Mary College, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS U.K.) The purpose of the present application is to request the Commission to use its plenary powers in the interests of nomenclatural stability by establishing Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819, Terebratula diphya von Buch, 1834, Terebratula catulloi Pictet, 1867 and Terebratula janitor Pictet, 1867 as the nomenclaturally valid names of their respective species. 2. Buckman’s 1906 paper on brachiopod homoeomorphy needs to be mentioned at the outset. Buckman’s concept of a species in this paper was an extremely narrow one, leading him to require a specific name for almost every small shape variation. Consequently he considerably confused the nomenclatural issue by recognizing as separate and valid every name that had ever been given to a pygopid brachiopod. A. Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819. 3. Bruguiere, 1792, p. 424, named and figured a brachiopod as Terebratula pileus. In 1797 (pl. 241, fig. 1 a—c) he reproduced the figure but without a specific name. Valenciennes, in Lamarck, 1819, p. 250, presum- ably in ignorance of Bruguiére’s 1792 paper, gave the name Terebratula triangulus to the 1797 figure. Terebratula pileus Bruguiere, 1792 is therefore a senior objective synonym of Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes, 1819. 4. Parkinson, 1811, figured as Terebratulites triquetrus, two specimens, one of which (p. 229, pl. 16, fig. 8) is undoubtedly conspecific with 7. pileus Bruguiére. The synonymy of T. triquetrus Parkinson with T. pileus Bruguiére was recognized by Buckman, 1906 and Jarre, 1962. The synonymy of T. triguetrus Parkinson with T. triangulus Valenciennes was recognized by Davidson, 1850, Pictet, 1867, Buckman, 1906 and Jarre, 1962. Terebratulites triquetrus Parkinson, 1811 pars, is therefore a senior subjective synonym of Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes, 1819. 5. The specific name triquetrus has not been used as the valid specific name by any author except Buckman, 1906; pileus has been used only by Bronn, 1849 and Buckman, 1906. The great majority of authors have used triangulus. In the fifty years 1928-1978 no use of either triguetrus or pileus has been discovered, while authors using triangulus as the valid name during that period include: Fallot, 1934; Roman, 1936; Goéanin, 1938; Trauth, 1948; Jarre, 1962; Fulop, 1964; Geyssant, 1966; Vogel, 1966; Ager, 1975, and Nowak, 1976. 268 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 B. Terebratula diphya von Buch, 1834 6. Concha diphya Fabius Columna, 1606, has been taken by most authors to denote the central specific concept among the PYGOPIDAE. This name, however, is pre-Linnean and it is, in any case, difficult to decide what species Columna’s figure (1606, p. 36) is intended to depict. The earliest post-Linnean author to use the name was von Buch, 1834, as Terebratula diphya (p. 88; pl. 1, fig. 12). However there were earlier post- Linnean names for the species. Parkinson, 1811, p. 229; pl. 16, fig. 4, under the name Terebratulites triquetrus, figured a specimen which could well be of this species, in addition to the specimen referred to in the previous sec- tion. Valenciennes, in Lamarck, 1819, p. 250, gave the name Terebratula deltoidea to an unnamed figure published by Bruguieére, 1797, pl. 240, fig. 4. Catullo, 1827, p. 169, pl. 5, figs. p, r, s, t. gave the name Terebratula anti- nomia to what is probably the same species (the figures are poor). It is clear that von Buch intended his Terebratula diphya 1834 to denote the same species as Concha diphya Columna and Terebratula deltoidea Valenciennes, since in 1834 he reproduced Columna’s figure and cited T. deltoidea Lamarck in synonymy, while in his 1838 paper (p. 196, pl. 18, fig 9) he reproduced as T. diphya Bruguiere’s 1797 figure upon which Valenciennes had based deltoidea. T. deltoidea Valenciennes, 1819 can thus claim to be a senior objective synonym of T. diphya von Buch, 1834 and a senior subjec- tive synonym of T. antinomia Catullo, 1827. Von Buch presumably con- sidered diphya to have priority. These synonymies were all recognized by Pictet, 1867, who nevertheless employed diphya as the valid name. Terebratulites triquetrus Parkinson, 1811, pars is a senior subjective synonym of Terebratula diphya von Buch, 1834. 7. Apart from Buckman, 1906, p. 445, few authors have used any other names but diphya for this species. Catullo, 1841, p. 238, pl. 2, fig. 3; 1851, p. 75, fig. 3, and Zejszner, 1846, p. 24, used deltoidea, but the vast majority of authors have continued to use diphya. In the fifty years 1928-1978 authors who have used diphya as the valid name include: Gerber, 1930; Fallot, 1931 & 1934; Lacoste, 1934; Dalloni, 1936 & 1952; Margcais & van Leckwijck, 1936; Calembert, 1937 & 1952; Rod, 1946; Trauth, 1948; Glacgon, 1952; Gignoux, 1955; Kotanski & Radwanski, 1959; Christ, 1960; Jarre, 1962; Birkenmajer, 1963; Hdlder, 1964; Geyssant, 1966; Vogel, 1966; Barczyk, 1972; Desio, 1973 and Ager, 1975. Ager, 1975, p. 156, used both diphya and deltoidea in a manner which implies uncertainty about validity, presumably in the light of Muir-Wood’s action discussed below. 8. The name de/toidea could be safely regarded as in complete disuse but for Muir-Wood’s resurrection of it in the Treatise (1965, p.H 802) with the clear intention of establishing it as the valid name of the species. It appears desirable to conserve the name diphya; (a) because of its great historic interest as being by far the oldest brachiopod specific name still in common use (and possibly with its original connotation), and (b) because its long-continued employment by the great majority of authors as the valid name would be succeeded by nomenclatural confusion if it were now to be replaced by deltoidea. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 269 C. Terebratula catulloi Pictet, 1867 9. Catullo, 1851, p. 75, fig. 4, established a species Antinomia dilatata. Pictet, 1867, p. 171, pls. 32, 33, redescribed dilatata, using Catullo’s specific name, but decided against adopting his generic name and called the species Terebratula dilatata. Later (1867, p. 202) Pictet realised that he had created a secondary homonym of Terebratula dilatata Lamarck and Terebratula dilatata Sowerby, so he changed the name of the species to Terebratula catulloi. Since this change of name, however unnecessary it may have been, was made before 1961, the name catul/oi must, under Article 59b (i), be accepted as the valid name of the species unless it can be shown to be contrary to existing usage. 