; SM beds ate Tbe }}} f Hi} i . Ni Peat ta Hit POG \ eA Pts iim _ . { v ae iH] NK 5) %& atl P< yt . 2 ts sy ont | 3 ™ em) 4 4 ‘ - Ad Ta) 2 Sag oe HO vt | “ye MHOSsiiwroo JAMONTAMR y cad ano, eae oe aM usOv Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of sities Special Announcements . : Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia). A. F. Stimson . . Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), W. Speidel. ) Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). R. W. Hodges; W. E. Miller; J. D. Bradley, W. G. Tremewan, K. Tuck & C. J. Hamilton. . ‘ Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, 1828 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Secretary On the proposed amendment to Article 51c of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. J. C. Cokendolpher, O. F. Francke & D. Quintero Jn.. On the proposed amendment to Article 0b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. C. W. Wright : Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Pisces, Siluriformes).W.R.Taylor . . Opinion 1288. Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Opinion 1289. Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Mammalia, Cetacea) Opinion 1290. Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Opinion 1291. Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 (Mammalia) Opinion 1292. Voluta papilio Link, 1807 (Gastropoda) Opinion 1293. Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793 (insect, Hymen- optera). .-.. Opinion 1294. Fea ide Quatrefages, 1841 " (Coelenterata, Actiniaria) Opinion 1295. Actinia Ligiaene 1767, ACTINIIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria) and Pentacta rebdgiat 1820 (Echinodermata, Holothurioidea). . Opinion 1296. Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Bivalvia) . Opinion 1297. Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . Direction 116. PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, [1802] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . Direction 117. Correction of Entry No. 462 in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology concerning Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). (Correction to Opinion 94). . Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, 1855 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Vermetidae). A. Myra Keen & M. G. Hadfield . Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte (Aves). M. D. Bruce, D. T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault . Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari). R. A. Norton . Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea, Copepoda). J. B. Jones . 3 Description of new taxa based on enzyme data. J. E. Jelnes; R. Fortuner. Authorship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral enon of Great Britain. C. W. Wright & R.J.Cleevely . . Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda). The Secretary Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda). The Secretary Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 (Cestoda) The Secretary. . Homonymy in the families HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) and HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 naan: midccntiw J. G.M. Raven. 5 : Mirko. , shy’: Ill IV Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 Argyrodes Simon, 1864 and Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 (Arachnida, Araneae).H.W.Levi . . Olpium L. Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida, Olpiidae). M. S. Harvey & V. Mahnert : Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia, Sauria). W. R. Branch & D. i Broadley. . city Erigone Audouin, 1826 (Arthropoda, Araneae). A. F. Millidge . Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera). J.E.O’Hara . Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements . Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). G. Cc. D. Griffiths: R. Wharton; C. van Achterberg Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia). 'R. i” Cifelli: M. F. Sorias, Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (nsecta, Diptera, Simuliidae). I. M. Kerzhner; H. Zwick; J. E. Raastad; R. W. Crosskey. . Proposal to amend Article 70 of the Code. J. R. Vockeroth; K. ec A. Hamilton. . . ‘ or Opinion 1298. Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (Acarina) we! Opinion 1299. Athyreus Macleay, 1819 and Glyptus Brulle, 1835 Insecta, Coleoptera). . 4 Opinion 1300. TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria) Opinion 1301. Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda) Opinion 1302. Nabis ee Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nabidae). . . Opinion 1303. Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 and Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Homoptera). . . Opinion 1304. Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 and Isis ochra- cea Linnaeus, 1758 (Coelenterata, Anthozoa) . Opinion 1305. Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 and Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). . . Opinion 1306. Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 and Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . . Opinion 1307. Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera). . ’ Opinion 1308. Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Opinion 1309. Geoemyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys ee 1835 (Reptilia, Testudines). Opinion 1310. Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera) . Opinion 1311. Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and Krizousacorixa Hunger ford, 1930 (Insecta, Heteroptera). . : Opinion 1312. Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Opinion 1313. Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792 and Emys cataspila, Gunther, 1885 (Reptilia, Testudines). . 3 Opinion 1314. Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallen, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera). ; Opinion 1315. Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852 and Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). . . Opinion 1316. Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928 (Foraminifera) . Opinion 1317. Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Insecta, Protodonata) . . Opinion 1318. Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 and Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia) (correction of ruling given in Opinion 92) . 5 ae Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 Opinion 1319. Nomioides Schenck, 1866 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . Opinion 1320. Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 and Manatus bomen Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883 (Mammalia, Sirenia) Opinion 1321. EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 and HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera) . . Opinion 1322. Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799, non Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . Opinion 1323. Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Opinion 1324. Diademodon Seeley, 1894 and Cynochampsa Owen, 1859 (Reptilia, Therapsida) . . Opinion 1325. Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 (Insecta, ‘Hemiptera, Heterop- tera)’ . © Opinion 1326. Cimex guadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemip- tera, Heteroptera). . : Opinion 1327. Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (Insecta, Trichoptera) Direction 118. ARGYNNIDAE, APATURIDAE and LIMENITIDINAE (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (corrections to entries in Official List) . Rhabditis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] (Nematoda). The Secretary. : Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). The Secretary. Southernia Allgen, 1929 and Southernia Filipjev, 1927. The Secretary . Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola): proposed con- servation by suppression of Entomobrya cavicola Banks, 1897. P.F. Bellinger . . Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements . On proposed amendment to Article 5c of the Code. B. C. Ratcliffe: ik R. Vockeroth; R. W. Crosskey and others. . Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926. K. G. A. Hamilton; M. Boulard; P.Lauterer. . . : Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870. D. Rosen xr : Chromis Cuvier, 1814 (Osteichthyes). S. O. Kullander; A. R. Emery : HOLOTHUROIDEA. L. B. Holthuis .. = hte Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825]. J. D. Bradley & K. Sattler : CAECILIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta. M. H. Wake. Opinion 1328. Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Coleoidea) . Opinion 1329. Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 Vote Galigidae) rt : Opinion 1330. Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (Nematoda) . ; Opinion 1331. SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (Mollusca, Bivalvia) and MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Opinion 1332. Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and Calamoecia australis (Searle, 1911) (Crustacea, Copepoda) . . Opinion 1333. Ipnops murrayi Ginther, 1878 (Ostiechthyes). Opinion 1334. Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 (Coleoptera) . Opinion 1335. Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Opinion 1336. Five specific names proposed for Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 (Aschelminthes, Nematoda) by B. A. Cooper, 1955 . Opinion 1337. Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977 as type species of Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida) . . Opinion 1338. Thrips rufus Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). Opinion 1339. Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . VI Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 Opinion 1340. Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Arachnida, Araneae). Opinion 1341. Simulium amazonicum Goeldi (Insecta, Diptera). Opinion 1342. Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1343. Kinosternon alamosae Berry & Legler, 1980 and Kinosternon oaxacae, Berry & Iverson, 1980 (Reptilia, Testudines . Opinion 1344. Mayorella Schaeffer, "1926 given nomenclatural pre- cedence over Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880 (Rhizopoda, Amoebida) . . Sa Pe Peep eps eh Opinion 1345. Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758 and Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856 (Coelenterata, Hydroida) , Opinion 1346. Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere crispata Brady, 1868 and Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 Cee Ostracoda) . . Opinion 1347. Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera) . Opinion 1348. Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) . Opinion 1349. Antilope depressicornis H. Smith, 1827 and Anoa HEN Ouwens, 1910 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) . . . Opinion 1350. Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) . Opinion 1351. Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Opinion 1352. Eurhinus Sch6énherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): a i fied emendation of Eurhin Illiger, 1807 . . ‘ Opinion 1353. Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Hemiptera) . ; Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Berytidae). W. R. Dolling Thylacites Germar, 1817; Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823; Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823 and Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 Insecta, Coleoptera). A. T. Howden. Stenoderma tolteca Saussure, 1860 (Mammalia, Chiroptera). i “de RoguinandC. Weber . . Neodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Crustacea, Decapoda). ir B. Holthuis and R. B. Manning : F Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria). R. Ww. Seaton. Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Special Announcements 2 eee: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: General Meeting, Budapest, 2-6 September, 1985 Financial Report for 1984 . ; Comment on proposed amendment of Article Tb of Code. Ww. ‘Dz > RIdewaan. erage Opinion 1354. Agrotis redimicula Morrison, 1874 (Lepidoptera) Opinion 1355. Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 (Brachiopoda) . Opinion 1356. Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Crustacea, Copepoda) Opinion 1357. ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 and ANUROPODIDAE Stebbing, 1893 (Crustacea). . ihe Opinion 1358. Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Hemiptera) . Opinion 1359. UROPLAT- as the stem of family- -group | names in Reptilia, Sauria and Insecta, Coleoptera Opinion 1360. Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemiptera) . 269 271 274 277 279 281 283 285 287 291 293 296 302 304 306 311 312 313 323 327 330 332 335 338 341 344 347 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 Opinion 1361. Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaeffer, 1839 and Phalaena posticata Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . Opinion 1362. Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805 and Phalaena hirtata Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Opinion 1363. Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . Opinion 1364. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia, Anura) . Opinion 1365. Allygus Fieber, 1872 (Insecta, Homoptera) . . Opinion 1366. Mactra sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . Opinion 1367. Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Opinion 1368. Pan and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia, Carnivora) Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes). A.R. McCune. . . Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Cephalopholis sexmaculata (Rtippell, 1830) (Osteichthyes, Serranidae). J. E. Randall, M. L. Bauchot, A. Ben-Tuvia & P. C. Heemstra Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita). P. D. Lane . Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 and Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). D. J. Brothers & L. A. Mound : HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 and HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta). M.C. Day . 3 Request for ruling that French theses submitted for Docteur du Troisiéme Cycle are not published. G. C. Hewitt & V. Rousset . ‘ THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae). P. T. Lehtinen Drasterius bimaculatus (Rossi, 1790) (Insecta, See: Blateridae). M. Mroczkowski . . Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera). ED P. Nartshuk & R. Rozkosny . . Musca trilineata Linnaeus, ‘1767 (Insecta, Diptera). E: 'P. Nartshuk & R. Rozkosny : he Family names for the storm petrels and dippers. ig V. Melville. Index to Authors . father. List of Decisions in this volume : Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in . Decisions published i in this volume Index to Key Names. Corrigenda. . : Particulars of the dates of ‘publication of the several parts i in which the present volume was published . Instructions to Binder . Vil has nee cal od a Boe ile jtatiallvess 2p xt eg oo ie as sree. en a f ‘y r mda =) € = } x e 4 ~ ears . ° as a 4 s Z —* Sealy eas Wal 7. a ere wail, - (sii x Pek. 2 ieee fatal ee , is he . ' atti: pS nd A it ed eG ’ : — . (gattcinpae’ Shs is dBi is 4 . ; n 1 ’ . ’ , u ¢ vind i 4 * -, o — ry t e : ‘ ‘ » 4 * ‘ all ‘ 4 a Nhe peasants 3 ee r “2 BA se a { ALA, 4 3 Sit). Rate nes yl tg Lae ‘yk, te i. s Fa “ vs fpardiis age ca Big piesa Limpert rs sh ape 2 April 1985 Volume 42 Part 1 pp. i-ii, 1-98 ISSN 0007-5167 The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY) 2° APR 1985 PURCHASED | ZOOLOGY LIBRARY | 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. . a q q Orders and enquiries concerning subscriptions and back numbers should be sent to: COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX FARNHAM ROYAL SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K. . : CENTRAL SALES : © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1985. 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 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 (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 il 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) Herpetology 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 Tucumdan, 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 Prot.©.Ba@ox Mr. D. Curry 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.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. ME. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) Mr. J.D.D. Smith (Administrator) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 | BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 42, part | (pp. i-ii, 1-98) 2 April 1985 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 23b and 79b): (1) Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, 1855 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, VERMETIDAE): proposed suppression of two equivocal generic names. Z.N.(S.) 2340. A. Myra Keen & M. G. Hadfield. *(2) Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855 (Aves): proposed conservation by the sup- pression of Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829. Z.N.(S.) 2277. M. D. Bruce, D. T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault. (3) Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari): misidentifi- cation of the type species Notaspis humeralis Hermann, 1804. Z.N.(S.) 2374. R. A. Norton *(4) Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea, Copepoda): proposed conservation by the suppression of Pseudoclavella Bassett- Smith, 1898. Z.N.(S.) 2390. J. B. Jones. (5) The description of new taxa on enzyme data: a matter for discussion. Z.N.(S.) 2458. J. E. Jelnes; R. Fortuner. (6) Authorship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral Conchology of Great Britain. Z.N.(S.) 2483. C. W. Wright & R. J. Cleevely. (7) Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda): proposed desig- nation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 1156. The Secretary. (8) Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda): proposed confir- mation of entry on the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 1157. The Secretary. (9) (10) (11) (12) *(13) (14) (15) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 (Cestoda): proposed con- firmation of entry on Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2498. The Secretary. Homonymy in the families HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) and HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2331. J. G. M. Raven. Argyrodes Simon, 1864, and Robertus O. Pickard- Cambridge, 1879 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conserv- ation by the suppression of Argyrodes Guénée, 1845 and Ctenium Menge, 1871. Z.N.(S.) 1481. H. W. Levi. Olpium L. Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida, Olpiidae): proposed designation of type species and related problems. Z.N.(S.) 2484. M.S. Harvey & V. Mahnert. Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conserv- ation by the suppression of Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843, Z.N.(S.) 2377. W. R. Branch & D. G. Broadley. Erigone Audouin, 1826 (Arthropoda, Araneae): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2480. A. F. Millidge. Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposal to designate type species and neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2491. J. E. O’Hara. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since the publication of vol. 41(4) on 30 November 1984 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23b and 79(b): (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Thylacites Germar, 1817; Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823; Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823; and Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposal to maintain current usage. Z.N.(S.) 2490. A. T. Howden. Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposal to designate type species. Z.N.(S.) 2492. E. G. Riley. Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): proposal to stabilise the nomenclature. Z.N.(S.) 2493. P. F. S. Cornelius & C. Ostman. Micronecta meridionalis (Costa, 1860) (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2494. A. Jansson. Napomyza Haliday, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): proposal to validate type species. Z.N.(S.) 2495. G. C. D. Griffiths. HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) and HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): pro- posal to resolve problem of homonymy of family group names. Z.N.(S.) 2496. M. C. Day. (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) *(15) (16) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 3 Proposal that French theses submitted for the degree of Docteur du 3° cycle do not constitute publication. Z.N.(S.) 2497. G. C. Hewitt & V. Rousset. Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminifera): proposed conserv- ation by the suppression of Florilus de Montfort, 1808 and Nonionina d@’Orbigny, 1826. Z.N.(S.) 2499. F. T. Banner. Sabella Linnaeus, 1767 and _ Bispira Kroyer, 1856 (Polychaeta): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2500. P. Knight-Jones. Proposed amendment to 3rd Edition of Code: types of taxa whose names are junior synonyms. Z.N.(S.) 2501. D. Heppell. Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera): proposed conserv- ation by suppression of Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808. Z.N.(S.) 2502. F. T. Banner. Eugynothrips’ Priesner, 1926 (Insecta, Thrysanoptera, Phlaeothripidae): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2503. D. J. Brothers & L. A. Mound. Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminifera): proposed conser- vation. Z.N.(S.) 2504. F. T. Banner. Cidaris clavigera Konig in Mantell, 1822 (Echinoidea, Cidaroidea): proposed designation as type species of Tylo- cidaris Pomel, 1883. Z.N.(S.) 2505. C. W. Wright & A. B. Smith. Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 (Hymenoptera, Braconidae): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2506. J. B. Whitfield. Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2507. Th. C. M. Kemperman & H. E. Coomans. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATIONS TO THE COMMISSION The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is the official publication of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It is published 4 times a year (in April, June, September and December) by the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux on behalf of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Applications to the Commission are published in the Bulletin. Time is then given for comments to be received, published and considered before the Commission votes for or against the proposals in an application. The Commission’s final decision is published in the Bulletin in the form of an Opinion. a Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 These guidelines have been prepared for the benefit of zoologists preparing applications to the Commission. They are not intended to be restrictive and cannot cover all situations. Applications should be prepared in accordance with the Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature (3rd Edition: published February 1985). Particular attention should be paid to the principles for use of the Commission’s plenary powers (Article 79). Title should indicate the main names concerned. When the appli- cation is for the conservation of one name by the suppression of another, the name to be conserved should precede that to be sup- pressed. The class and order should be given in the title. For example: DELPHINUS TRUNCATUS MONTAGU, 1821 (MAM- MALIA, CETACEA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY SUPPRESSION OF DELPHINUS NESARNACK LACEPEDE, 1804 Author(s) Name(s) and Address(es) should be listed and the address(es) underlined. Text should consist of a series of numbered paragraphs setting out the case and leading up to the request to the Commission. The advantages (and any disadvantages) of the request should be spelled out. References in the text should be attributed to individual pages of the publications. A case to suppress a name on the grounds that it has not been used as a senior synonym of a name in general current usage should be supported by a list of 10 publications by at least 5 different authors over the last 50 years in which the junior synonym has been applied to a particular taxon as its valid name. The individual page references should be given. The final paragraph of the text should be framed along the follow- ing lines, as appropriate: ‘The International Commission on Zoological Nomencla- ture is accordingly asked: (1) to use the plenary powers to..... (2) to place on the Official List... .. (3) to place on the Official Index..... d References should start with the author’s name in capital letters, followed by the year of publication and the title of the paper in full. In the titles of papers, capital letters should be used only for proper nouns and for all nouns in German. The name of the journal Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 5 should be given in full and underlined. Series number, volume number, part or fascicule number, pagination and plate and figure numbers should be given in arabic figures. The title of books should be underlined and followed by the number of pages and plates, and the publisher and place of publication. When a reference has been translated or transliterated, the original lan- guage should be stated in square brackets at the end. References should be provided for all publications mentioned in the text, including particularly those in which the names included in the formal proposal to the Commission were established. Example of reference: WISE, K. A. J. 1957. A new species of Lithocolletis (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) from New Zealand. 7; he Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London. Series B, Vol. 26, parts 1-2, pp. 26-28, pl. 2, fig. 1. Applicants should consult recently published parts of the Bulletin and construct their applications in accordance with practices used there. The Secretariat can provide specimen copies of applications and is willing to offer advice at an early stage in the preparation of an application. Applications should be typed in double spacing and submitted in duplicate to: The Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD, U.K. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature February 1985 6 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF HYLA LACTEA DAUDIN, 1803 Z.N.(S.)2341 (see vol. 41, pp. 122-124) By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5BD) The object of this petition by Lynch & Duellman to suppress Hyla lactea Laurenti appears to be threefold: to conserve Phyllomedusa hypocondrialis (Daudin, 1803), to validate Sphaenorhynchus Tschudi, 1838 and to conserve Sphaenorhynchus lacteus (Daudin, 1803). The first has my full support, the second I consider unnecessary and the third I strongly oppose. Phyllomedusa hypocondrialis is widely used and the only name currently in use for the species. To replace it with Hyla lactea Laurenti, 1768, a name virtually unused in the last 200 years and whose identity is open to doubt, would certainly not be in the best interests of stability. I therefore agree that H. /actea Laurenti should be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority. Lynch & Duellman state that the currently used generic name Sphaenorhyn- chus Tschudi is invalid because its type species is a junior primary homonym. I can find nothing in the Rules to suggest that homonymy of its type species in any way affects the validity or availability of a nominal genus. Thus no action by the Commission is needed to conserve Sphaenorhynchus. Its type species should be cited as Hyla lactea Daudin, an invalid senior subjective synonym of Sphaenorhynchus eurhostus Rivero. The third objective of Lynch & Duellman’s petition is to conserve the specific name Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803, a junior primary homonym of Ayla lactea Laurenti, 1768. With this I cannot agree. A search of the literature reveals that there has been little stability of nomenclature as far as this species is concerned. Hyla aurantiaca Daudin, 1803, was in general use until 1961 when Rivero (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Hary. vol. 126, p. 137) indicated that it was a junior primary homonym of Hyla aurantiaca Laurenti, 1768. During the next few years Hyla lactea Daudin enjoyed a brief resurrection until Rivero (Copeia, 1969, p. 701) pointed out that this name too was preoccupied and proposed Sphaenorhynchus eurhostus (nom. nov. pro Hyla aurantiaca Daudin). In all, I found 25 references to this species published in the last SO years. Of these, 12 use aurantiaca (the latest in 1970) and 3 use Jactea (between 1961 and 1966). Since 1969 there have been 10 uses of eurhostus. To the best of my knowledge this last is the only name currently in use and includes among its