10. However there are earlier names which are believed to refer to this species. Authors who have considered the matter have taken A. dilatata Catullo, 1851 to be synonymous with Terebratula antinomia Catullo, 1829, p. 317, pl. 5, fig. 5 (Jarre, 1962, p. 58) and T. catulloi Pictet, 1867 to be synonymous with T. antinomia Catullo, 1829 (and 1841, p. 237, pl. 2, fig. 2, a reproduction of the 1829 figure) (Buckman, 1906, Jarre, 1962). Still earlier, Bruguiere, 1792, p. 425, figured as Terebratula cor a specimen which is probably the same species (Buckman, 1906, p. 442, Jarre, 1962, p. 58). Terebratula cor Bruguiére 1792 and Terebratula antinomia Catullo, 1829 are therefore senior subjective synonyms of Terebratula catulloi Pictet, 1867. 11. Terebratula cor Bruguiére and Terebratula antinomia Catullo are completely forgotten names. Catullo, 1827, pl. 5, figs. p, r, s, t, had also used Terebratula antinomia for a form which Jarre, 1962 and the present author have considered the same as von Buch’s Terebratula diphya; another case of subjective synonymy which threatens nomenclatural stability. As to whether dilatata or catulloi constitutes the name in existing usage, the position is that during the fifty years 1928-1978 Jarre, 1962; Muir-Wood, 1965; Geyssant, 1966; Vogel, 1966 and Ager, 1975 have used catulloi, while Fallot, 1931 & 1934; Fulop, 1964 and Holder, 1964 have used dilatata. There seems to be no case for claiming that Article 59b (i) should be set aside by existing usage. It should be noted that Terebratula cor Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819 is a completely different species from its senior homonym Terebratula cor Bruguiére, 1792. Davidson, 1850 examined the type specimen of the former and considered it to be synony- mous with Terebratula numismalis Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819. T. numismalis was made type species of the genus Cincta Quenstedt by Dall, 1877, p. 20 by subsequent designation. D. Terebratula janitor Pictet, 1867 12. The only threat to the stability of this name arises from Buckman’s resurrection (Buckman 1906, p. 446) of the name Terebratula duvalii Newman, 1844. That this is a senior subjective synonym of T. janitor Pictet, 1867 was recognized by Buckman, 1906, as regards at least one of Pictet’s figured specimens. Jarre, 1962 and the present author agree that the two species are one and the same. Apart from Buckman’s reference no 270 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 author has used duvalii. Authors who have employed janitor as the valid name for this species during the fifty years 1928-78 include, among many others: Gerber, 1930; Fallot, 1931 & 1934; Lacoste, 1934; Marcais & van Leckwijck, 1936; Goéanin, 1938; Rod, 1946; Dalloni, 1952; Glagon, 1952 and Holder, 1964. E. Conclusions 13. In order to establish Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes, 1819, Terebratula diphya von Buch, 1834, Terebratula catulloi Pictet, 1867, and Terebratula janitor Pictet, 1867, as the nomenclaturally valid names for their respective species, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked: (a) to use its plenary powers (i) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the specific names (1) pileus Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Terebratula pileus, and (2) deltoidea Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819, as published in the binomen Terebratula deltoidea; (ii) to suppress the specific name cor Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Terebratula cor, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (iii) in each of the following cases to give nomenclatural precedence to the junior name over the senior name whenever the two are regarded as synonyms: (1) Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819, over Terebratulites triquetrus Parkinson, 1811; (2) Terebratula diphya von Buch, 1834 over Terebratulites triquetrus Parkinson, 1811, and Terebratula antinomia Catullo, 1827; (3) Terebratula catulloi Pictet, 1867 over Terebratula antinomia Catullo, 1827; (4) Terebratula janitor Pictet, 1867 over Terebratula duvalii Newman, 1844; (b) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (i) the specific name triangulus Valenciennes, 1819, as published in the binomen Terebratula triangulus; (ii) the specific name diphya von Buch, 1834, as published in the binomen Terebratula diphya; (iii) the specific name catulloi Pictet, 1867, as published in the binomen Terebratula catulloi; (iv) the specific name janitor Pictet, 1867, as published in the binomen Terebratula janitor — each with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural pre- cedence over its senior synonym or synonyms mentioned in (v) to (vii) below; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 P27) (v) the specific name triquetrus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binomen Terebratulites triquetrus; (vi) the specific name antinomia Catulloi, 1826, as published in the binomen Terebratula antinomia; (vii) the specific name duvalii Newman, 1844, as published in the binomen Terebratula duvalii each with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over its junior synonym or synonyms mentioned in (1) to (iv) above; (c) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (i) pileus Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Terebratula pileus and (ii) deltoidea Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819, as published in the binomen Terebratula deltoidea both as suppressed under the plenary powers in (a) (i) above; (iii) cor Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Terebratula cor, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (a) (ii) above. REFERENCES AGER, D. V. 1975. Brachiopods at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary. Mém. B.R.G.M., no. 86. BARCZYCK, W. 1972. Some representatives of the family Pygopidae (Brachio- poda) from the Tithonian of the Pieniny Klippen Belt. Acta geol. polonica. vol. 22, pp. 507-513, pl. 1-4. BIRKENMASJER, K. 1963. Stratigraphy and palaeontology of the Czorsztyn Series (Pieniny Klippen Belt, Carpathians, Poland). Stud. geol. polonica. vol. 9, pp. 1-380. BRONN, H. G. 1849. Index Palaeontologicus, pp. 1059-1245. BRUGUIERE, J. G. 1792. Sur deux nouvelles espéces de térébratules fossiles. Choix des mémoires sur divers objets d’hist. nat. formant les collections du Journ. d’Hist. nat., vol. 1, pp. 419-427. 1797. Tableau et encyclopedie méthodique des trois régnes de la nature, vol. 2. BUCH, L. VON 1834. Uber Terebrateln. 124 pp., 3 pl., Abhandl. k. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin. 1838. Essai d’une classification et d’une déscription des terébratules. Mém. Soc. géol. France., vol. 3, pp. 105-238. BUCKMAN, S. S. 1906. Brachiopod homoeomorphy: Pygope, Antinomia, Pygites. Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., vol. 62, pp. 433-454, pl. 41. CALEMBERT, L. 1937. Sur la stratigraphie du massif de ’Ouarsenis. Ann. Soc. géol. Belg., vol. 60, pp. B208—B221. 1952. Etude geologique du massif culminant de l’Ouarsenis. Bull. Serv. Carte géol. Algérie., 2° ser., no. 23, pp. 1-184. CATULLO, T. A. 1827. Saggio di Zoologia Fossile, 348 pp., 8 pl., Dalla Tipografia del Seminaria. Padua. 1829. Sopra alcuni terreni adeguabili alla formazione di sedimento inferiore delle Provincie Austro-Venete, e sopra varie specie fossili trovate nel terreno di sedimento medio. Ann. di Storia nat., fasc. 3, pp. 297-318, pl. 5. Die. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 1841. Osservazioni geonostico-zoologiche. Nuovi Saggi della Acad. Sci. Lett. Arti., vol. 5 (for 1840), pp. 217-242, pls 1, 2. 1851. On the Epiolitic Rocks of the Venetian Alps. Quart. J. geol. Soc. London, vol. 7, pp. 66—76. CHRIST, H. A. 1960. Beitrage zur Stratigraphie und Palaontologie des Malm von Westsizilien. Schweiz. paldeont. Abh. vol. 77, pp. 1-141, 9 pl. COLUMNA, F. 1606. Minus Cognitarum Stirpium aliquot, ac etiam rariorum nostro coelo orientium. 340 pp. Rome. DALLONI, M. 1936. Matériaux pour l’étude géologique du Massif de l’Ouarsenis. Bull. Serv. Carte, géol. Algérie, 2° ser., no. 13, pp. 1-41. 1952. L’Atlas tellien occidental. 19th Int. geol. Cong., Mon reg., 1° ser., no. 24, pp. 1-99. DAVIDSON, T. 1850. Notes on an examination of Lamarck’s species of fossil Terebratulae. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (2), vol. 5, pp. 433-449. DESIO, A. ed. 1973. Geologia dell’Italia. 1081 pp. Unione Tipografico Editrice Torinese, Turin. FALLOT, P. 1931. Contribution a l’étude du Jarassique supérieur subbétique. Bol. r. Soc. esp. Hist. nat., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 113-132, 1 pl. 1934. Essais sur la repartition des terrains secondaires et tertiaires dans le domaine des Alpides espagnoles. Assoc. Et. Géol. Med. occid., vol. 4, no. 1, pt. 2, pp. 75-118. FULOP, J. 1964. A Bakonyhegyseg Also-Kreta (Berriazi-Apti) Kepzodmenyei. Geol. Hung., vol. 13, pp. 1-194, pl. 1-31. GERBER, M. 1930. Beitrage zur Stratigraphie der Jura-Kreidegrenze in der Zentralschweiz. Ec. Geol. Helv., vol. 23, pp. 497-547. GEYSSANT, J. 1966. Etude paléontologique des faunes du Jurassique supérieur de la zone prérifaine du Moyen Ouerrha. 1. Glossothyris et Pygope (Terebratulidae), essai de répartition de ces espéces dans le domaine méditerranéen. Notes Serv. Géol. Maroc., vol. 26, no. 188, pp. 75-98, pl. 1-3. GIGNOUX, M. 1955. Stratigraphic Geology (English ed.) W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. GLACON, J. 1952. Les Monts du Hodna. /9th Int. Geol. Cong., Mon. reg., 1° ser., no. 7, pp. 1-89. GOCANIN, M. 1938. Uber die fossilfiihrenden Schichten Kimmeridgien, Tithon, Valanginien und Hauterive aus der Umgebung von Beograd. Vesnik geol. Inst. Kralj. Jugoslavije, vol. 6, pp. 35-71, pls 1, 2. HOLDER, H. 1964. Jura: in F. Lotze ed. Handbuch der stratigraphischen Geologie, vol. 4, 603 pp. Ferdinand Enke Verlag., Stuttgart. JARRE, P. 1962. Révision du genre Pygope. Trav. Lab. Géol. Grenoble, vol. 38, pp. 23-120. KOTANSKI, Z. & RADWANSKI, A. 1959. Fauna z Pygope diphya i limburgity w tytonie wierchowym Osobitej. Acta. geol. polonica, vol. 9, pp. 519-534, pl. 53-56. LACOSTE, J. 1934. Etudes géologiques dans le Rif méridional. Notes et Mém. Serv. Mines et Géol. Maroc, no. 31, 660 pp., 36 pl. LAMARCK, J. DE 1819. Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertebres, vol. 6, pt. 1. J. B. Bailliére. Paris, London. MARCAIS, J. & LECKWIJCK, W. VAN. 1936. Sur des affleurements du Juras- sique supérieur dans le Rif oriental (Maroc). C. R. Soc. géol. France, 17/2/26, pp. 60-62. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 273 MUIR-WOOD, H. M. 1965. in Moore, R. C. ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleon- tology. pt. H (Brachiopoda). University of Kansas Press, New York. NEWMAN, E. 1844. Note on Duval’s fossil Terebratula. Zoologist, vol. 2, pp. 679-680. NOWAK, W. A. 1976. Parastomiosphaera malmica from the Polish Carpathians ... Roczn. Polsk. Tow. geol., vol. 46, pp. 89-134. PARKINSON, J. 1811. Organic Remains of a Former World, vol. 3, 455 pp., 22 pl. Sherwood, Neely and Jones. London. PICTET, F-J. 1867. Etude monographique des Térebratules du groupe de la Terebratula diphya. Mélanges paléontol., vol. 3, pp. 135-184, pl. 29-34. ROD, E. 1946. Uber ein Fossillager im oberen Malm der Melchtaleralpen. Ec. Geol. Hely., vol. 39, pp. 177-198, pls 13, 14. ROMAN, F. 1936. Le Tithonique du Massif de Djurdjura. Mat. Carte géol. Algérie, 1€ser., no. 7. pp. 1-43. TRAUTH, F. 1948. Die fazielle Ausbildung und Gliederung des Oberjura in den nordlichen Ostalpen. Verh. geol. Bundesanst., hefte 10-12, pp. 145-218, 1 pl. VOGEL, K. 1966. Eine funktionsmorphologische Studie an der Brachiopodengat- tung Pygope (Malm bis Unterkreide). N. Jb. Geol. Palaont. Abh., vol. 125, pp. 423-442, pls 38, 39. ZEJSZNER, L. 1846. New and little known genera of fossils from the Tatra Mountains, 32 pp., 4 pl., W. Drukarni Stanislawa Strabskiego. Warsaw. 274 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 DELPHINUS TRUNCATUS MONTAGU, 1821 (MAMMALIA, CETACEA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY SUPPRESSION OF DELPHINUS NESARNACK LACEPEDE, 1804. Z.N.