users both Lynch and Duellman. My search of the literature may not have been exhaustive but I find it difficult to believe that I have overlooked sufficient references to change the picture significantly. To use the plenary powers to overthrow a cur- rently accepted name in favour of a little used one is surely unthinkable. I therefore totally oppose the proposal to suppress Hy/a /actea Laurenti for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy. Finally, I see that Lynch & Duellman do not cite 10 publications by at least 5 different authors during the last 50 years in which the name Phyllomedusa hypocon- drialis is used as a senior synonym (Art. 79b). These authors should be asked to sup- ply this information. When this has been done, I suggest the Commission be asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name /actea Laurent, 1768, as published in the combination Hyla lactea, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 a (2) asin Lynch & Duellman. (3) to place the specific name eurhostus Rivero, 1969, as published in the combination Sphaenorhynchus eurhostus, 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 junior primary homonym of Ayla lactea Laurenti, 1768, and an invalid senior subjective synonym of Sphaenorhynchus eurhostus Rivero, 1969) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES FOR NYMPHULA SCHRANK, 1802. Z.N.(S.)2384 (see vol. 39, pp. 209-212) By W. Speidel (Gerwigstrasse 18, D-7500 Karlsruhe 1, West Germany) I support the application of Fletcher & Nye, 1982, concerning the species best known as Nymphula stagnata (Donovan, 1806). In 1793 Hubner first published a figure of this species under the name Phalaena potamogalis. Unfortunately, this was a misidentification of Phalaena potamogalis [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, which is an unjustified emendation of Phalaena (Geometra) potamogata Linnaeus, 1758, a completely different species now considered to be synonymous with Phalaena (Geometra) nymphaeata Linnaeus, 1758. When Schrank described his genus Nymphula, he included a species potamo- galis in the sense of Hubner, 1793 and 1796 and it was this species that Moore, 1887, cited as the type species of the genus. The valid specific name for this species is stagnata Donovan, 1806, and Fletcher & Nye were quite right to ask the Commis- sion to designate that species as the type species of Nymphula. This corresponds with Schrank’s and Moore’s concept of the genus. Account must, however, be taken of Phalaena nitidulata [Hufnagel], 1767 (pp. 618-619) from the vicinity of Berlin, which was placed in the synonymy of Nymphula nymphaealis Treitschke, 1829, non [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775 by Treitschke. This is the same species as Phalaena stagnata Donovan. The description by [Hufnagel] strongly supports Treitschke’s interpretation: ‘Phalaena nitidulata, Der Wasservogel. Schneeweiss mit einigen irregularen hellbraunen Zeichnungen. Aufenthalt der Phalane bei Gewdssern im Grase. Zeit der Phalane Julius und August. Grosse der Phalane von der dritten. Selten.’ [Hufnagel] also described Phalaena nymphaeata as being ‘of the third size’, which was his way of giving the relative size of each species. We cannot be completely sure of the identity of {Hufnagel’s] species except by reference to Treitschke’s interpretation. In order to avoid any confusion, and to conserve a well-known name, I ask the Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name nitidulata [Hufnagel], 1767, as published in the binomen Phalaena nitidulata, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 8 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 ADDITIONAL REFERENCES [HUFNAGEL], 1767. Fortsetzung der Tabelle von den Nachtvégeln, welche die 3te Art derselben, nehmlich die Spannenmesser (Phalaenas Geometras Linnaei) enthalt. Berlinisches Mag., vol. 4 (6), pp. 599-626. SPEIDEL, W. 1983. The Acentropinae (Lepidoptera Crambidae) from Spain and Portugal. SHILAP Revta lepid., vol. 11, pp. 83-86. TREITSCHKE, F. 1829. Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. 7. Leipzig, 252 pp. MOORE, F. 1884-1887. The Lepidoptera of Ceylon, vol. 3. London, 578 pp., pls 144-215. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF LASPEYRESIA HUBNER, [1825]. Z.N.(S.)2421 (see vol. 41, pp. 110-113) (1) By R. W. Hodges (Systematic Entomology Lab USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.) The following view of Dr Kuznetsov and Dr Kerzhner’s case for the suppres- sion of Cydia Hiibner, [1825] is given for the Commission’s consideration before a decision is taken: 1. Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] is a junior homonym of Laspeyresia R.L., 1817; 2. The oldest synonym of Laspeyresia Hiibner [1825] is Cydia Hubner, [1825]; 3. Cydia Hubner, [1825] is the valid replacement name for Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825], based on priority. This argument was used and fol- lowed by Bradley, 1972 and others as indicated in paragraph 8 of Kuznetsov & Kerzhner’s statement; 4. Other arguments have little relevance for the future. Either decision will cause some workers difficulty; however, the decision based on priority, the basic principle of the Code, provides for stability of nomenclature. The following point, though not germane to my argument, should be signifi- cant to the Commission: four checklists (Bradley, 1972 in Kloet & Hincks, Check- list of British Insects, pt 2, Lepidoptera; Léraut, 1980, Liste systématique et synonymique des Lépidoptéres de France, Belgique et Corse; Powell, 1983 in Hodges, Checklist of Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico; and Powell, in press, in Heppner, Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, Checklist, part 1) that treat a significant part of the world’s lepidopteran fauna use Cydia Hiibner, [1825] as the valid name and cite Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] as a junior homonym of Laspeyresia R.L., 1817. I strongly urge the Commission not to suppress Laspeyresia R.L., 1817. (2) By William E. Miller (University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, U.S.A.) As an active tortricidologist, I should like to comment on the proposal by Kuznetsov & Kerzhner to conserve Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] by suppressing Laspeyresia R.L., 1817 and Cydia Hiibner, [1825]. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 “) The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, as I understand it, requires that Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] be rejected in favour of Laspeyresia R.L., 1817 because of priority and homonymy. The proposal argues that applying the Code would cause the loss of the name Laspeyresia for a genus of common and important moths. The proposal cites relative counts of usage of the several pertinent names in Entomology Abstracts between 1974 and 1978, showing that Laspeyresia was the dominant name in that period. I believe that stable nomenclature is best served when the Code is overriden only for reasons of unusual merit. It seems to me that the issue before the Commis- sion comes down to how compelling the case is for conserving Laspeyresia. The argument that current usage of Laspeyresia dominates is greatly weakened when the usage figures in the same source are updated to the present. Thus, in Entomology Abstracts between January 1979 and July 1984 I count 130 uses of Cydia to only 56 of Laspeyresia. This shows a reversal of the trend cited in the proposal and shows that usage of Laspeyresia is rapidly declining in favour of Cydia. In conclusion, I see little reason why the Commission should exercise its plenary powers as requested by the proposers. (3) By J. D. Bradley (formerly of the British Museum (Natural History) and of the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London), W. G. Tremewan, K. Tuck (British Museum (Natural History), London) and C. J. Hamilton (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) With reference to the proposal to suppress Cydia Hubner, [1825] in favour of Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825], we offer the following comments for consideration by the Commission: (1) Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] (TORTRICIDAE) is a junior homonym of Laspeyresia R.L., 1817 (NOCTUIDAE) as stated by Nye, 1975, Generic Names of Moths of the World, vol. 1, p. 269; (2) The first available replacement name for Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] is Cydia Hubner, [1825]; (3) Cydia Hubner, [1825], with Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] as a synonym, was used in 1972 in the revised Kloet & Hincks Checklist of British Insects part 2, Lepidoptera. The synonymy has since been absorbed without dissent in the world taxonomic and applied (economic) entomological literature. Cydia is accepted as the valid name in current western European, North American, Japanese and Indo-Australian faunal lists and other publications, as shown in the attached tabulation based on a computer search at the library of the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology by one of us (C.J.H.); (4) The use of Cydia in place of Laspeyresia is now well established and appears to have caused negligible disruption. We urge the Commission not to suppress Laspeyresia R.L., 1817 but to uphold the Principle of Homonymy and thus maintain present stability. CYDIA versus LASPEYRESIA Bibliometric data obtained by an online search of the agricultural entomology subfile of the CAB Abstracts computer database, covering the world literature abstracted from January 1973 to April 1984 inclusive. 10 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 Soviet (%) Non-Soviet (%) Total Laspeyresia 63 (9-0) 635 (91-0) 698 Cydia 219 (14-0) 1345 (86-0) 1564 Laspeyresia and/or Cydia 220 (14-0) 1347 (86-0) 1567 Laspeyresia and Cydia 62 (8-9) 633 (91-1) 695 Laspeyresia not Cydia 1 (33-3) 2 (67-7) 3 Cydia not Laspeyresia 157 (18-1) 712 (81-9) 869 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF ZYGAENA ANTHYLLIDIS BOISDUVAL, [1828]. Z.N.(S.)2442 (see vol. 41, pp. 73-76) Support for the proposals put forward by Naumann & Tremewan has been expressed by: Professor E. Aistleitner (Paddagogische Akademie, Feldkirch, Austria), Dr B. Alberti (Mengershausen, Germany), Dr J. S. Dabrowski (Cracow), Dr P. Léraut (Bonneuil-sur-Marne, France), J. J. de Freina (Munich), Dr M. R. Gomez Bustillo (SHILAP, Madrid), A. Hofmann (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, Germany), H. Holzinger (Vienna), Dr T. Racheli (Universita degli Studi, Rome), Dr G. Reiss (Stuttgart), Dr G. Tarmann (Tiroler Landskundliches Museum, Innsbruck), H. de Toulgoét (Muséum national d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris), Dr K.-H. Wiegel (Munich), W. Wipking (University of Cologne) and T. J. Witt (Munich). Among these, Dr Reiss makes the following points: (1) Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828] has been the name exclusively used for over 150 years; (2) Boisduval’s description and illustrations are exceptionally accurate, as is his men- tion of the type locality; (3) to introduce Zygaena erebus Meigen, 1829 now would cause great confusion, not only because the type locality is not accurately known, but because of other uncertainties surrounding the name. R. V. MELVILLE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, ARTICLE Slc. Z.N.(S.)2474 (see vol. 41, pp. 149-150) (1) By James C. Cokendolpher (Department of Entomology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, U.S.A.), Oscar F. Francke (Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University), and Diomedes Quintero Jr. (Museo de Invertebrados, Universidad de Panama, Estafeta Universitaria, Panama) We are opposed to the proposed amendment by Gagné et al., 1984, to delete Article 5lc from the third edition of the Code. Their arguments that: (a) new combinations are in the majority, (b) the use of parentheses is expensive and time Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 11 consuming, and (c) parentheses are superfluous and serve a negligible purpose in nomenclature, are at best weak and unsubstantiated and do not justify the deletion. First, nominal taxa of some groups such as certain families of Diptera might indeed approach having 100% new combinations, but certainly this is not the case in many groups: for example, only 99 of 355 (28%) Scorpiones from the Ethiopian region (Lamoral & Reynders, 1975), 25 of 50 (50%) Palpigradi (Rowland & Sissom, 1980), and 14 of 54 (26%) of the New World Schizomida (Rowland & Reddell, 1978) are recombinations. Second, typesetting of parentheses is no more expensive than using periods after abbreviations (e.g., II B III, versus I.I.B.I.1.I., or USDA versus U.S.D.A.) or accent marks (e.g., Gagné) because typesetting is charged by the keystroke. The use of italics in scientific names is considerably more expensive than the parentheses in question, and we are glad that Gagné et al. are not also proposing elimination of that rule. If The Insect Identification and Beneficial Insect Introduction Institute (=II B III) branch of the SEA, AR, USDA checks all insect names, including spell- ings of the taxa and the author’s names, we cannot imagine how the parentheses would require that much more time or effort. The alleged expense and complications arising during computerised retrieval of names might depend on the program used, but the software packages we are familiar with enable retrieval of an author’s name whether it is used with or without parentheses, or both. Third, for certain groups of organisms such as Palaearctic Diptera and U.S.A. Hymenoptera, recent synoptic and synonymic catalogues exist. Any com- petent zoologist can look up a specific epithet in those catalogues and easily know its nomenclatural history. Under these circumstances, and provided one has ready access to such catalogues, the information otherwise conveyed by the parentheses around an author’s name can be easily retrieved. In other groups, such as the arachnid orders Opiliones, Scorpiones, and Amblypygi in which we specialise, respectively, there are few catalogues and those offer limited geographical coverage. In other groups, and undoubtedly all those other animal taxa which remain uncatalogued, the information conveyed by the parentheses is critical. If the authors of Z.N.