(S.)2082 By Dale W. Rice (National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way, Bldg. 42, Seattle, Washington 98115, U.S.A.) The purpose of this application is to request the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name nesarnack Lacépéde, 1804, as published in the binomen Delphinus nesarnack (Hist. nat. cétacés, vol. 40, p. 307, pl. 15, fig. 2), and concomitantly to ensure that the specific name truncatus Montagu, 1821, as published in the binomen Delphinus truncatus (Mem. Wernerian nat. Hist. Soc., vol. 3, p. 75, pl. 3) is conserved. 2. The name Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821) has been in almost universal use for the North Atlantic bottlenose dolphin since 1903 (True, F. W. 1903. A note on the common bottlenose porpoise of the North Atlan- tic, Tursiops truncatus (Montagu) Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, pp. 313-314), and has been used in all of the numerous recent publications on this important species, including the following: Corbet, G. B. & Hill, J. E. 1980. A world list of mammalian species. London, British Museum (Natural History) Dailey, M. D. 1976. J. Wildl. Dis., vol. 12(1), pp. 45-51 Ellerman, J. R. & Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals. London, British Museum (Natural History) Fraser, F. C. 1974. Report on Cetacea stranded on British coasts from 1948 to 1966. London, British Museum (Natural History) Hershkovitz, P. 1966. Catalog of living whales. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Irvine, A. B., Scott, M. D., Wells, R. S. & Kaufman, J. H. 1981. Fishery Bull. natn. ocean. atmos. Adm., vol. 79(4), pp. 671-688 Lear, R. J. & Bryden, M. M. 1980. Aust. nat. Parks Wildl. Serv. Occas. Pap., vol. 4, pp. 1-25 Leatherwood, S. 1975. Mar. Fish. Rev., vol. 37(9), pp. 10-16 Leatherwood, S., Deerman, M. W. & Potter, C. W. 1978. Cetology, vol. 28, pp. 1-6 Lock, C. 1978. J. nat. Hist., vol. 12, pp. 513-528 Mitchell, E. 1975. Porpoise, dolphin and small whale fisheries of the world. Morges, LU.C.N. Purves, P. E. & van Bree, P. J. H. 1972. Beaufortia, vol. 20(260), pp. 15-21 Ross, G. J. B. 1977. Ann. Cape prov. Mus., vol. 11(9), pp. 135—194 Sargeant, D. E., Caldwell, D. K. & Caldwell, M. C. 1973. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., vol. 30, pp. 1009-1011 3. Hershkovitz (1961, Fieldiana Zool., vol. 39(49), p. 550) regards Delphinus nesarnack Lacépéde, 1804, as a senior subjective synonym of Delphinus truncatus. Therefore Hershkovitz (op. cit. and 1963, J. Mammal., vol. 44(1), pp. 98-103) employed the name Tursiops nesarnack Lacépéde, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 IS 1804 for the North Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. Later Hershkovitz (1966, U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull., vol. 246, pp. 52-55) treated truncatus as a nomen conservandum. E. R. Hall (1981, The Mammals of North America, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 886) is the only subsequent author who has used nesarnack. 4. The type specimen of Delphinus nesarnack was originally deposited at the Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort. Dr Daniel Robineau of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Centre National d’Etude des Mammifeéres) has written to say that no trace of it can be found at either institution. 5. Substitution of the name nesarnack for truncatus would upset long-standing nomenclatural stability and universality for this well known species, causing confusion. 6. For the reasons listed above I now request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature; (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name nesarnack Lacépéde, 1804, as published in the binomen Delphinus nesarnack, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name truncatus Montagu, 1821, as published in the binomen Delphinus truncatus, on the Official List of Speci- fic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name nesarnack Lacépéde, 1804, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 276 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Achterberg, C. van. Ansell, W.F.H. . Archbold, N.W. Baqri, Q.H. . Boucek, Z. . Boulard, M. . Bour, R Clark, W.E. . Cifelli, R.L. . Cowan, C.F. Crosby, T.K. . Crosskey, R.W. Currie, D.C. . Cutler, E.B. . Danzig, E.M. Dubois, A. : Duellman, W.E. Dupuis, C. Eisenmann, E. (deceased) Francke, O.F. Fricke, R. Gagne, R.J. . Heppell, D. . Holloway, J.D. Holthuis, L.B. . Jessop, L. Kerzhner, I.M. . Knutson, L.V. . Kuznetsov, V.I. ucassSiGeaee ynch; J.D: INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Page 268 Mayr, E. : . 240 136 Melville, R. V. (Secretary) 3, 6, 80 105 . . 125, 158, 163, 185, 205, 245, 250 Michener, C.D. 138 138 Middlemiss, F.A. . 267 151 Moore;IcE. (592 207 166 Mroczkowski, M. . 114, 116 198 Naumann, C.M. 13 . 45 Nelson, G. . 65 Soe 6 ) ; ee a Parkes, K.C. 240 86 Penrose,A. . . 119 1 Polhemus, J.T. . 108 162 Rehder, H.B. 159 101 Rice, D.W. . 274 198 Ride, W.D.L. . 152 122 Rowe, F.W.E. . 260 141 Rubtsoyv, I.A. . 83 aut Sabrosky, C.W. 152, 156, 186 97 Schoch, R.M. 94, 208 : 58 Siddigi, M.R. Ral | Sims, R.W. . > «1632254 149 Smith, H.M. 108, 132, 187 Soria, M.F. . . 56 = Stebnicka, Z. 265 “72 Stimson, A.F. 135 72, 152 Taylor,P.D. . ail 263 Thomas, G.A. . 105 Thompson, F.C. . 149 101, 110 Tremewan, W.G. . P78 149 Turner, J.R.G. . 43, 197 110 Whitehead, P.J.P. . . 65 . 94 Williams, E.E. . 132 122, 187 Wood,S.L. . 189 Opinion 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Oscinis plumigera Loew, 1860 (Insecta, Diptera): suppressed by use of the plenary powers. . . Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 (Aeneas: Salticidae): type species designated . . Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 (Amphibia, Salientia): type species designated . Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838 “(Aves, Muscicapidae): neotype designated . . Shite Sinema Simia leucophaeae F. Cuvier, 1807 (Mamndalicas Primates): suppression oftwoseniorsynonyms .........., METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda): a ruling to eliminate the homonymy. ; Ue Chrysomela flavicornis and ‘Chrysomela tibialis ‘Suffrian, 1851 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . ans Polynoe Savigny, 1818 (Annelida, Polychaeta): type species designated . Sciaena nibe Jordan & Thompson, 1911 (Pisces): specific name nibe conserved Anaspis, Luperus, Lampyris. and Crras (Insecta, Coleoptera): determination of authorship and fixation of type species . Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, pean peat neotype designated . Macrocephalites ‘Zittel, 1884 and Ammonites " macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): placed on the Official Lists . , Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Insecta, Plecoptera): conserved ; Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 and Prtenidium Erichson, 1845 yetiaks Coleoptera): conserved The generic name Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829 (Pisces): conserved Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Rafinesque, C.S., 1822 ‘On the turtles of the United States’: suppressed . ama eae Merle a. Acmaea_ limatula Carpenter, 1864 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved . . Ae 8 ks la oe a Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (Crustacea, Decapoda): designation of type species 18 We Wiehe Asa ches’ SMR tape LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] given nomenclatural precedence over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Peggischisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (Hemiptera, Heteroptera): designa- tion of type species . Barbus altianalis Boulenger, 1900 and Barbus rueppelli Boulenger, 1902 (Pisces, Cyprinidae): conserved ; Chermes fusca ;Zetterstedt, 1828 (Insecta, Homoptera): conserved Sesia andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Gonsenved! Aimaay | a), hts ka. ee San Oin Wl dot, oe tens 277 Page 212 218 221 223 225 227 231 233 235 238 278 Direction 114 115 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Herrera, 1899, ‘Sinonimia vulgar y cientifica de los principales vertebrados mexicanos’, (Mexico Officina Tipografia de la Secretaria de Fomento) placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology (Direction supplementary to Direction 32). . MEROPIDAE (Aves): attributed to Rafinesque, 1815 (Correction to Entry No 1 in the Official List of He ee aa Names in Zoology) : ; 39 41 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 279 NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 41 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology altianalis, Barbus, Boulenger, 1900 andrenaeformis, Sesia, Laspeyres, 1801 antiqua, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 apiarius, Attelabus, Linnaeus, 1758 caesum, Ptilium, Erichson, 1845 consanguinea, Davila, Distant, 1893 dorsalis, Corixa, Leach, 1817 duodecimguttata, Chrysomela, Thunberg, 1787 flavicornis, Chrysomela, Suffrian, 1851 flavipes, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1767 formicina, Chirothecia, Taczanowski, 1879 frontalis, Mordella, Linnaeus, 1758 fusca, Psylla, Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 fusca, Chermes, Zetterstedt, 1828 herbstii, Panopeus, H. Milne Edwards, 1834 limatula, Acmaea, Carpenter, 1864 longus, Calanus, Lubbock, 1854 macrocephalus, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1813 marginata, Semblis, Panzer, 1799 Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Anaspis Geoffroy, 1762 Anisarthria Stephens, 1830 Atechna Chevrolat, 1837 Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 Chrysomela Linnaeus, 1758 Clerus Geoffroy, 1762 Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 Dasychira Hubner, [1809] Lampyris Geoffroy, 1762 Luperus Geoffroy, 1762 Lymantria Hubner, [1819] maxima, Phryganea, Scopoli, 1763 melas, Dermestes, Marsham, 1802 moluccensis, Microhyla, var. of achatina, Peters & Doria, 1878 monacha, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 mutillarius, Clerus, Fabricius, 1775 nibe, Sciaena, Jordan & Thompson, 1911 noctiluca, Cantharis, Linnaeus, 1758 peckhami, Bellota, Galiano, 1978 populi, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 pusillum, Scaphidium, Gyllenhal, 1808 rueppelli, Barbus, Boulenger, 1902 ruficauda, Muscicapa, Swainson, 1838 scolopendrina, Polynoe, Savigny, 1822 senilis, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1761 staphylaea, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 striata, Notonecta, Linnaeus, 1758 tephra, Dasychira, Hubner, [1809] tibialis, Chrysomela, Suffrian, 1851 typus, Rhiniodon, A. Smith, 1828 unicolor, Cyornis, Blyth, 1843 verrucosa, Sphenophryne, Boulenger, 1898 vitripennis, Perla, Burmeister, 1839 Marthamea Klapalek, 1907 Metridia Boeck, 1865 Metridium Blainville, 1824 Oreophryne Boettger, 1895 Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810 Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 Polynoe Savigny, 1818 Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829 Trichodes Herbst, 1792 280 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 MEROPIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 METRIDINIDAE Sars, 1902 LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson [1893] METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 RHINCODONTIDAE Miller & Henle, 1841 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology anthraciniformis, Sphinx, Esper, 1798 plumigera, Oscinis, Loew, 1860 brunneolus, Pseudotolithus, Jordan & rueppellii, Labeo, Pfeffer, 1896 Richardson, 1909 silvestris, Simia, Schreber, [1800] flavicornis, Chrysomela, Fabricius, sylvestris, Simia, Link, 1795 1787 tibialis, Chrysomela, Duftschmid mamillata, Patella, Reeve, 1855 1825 marginata, Semblis, Fabricius, 1793 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Laria Schrank, 1802 Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810 Rhiniodon A. Smith, 1828 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology LARIIDAE Newman, 1832 LIPARIDAE Boisduval, 1834 METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology A. L. Herrera Sinonimia vulgar y cientifica de los principales vertebrados mexicanos (Mexico, Officina Tipografia de la Secretaria de Fomento, 31 pp.) 1899. C. S. Rafinesque On the turtles of the United States, (Kentucky Gazette, (n.s.1), vol. 36, no. 21, 23 May, 1822). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 INDEX TO KEY NAMES achatina var. moluccensis, ‘npn Peters & Doria, 1878 Opinion 1266). . ADIANTHIDAE Ameghino, 1891. Allerya Morch, 1877. : alphaeus, Papilio, Cramer, [1777] bo We altianalis, Barbus, Boulenger, 1900 (Opinion 1285). Alyattes Kinberg 1867 . . : Anaspis Geoffroy, 1762 (Opinion 1273) Son andrenaeformis, Sesia, Laspeyres, 1801 (Opinion 1287) Anisarthria Stephens, 1830 : Anolis Daudin,1802. . anthraciniformis, Sphinx, Esper, 1798 (Opinion 1287) . anthyllidis, Lycastes, Hubner, [1819] anthyllidis,Zygaena, Boisduval, [1828]. . st ae antiqua, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1283) : Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840 . . ; : apiarius,Attelabus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1273) : apii, Alysia, Curtis, 1826 . . . : APISTINI Ganglbauer, 1899. . . armata, Metridia, Boeck, 1865 (Opinion 1269) Astacilla Cordiner, 1793. . Atechna Chevrolat, 1837 (Opinion 1279) . bahiensis, Pellonula, Steindachner, 1879 . . . . Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 (Opinion ae bergstraesserella, Tinea, Fabricius, 1781 bilineatus, Polygnatus, Roundy, 1926 . . . boreale, Cardium, Broderip & Sowerby, 1829 . . brevis crassus, Democricetodon, Freudenthal, 1969 . Brondelia Bourguignat, 1862 . a laZ,; WN ae ces ae brunneolus, Pseudotolithus, Jordan & Richardson, 1909 (Opinion 27D) os Wee Sheath teak Siar bucatus, Adianthus, Ameghino, 1891 bullaris, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758. : CAECILIAIDAE (ex CAECILIADAE) Gray, 1825 ; CAECILIIDAE (ex CAECILIINI) Kolbe, 1880 caesum, Ptilium, Erichson, 1845 (Opinion 1277) californiense, Cardium, Deshayes, 1839 Callitroga Brauer, 1883 . . candidum, Didemnum, Savigny, 1816 Capys Hewitson, 1865 . carolinensis, Anolis, Voigt, 1832 . catulloi, Terebratula, Pictet, 1867 F chlorographa,Leptosia, Hibner, 1818 . Choerodes Leidy, 1852 . : Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 . 56, 2 109, 119, 281 282 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Opinion 1279 Chrysomela Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion aa Cicada Linnaeus, 1758. . ais CICADIDAE Berthold, 1827 CICADINAE Berthold, 1827 ciliatum, Cardium, Fabricius, 1780 . cinerascens, Curculio, Marsham, 1802 . Clerus Geoffroy, 1762 (Opinion 1273) . Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915. complanatus, Lumbricus, Dugés, 1828 . cor, Terebratula, Bruguiére, 1792. Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 (Opinion 1266) See: consanguinea, Davila, Distant, 1893 prise aoe corollana, Tortrix, Hubner, 1823. . crassicaudatus, Galago, E. Geoffroy, 1812. crassus, Democricetodon, Freudenthal, 1969 . Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855. . . cumanense, Siphonosoma, Keferstein, 1867 Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 . . Dasychira Hubner, [1809] (Opinion 1283). ' DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (Opinion 1283) . deltoidea, Terebratula, Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819 Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964 . . dianthus, Actinia, Ellis, 1768 (Opinion 1269) Didemnum Savigny, 1816 . 4 p diphya, Terebratula, von Buch, 1834 Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859. . . dorsalis, Corixa, Leach, 1817 (Opinion 1274) Drymus Fieber, 1860 . . . duodecimguttata, Chrysomela Thunberg, 1787 (Opinion 1279) ; edule, Siphonosoma, (Pallas, 1774) . edulis, Lumbricus, Pallas, 1774 erato, Heliconius, Aurivillius, 1882 . erato, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758 . . EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854 Eudocimus Wagler, 1832 filamentosus, Callionymus, Valenciennes, 1837 . . flavicornis, Chrysomela, Fabricius, 1787 (Opinion 1270) . flavicornis, Chrysomela, Suffrian, 1851 (Opinion 1270) flavipes, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1273) . foetidus, Scarabaeus, Herbst,1782 . . . formicina, Chirothecia, Taczanowski, 1879 (Opinion 1265) frontalis, Mordella, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1273). fulgens, Leptoclinum, Milne Edwards, 1841 . . . fusca, Chermes, Zetterstedt, 1828 (Opinion 1286) . . . fusca, Psylla, Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 eo Ke fuscirostris, Curculio, Paykull, 1792 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 283 Paeala lestudovscnoeplivivon. << (Uris wale eel: sar, 199 oy F HIPTERIGIDAE Stainton, 1854 20 2. erie, 253 Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] . . . lhc wae Saghs seks we 250 GLYPHIPTERYGIDAE Stainton, 1854. 2) a ER ee A ies 251 Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827. . . . Pate t ye OS uk Wee Lee, “£8 or 250 keen PIOGOMEAANGAY WSS3. a! me ss Sn eA a 53 PeeNnaa LauGdn Loaner as, Ss 3 He MM Pe) Tol 53 SeOMmES CANE 1o5GGts? Motegi ee!) Obie coped, 205 SRT EINER S tae ewer ees ye! as). Se) eR 80 GOERIDAE Ulmer, 1903. . SE BIIUCIY OR eee falls 80 griseus, Hypothenemus, Blackburn, 1885 Sep TERS) CH Vie 189 Pussont, Ancylus, ©) GA€ostayo29.| Mes os Rhee iat 159 naematodes, Cicada, Scopou, 1763. *. 12) SB 0) ees 166 Hellichiella Rivosecchi & Cardinali, 1978. . . Pn; 83 herbstii, Panopeus, H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (Opinion 1282). Bd nal 225 imErustans,-Diastopora d Orbipny, 185048 2s 2! ON eee ee. Wh maaaorylaunus Ali & Prabha, 1974.) 44 os OM ee). 137 ape yrnalus, Fichbont, (8)2).- 5-5 |) afer OMS cans) 189 Wanton MerepratulaPictet S075.) aa) ae tt ee +. ia 267 PmnOs hee NIDA Gray 1669 As etn eS. Adm ol a 199 Kinosternon Spix, 1824. . . . ye ane sali kel ak Ae 199 kumpani, Brachythyris, Yanischevsky, 1905 Areca. t h aseri's ge 105 Peery a eaten, bs ts es ee be Helos 122 lactea, Hyla, Daudin, 1803. eT. RE Fe 122 Lampyris Geoffroy, 1762 (Opinion 1273) . Resets | SIP eI 28 Laria Schrank, 1802 (Opinion 1283) . Al aan as ae 228 LARIIDAE Newman, 1832 Swe 1283) Rete) bh i AA 228 LaspeyresiaR.L.,1817. . . ee ee En i 110 Laspeyresia Hiibner [1825] Be Sah sR Lads ER eS Wey 110 Deen Auracroccrameipen: 1804558. 28) gobo. te hes 83, 211 Penrociinum Milne Edwards, 1841... 2 2. neler ahs 260 LeptosiaHubner, 1818. . . . REE Ry ky 5 Re poe eee ee 259 LEUCASPIDINAE Atkinson, 1886. 2h 3" SRE OE Se 102 PeNpReEUINCINeEr LSISt a we A ee 101 Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 . . . . Pp Pe} See 101 leucophaea, Simia, F. Cuvier, 1807 (Opinion 1268) . Ah 17 liberiensis, Hippopotamus, Morton, 1849 . . hae, Ses 94 limatula, Acmaea, Carpenter, 1864 (Opinion 1281). 2; SOV t oie 223 limpidus, Centrurus, Karsch,1879 . . . . ete visa tin et. OF linneella, Phalaena, Clerck, 1759. Paes hs (iW eeaestys 250 LIPARIDAE Boisduval, 1834 (Opinion 1283) . mt LAs eal, 228 Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810 (Opinion 1283). . . . .... . 228 listerianum, Leptoclinum, Milne Edwards, 1841. . . . . . .. 260 longicaudatum, Kinosternon, Spix, 1824. ae 2h hehe tba 202 longus, Calanus, Lubbock, 1854 (Opinion 1269) Sees eg? SSA 19 Luperus Geoffroy, 1762 (Opinion 1273) aa. cys, tae Ci Seba 28 284 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 Lymantria Hiibner, [1819] (Opinion 1283) . . LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] ee 1283). Lyristes Horvath, 1926. . ; LYRISTINAE Gomez!Menor. 1957 macellaria, Musca, Fabricius,1775. . . Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 (Opinion 1275) . macrocephalus, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1813 (Opinion 1 1275) ; maculata, Rana, Brocchi, 1877 . . mamillata, Patella, Reeve, 1855 (Opinion 1281). mangiferae, Hypocryphalus, (Stebbing, 1914) . . marginata, Semblis, Fabricius, 1793 (Opinion 1276) marginata, Semblis, Panzer, 1799 (Opinion 1276) Marthamea Klapalek, 1907 (Opinion 1276) . . . maxima, Phryganea, Scopoli, 1763 (Opinion goin Megilla Fabricius, 1805. melas, Dermestes, Marsham, 1802 (Opinion 1277) . MEROPIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Direction 115) METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (Opinion 1269) METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Opinion 1269) . METRIDINIDAE Sars, 1902 (Opinion 1269) Metridium Blainville,1824 (Opinion1269). . minus [sic], Cricetodon, Lartet, 1851 . . monacha, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1283) murinus, Byrrhus, Fabricius,1794 . . mutillarius, Clerus, Fabricius, 1775 (Opinion 1273) nesarnack, Delphinus, Lacepéde, 1804 . nibe, Sciaena, Jordan & Thompson, 1911 (Opinion 1272) noctiluca, Cantharis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1273) . Octolasia Rosa, 1893. Octolasion Orley, 1885 . Octolasion (Incolore) Omodeo, 1952 ‘ Octolasion (Octodrilus ) Omodeo, 1956 Octolasion ( Purpureum) Omodeo, 1952 Octolasium Michaelsen, 1900. odorata, Testudo, Latreille, 1801. . olivaceus, Centrurus,Thorell, 1877 . . Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810 (Opinion 1283) . s ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 (Opinion Ar ornatus, Centruroides, Pocock, 1902 orni, Cicada, Linnaeus, 1758 . panope, Cancer, Herbst, 1801 (Opinion 1282) . . Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (Opinion 1282) . peckhami, Bellota, Galiano, 1978 (Opinion 1265) Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (Opinion ee Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830. . . . s PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868 Pelusios Wagler, 1830 . : Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 285 Beroitlerricn-schatietr, Ooo... 4 es .sih alee Re eet. ones 72 PICIFOSITIS GULCUNO AR ADIICIUS) L787. 5.1 oa) 3 2g. th ek ee 45 MicirasirissMiccotropus, schonherr, 1825 ..... eee ee ee: 45 MIITOSINIS. TYCHIES, WA DNIGIUS, LTS 7) =. Awtarttiog ey LE 45 ucas PErepraliaBEOeMere, L792 62) oe ne) sta es SU, 267 HIDES APIS. ADTICIUS ML Ocs) (kt Pees Se} MED BPO 139 muasayPAnyeaneauk auricius:dy/7 5) ~.. <. 0c) Se je TAO. a 80 INTE ASPICIOLUS: TATE PL SS On rs dass ell yay « Ohl ae team ae whe 101 Platalea Linnaeus, 1758 . . Rime PS SS LN EOE aR 240 PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838 Shem PARSE? OY tae, a 240 MeoLejazCicnga: SCOPOMs WiGSi xt 28) 2) Ao) ees) ap 7.) sla eryeene te 163 PLEGADIDAE Mathews, 1913. . 1iN8.+| oe aan age 241 plumigera, Oscinis, Loew, 1860 (Opinion 1264) . Ah OC's SR 8 Polynoe Savigny, 1818 (Opinion 1271). . . . ship Oy oka 24 populi, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 ag Ete 1279) 50s: | Sa Ae es 218 Porcinolus Mulsant & Ray, 1869. . . . te AE ee 114 ipsylla Geonroy,762)(Opinion 1286). tans 4 oe: 235 Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 (Opinion 1277). . . . . . . . .. 212 Pailum Gylienhal, 1827 (Opinion 1277) . : 2... a ee 212 pumilio,Bracon, Nees, 1834 . . 23 Mae 53 pusillum, Scaphidium, Gyllenhal, 1808 (Opinion 1277) BOLE GP he 212 Reptomultisparsa d@’Orbigny, 1853 . . ie ae Cay Te 77 Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829 (Opinion 1278). ies Ah 215 RHINCODONTIDAE Miller & Henle, 1841 (Opinion 1278) eat 215 Rhiniodon A. Smith, 1828 (Opinion 1278). . . . 3) RAO 215 REHOPALOCERINI Reitter 1911 sere Os) Se Sek ee 116 Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842... ........ 116 richmondi, Eleutherodactylus, Stejneger,1904 . . . . . 2... 185 rondanii, Monotoma?, A. Villa& J.B. Villa, 1833. . . . .. . 116 rubidus, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792. . . Bb ot ORS: 114 rueppelli, Barbus, Boulenger, 1902 (Opinion 1285) . SRE, BOR 233 rueppellii, Labeo, Pfeffer, 1896(Opinion 1285) . . . .... . 233 rufa, Aegialia,Fabricius,1792 . . es a ene 265 ruficauda, Muscicapa, Swainson, 1838 (Opinion 1267) Le Tiel 59h ils) rufus, Aphodius, Moll,1782 . . . Sen pe a 265 Bojuss Scarapacus, MOUMl782) 1... te ..-. Sake) See ae 265 Fusus. SCarapaeus /babriciissl/92 ue wee. ee ee oP ee 265 nyc, Drymus, Douglas & Scott, 1865. 2. 