(S.)2474 had ever had to search through the Zoological Record, and some earlier catalogues, to retrieve the published literature on a given specific name they would certainly have acquired an appreciation for the ‘non-superfluous’ nomen- clatural information conveyed by the use of parentheses. If there are no parentheses one can initially restrict the search to a more general level of indexing, i.e., generic names; if there are parentheses then one must search at a less general level of index- ing, i.e., that of specific names! What if the specific name has been transferred from a masculine combination (e.g., californicus) to a feminine one (e.g., californica); can one rely on an index to search the literature? Are Protophthalmus jenseni Lawrence and Opistophthalmus jenseni Lawrence different species of scorpion? If not, under which binominal combination will the original description be found? Of course, the ‘negligible’ information conveyed by O. jenseni (Lawrence) gives us a strong indication about the nomenclatural history of that nominal taxon. If the information conveyed by parentheses ‘is of no interest to the writers or readers’ as stated by Gagné er al., why then assume they are interested in the author’s name? Many journals devoted to non-taxonomical studies of insects do not require the use of authors’ names when listing specific taxa. Perhaps some non-taxonomical zoologists fail to appreciate the amount of critical nomenclatural information conveyed by the use of parentheses, but that does not mean that parentheses do not serve a useful function. For the reasons given above we oppose the deletion of Article 51c. We also oppose the reduction of this 12 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 article to a recommendation. If the use or disuse of parentheses is reduced to a recommendation, confusion will result. The deletion of the date from the citation of a specific name does not convey any particular information, but the deletion of parentheses can be misinterpreted to represent a specific name in its original combination. REFERENCES LAMORAL, B. & REYNDERS, S. 1975. A Catalogue of the scorpions described from the Ethiopian region. Ann. Natal Mus., vol. 22, pp. 489-576. ROWLAND, J. M. & REDDELL, J. R. 1979. The Order Schizomida (Arachnida) in the New World. I. Protoschizomida and dumitrescoae group (Schizomidae, Schizomus). J. Arachnol., vol. 6, pp. 161-196. ROWLAND, J. M. & SISSOM, W. D. 1980. Report on a fossil Palpigrade from the Tertiary of Arizona, and a review of the morphology and systematics of the order (Arachnida, Palpigradida). J. Arachnol., vol. 8, pp. 69-86. (2) By Gerhard Hahn (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitédts-Gebiet Lahnberge, D-355 Marburg (Lahn), BRD I do not agree with the proposal of Drs Gagné, Thompson and Knutson. Parentheses are a useful indication and I have never found them ‘expensive and time consuming’, neither in preparing my Fossilium Catalogus on Carboniferous and Permian trilobites, nor in preparing my volume on multituberculates. Article 5lc should stay unchanged, in my opinion. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 70b Z.N.(S.)2477 (see vol. 41, pp. 156-158) By C. W. Wright (The Old Rectory, Seaborough, near Beaminster, Dorset DT8 30 Y U.K.) I do not believe that the illegal behaviour by entomologists that Sabrosky seeks to justify by amending the Code does, as he asserts, maintain stability and universality of nomenclature, since any subsequent author may well find reasonable grounds for disagreeing with some of the assumptions behind the behaviour. Moreover the notion of recognition of the species actually involved seems to me of doubtful validity and unlikely to produce stability. 2. If an author Smith establishes a new genus X-us with designated type species A-us b-us Jones and in the same work describes as X-us b-us (Jones) certain specimens now held not to belong to that species, it does not necessarily mean that he has misidentified the type species of X-us; he may have misidentified his speci- mens as A-us b-us Jones, quite a different matter, or, commonly, he is less of a splitter than later authors who take the view that his described specimens represent a Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 13 new species. He may very well genuinely have wished Jones’s A-us b-us to be the type species. 3. Sabrosky’s proposal recalls the case of Calycoceras Hyatt, 1900, dealt with in Opinion 557. Hyatt had designated as type species of his new genus a nom- inal species that he attributed to an author who had wrongly described specimens as identical with the species described by the original author of the specific name. I had asked the Commission to rule that the nominal species of the original author should be the type. Commissioner Mayr argued that it was important that ‘the zoological concept which the author of a new taxon has for its type be regarded by subsequent authors’. He also referred to the ‘erroneous belief of many authors that a name is the type of a genus and not a zoological object’. Fortunately the Commission, Mayr and two others dissenting, agreed to the terms of the application. Of course a name as such is not the type of a genus, but no more is a zoological object; the type is a nominal species. Any attempt to replace this notion with that of zoological object or even zoological concept can only, in my view, lead to permanent confusion. 4. Suppose that a subsequent author, faced with the situation in para 2 above, believes that both A-us b-us Jones and three other species included by Smith in X-us are congeneric but that the specimens described, wrongly, by Smith as X-us b-us (Jones) in fact belong to a different genus. Here, if we followed Sabrosky’s interpretation of ‘the species actually involved’ we could well be running counter to ‘the zoological concept’ of Smith. One can easily imagine several other types of confusion that could arise if the only objective criterion, the species named by the designator, is abandoned. 5. My response to the Secretary’s appeal, therefore, is to argue that Article 70b is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice and should be expunged. If, however, a majority of zoologists cannot accept the simple and logical rule that the type of a genus is a nominal species designated by the original or a subsequent author, and still hanker after the idea that it is a specimen or a zoological concept, then Article 70b might be redrafted as follows: (b) If a person considers that the author of a genus incorrectly identified specimens with the nominal species that he designated as type species, or that he included, and which was subsequently so designated, and if the genus has subsequently been widely interpreted as if the type were the nominal species to which the misidentified specimens belong, the person is to continue to regard as type species the designated nominal species, but may, if he believes that serious instability of nomenclature would be caused by maintenance of the designated type species, apply to the Commission to, etc. 6. Article 70b has already moved too far from principle. It would be deplor- able if improper behaviour such as that quoted in para 3 of Sabrosky’s proposal were to be validated. The type of a genus is a nomenclatural concept, not a zoologi- cal one. Hence it is right that the ‘meaning’ of a genus depends on a nomenclatural concept of which the type species is the name-bearer. The ‘meaning’ of a genus should not be treated as the zoological concept that Sabrosky and Crosskey think that an author had in mind when he designated a (nominal) type species, and also described species that he then held to be congeneric; it is this notion that can lead, at least potentially, to variable results and hence to instability. 