2.. . > . sh. 263 sagitta, Callionymus, Pallas,1770 . . . eee es ee 58 scolopendrina, Polynoe, Savigny, 1822 (Opinion wan) Ke See 24 Scoptes Hiibner, [1819] . . . go RE 119, 197 scybalarius, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781 PY et eee ee iw aes. loa 266 scybalarius, Aphodius, Fabricius, 1792. . Shween ee 265 senckenbergiana, Oreophryne, Boettger, 1895 (Opinion 1266) wha £ 12 senilis, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1761 (Opinion 1269). . . . ae 19 silvestris, Simia, Schreber, [1800] Ey ae coal te e® Se ee eee 17 Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837 . . . ee te eee 116 Sphaenorhynchus Tschudi, 1838. . stile 122 staphylaea, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1279) . Sree teh vs 218 286 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 stephensi, Tychius, Schonherr, 1836. STERNOTHAERINA Bell, 1825 . Sternothaerus Bell, 1825 Sternothaerus Brown, 1908 Sternotherus Gray, 1825 striata, Notonecta, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1274) . subexcisum, Simulium, Edwards, 1915 . subnigra, Testudo, Lacépeéde, 1788 . . sylvaticus ryeii, Drymus, Douglas & Scott, 1865. sylvestris, Simia, Link, 1795 (Opinion 1268) . tephra,Dasychira, Hubner, [1809] (Opinion 1283) . terrestris var. lacteus, Lumbricus, Orley, 1881 texanus, Gnathodus, Roundy, 1926 . Threskiornis Gray, 1842 ; THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917, : tibialis, Chrysomela, Duftschmid, 1825 (Opinion 1270) tibialis, Chrysomela, Suffrian, 1851 ae sa tibicen, Cicada, Linnaeus, 1758 . . Tibicen Berthold, 1827. . : TIBICENINAE Van Duzee, 1916 ; Tibicina Amyot, 1847 . . . TIBICININAE Distant, 1905 . . tomentosus, Curculio, Herbst, 1795 . Tomiopsis Cope, 1893 . . Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956. : : triangulus, Terebratula, Valenciennes in Lamarck, 1819 ; Trichodes Herbst, 1792 (Opinion 1273). TRICHOSTOMATIDAE Rambur, 1842 truncatus, Delphinus, Montagu, 1821 truncatus, Tursiops, (Montagu, 1821) . . typus, Rhiniodon, A. Smith, 1828 (Opinion 1278) undulatus, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792. . unicolor, Cyornis, Blyth, 1843 (Opinion 1267) vernum, Simulium, Macquart, 1826. . . . verrucosa, Sphenophryne, Boulenger, 1898 (Opinion 1266) vesta, Papilio,Cramer,1775 . . A vitripennis, Perla, Burmeister, 1839 (Opinion 1276) wickeni, Thornenema, Yeates, 1970 . Williamia Monterosato, 1884 Bull: zool. Nom., vol. 41, pt 4, November 1984 287 Vol. 40, part 4 page 244, line 4 Vol. 41, part 1 page 24, line 6 Vol. 41, part 2 page 110, lines 6 and 7 Vol. 41, part 3 page 159, line 24 and page 160, line 16 CORRIGENDA after ‘Euphaedra alone’ insert ‘in the systematic checklist of Carcasson, 1981, page 166’ for ‘Polynoe scolopendrina Savigny, 1812’ read ‘Polynoe scolopendrina Savigny, 1822’ To read: ‘Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825], p. 381 (type species Tortrix corollana Hubner, 1823, pl. 45, by subsequent designation by Fernald. . .)’ for ‘“ENODONTIDAE’ read ‘ENDO- DONTIDAE’ PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Part No. aWNe Contents of Part (pages ) 1-66 67-128 129-190 191-288 Date of Publication 29 March 1984 29 June 1984 23 August 1984 30 November 1984 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: T.P. I-VI, 1-288 Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be bound in at the end of the volume. : ¥ i F 5 0 1D " . ? vi JF Le i ; be JAE Asa ra rah ; ‘v eh ‘ er ims x : P b i eis ‘aw , bt i ry : sae ge e Re | ’ OF, Be Lae) . ey roe | Shai " eer ¥ ey $e ats i ae ™ ia hy, : €: Sy MWeh*, pak LRN iit» LY Pia wiee! a as Cricetodon minus [sic] Lartet, 1851 (Mammalia, Rodentia). The Secre- tary. . Sia 245 Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). The Secretary. ate 250 Octolasion Orley, 1885; Octolasion (Octodrilus) Omodeo, 1956; Octolasion (Incolore) Omodeo, 1952 and Octolasion (Purpureum) Omodeo, 1952 (Annelida, Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). R.W. Sims . 254 Leptosia Hiibner, 1818 (Insecta, Lepidoptera).C.F.Cowan. . 259 Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859; Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841 (Ascidiacea). F.W.E.Rowe . . 260 Drymus ryeii Douglas and Scott, 1865 (Hemiptera, Lygaeidae). L. Jessop 263 Aphodius rufus Moll, 1782; Aegialia rufa Fabricius, 1792 & Aphodius scybalarius Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera), Z.Stebnicka. . 265 PYGOPIDAE (Brachiopoda). F.A. Middlemiss . . 267 Delphinus truncatus Montagu, 1821; Delphinus nesarnack Lacépéde, 1804 (Mammalia, Cetacea).D.W.Rice. . . . 274 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 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications ane in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commiseon on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases (c) Receipt of new applications . heats an a phe Financial Report for 1983 . International Code of Zoological Nistassiclehuiea, Third Baition Comments On the proposed conservation of Capys Hewitson, 1865. C.F. Cowan Corrections to the application concerning Heliconius erato Aurivillius, 1882. J.R.G. Turner . : On the application concerning Sternotherus Gray, 1825 and Pelusios Wagler, 1830. R. Bourand A. Dubois . On Gnathodus Pander, 1856 and proposal that Polygnatus bilineatus Roundy, 1926 be the type species. The Secretary. . . On CAECILIIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera). T. E. Moore. On Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891.R.M.Schoch. . . On Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804. D.C. Curry; T.K. Craaliy. Opinions Opinion 1277. Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 and Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera). . i asl Ate ee Opinion 1278. Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829 (Pisces) i Opinion 1279. Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Opinion 1280. Rafinesque, C.S., 1822, ‘On the turtles of the United States’: suppressed < Opinion 1281. Acmaea limatula Carpenter, 1864 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) Opinion 1282. Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Opinion 1283. LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] precedence over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren 1861, and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . Opinion 1284. Peggischisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (Hemiptera, Heteroptera). Opinion 1285. Barbus altianalis Boulenger, 1900 and Barbus rueppelli Boulenger, 1902 (Pisces, Cyprinidae) . , Opinion 1286. Chermes fusca Zetterstedt, 1828 (Insecta, Homoptera). Opinion 1287. Sesia sighs catabets pease 1801 ene nee tera) . aoa New and revived cases THRESKIORNITHAE Richmond, 1917 and PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838 reat Eisenmann eee E. pipet Cc. Parkes Page 240 G seal on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset ¥ Fett shee ee Ny eeu! aie He