7. While the nomenclatural concept is objective, in accordance with the coll- ective provisions of the Code, the zoological concept is subjective and therefore variable and cannot be pinned down by the Code. Only the type concept plus the definition of nominal taxon give hope of stability. 14 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL CONCERNING BAGRUS BOSC, 1816, WITH REQUESTS TO PLACE BAGRE CLOQUET, 1816 ON THE OFFICIAL LIST AND TO SUPPRESS PORCUS GEOFFROY SAINT-HILAIRE, 1808 Z.N.(S.)2371 (see vol. 40, pp. 167-172) By William R. Taylor (National Museum of Natural History, Washington DC 20560, U.S.A.) Bailey & Stewart, 1983, asked that Bagrus Bosc, September 1816, be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. They presented evidence to show that Bagrus and Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in Bosc, September 1816 were described on the same date with Bagrus having page priority. Because Bagrus provides the stem of a well-known family name, and because it has had somewhat more usage, they requested its conservation by the Commission. 2. Aside from dates given by Sherborn, 1897, workers have not generally known the actual dates of publication of the contributions by Etienne and Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire to the Description de l’Egypte. The son, Isidore (1847), listed the significant contributions by his father and himself to this work and gave dates of publication. It is now clear that Porcus should be attributed to Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and that it has several years’ priority over Bagrus Bosc. Porcus first appeared on plate 15 of the Poissons du Nil issued in 1808; but the description of the | genus was completed from his father’s notes and published by Isidore in 1827. The ‘| folio-sized natural history plates in Description de l’Egypte were in many cases published years before written descriptions appeared; but the names on the plates are available by indication (Article 12a(7)). 3. Evidence that all the plates of Poissons du Nil were published and avail- able to Bosc, Cuvier, etc., prior to 1816 is as follows: (a) Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire stated (1847, p. 425): “La part de collab- oration de Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire dans le grand ouvrage sur l’Egypte, se compose des parties suivantes: Dans I’atlas, t. I*t de la partie rela- tive a l’histoire naturelle: 1° 7 planches de Mammiferes (17 espéces); 2° 8 de Reptiles (25 espéces); 3° 17 de Poissons du Nil (29 espéces); 4° 10 de Poissons de la Méditerranée et de la mer Rouge (28 espéces). Ces magnifiques planches, dessinées par Redouté jeune, . . . en Egypte, ... a Paris de 1802 a 1807, ont été publiées, partie en 1808 (Poissons du Nil), partie en 1813 (Mammiféres et Reptiles), partie en 1817 (Poissons de la mer Rouge et de la Méditerranée). ‘Dans le tome I* du texte de l’Histoire naturelle. ..1° Histoire | naturelle des Poissons du Nil, 1809 [part]; ... 2° Description des Reptiles qui se trouvent en Egypte, 1809 [part]; ... 3° Description des Crocodiles d’Egypte, 1829. — Le texte des autres planches de Poissons et de Reptiles a été publié, en 1827, par l’auteur de cet ouvrage, d’apreés les | notes de Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. ‘Dans le tome II... Description des Mammifeéres qui se trouvent en Egypte, 1813 [part]. ..” In general agreement with Isidore’s summary, Jomard in Monglond, 1957, columns 323-330, indicated that the 27 plates illustrating fishes were published from 1809-1817. I believe, however, that some of the dates for the text given by Jomard are probably in error. These dates were correctly stated by Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. (b — Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 15 (c) The 17 plates depicting Nile fishes, aside from three illustrating only anatomical details, were all cited by Cuvier, November 1816, in Le Régne animal, ed. 1, vol. 2. Plates 18 to 27 illustrating Red Sea and Mediterranean fishes were not cited in that edition because they were not published till 1817. At least six of the plates 18 through 27 were cited in the second edition of Le Régne animal, published in 1829. (d) Thus it appears certain that the 17 plates of fishes of the Nile appeared in 1808 or at the latest 1809, and that plates 18-27 of Mediterranean and Red Sea fishes were published in 1817. 4. Two species of Porcus were illustrated by H. J. Redoute for Etienne in plate 15: Le Bayad fitilé, Porcus bayad, and Le Bayad docmac, Porcus docmac. The type species of Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire is Silurus bajad Forskal, 1775 (= Porcus bayad Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire; it is clear from Isidore’s text, Hist. nat., vol. 1, p. 303, that Etienne’s bayad is an unjustified emendation of Forskal’s bajad), by subsequent designation by Jordan & Evermann, 1917, Genera of Fishes, vol. 1, p. 107. Jordan & Evermann incorrectly said that the description and/or plates were published (‘dated’) in 1817 or 1818. 5. Bagrus Bosc, 1816. with type species Si/urus bajad Forskal by subsequent designation by Bailey & Stewart, 1983, op. cit., is a junior objective synonym of Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808. 6. Bagre Cloquet, 1816. Bagre is to be treated as masculine because it is latinised from the Spanish and Portuguese masculine noun bagre, denoting catfish throughout much of tropical America. Its origin is probably from the Arabic baghir or baghar. The type species is Si/urus bagre Linnaeus, 1766, by absolute tautonymy, through listing in the synonymy of Bagre pimelodinus Cloquet. The descriptions, in part, of B. pimelodinus, and of the other included synonym, Pimelodus bagre Lacépede, apply not to Silurus bagre Linnaeus but to Silurus marinus Mitchill. I suspect that Mitchill’s species belongs to another genus and that Bagre bagre (Linnaeus) is the only taxonomic species in the genus Bagre. 7. I support the proposal to place BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858 on the Official List. Bleeker, 1858, pp. V, 49, etc., first used a subfamily ‘Bagrichthyoidei’ and ‘cohors Bagrini’ to include Bagrus and other siluroid fishes. It happens that Bleeker had previously described a bagrid fish as Bagrichthys, leading to the false impression that that name provides the stem of Bagrichthyoidei. I believe that Bagrus provides this stem, by analogy with Bleeker’s ‘subfamily Plotosichthyoidei and ‘phalanx Plotosini’, both based on the generic name Plotosus. 8. Because of the long uncertainty as to the dates of publication of Porcus and Bagrus, because the latter name has in recent years become widely accepted as the generic name for a group of African bagrid fishes, and because it provides the stem of its family name, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to place on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology: (i) Bagre Cloquet, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species, by absolute tautonymy, Silurus bagre Linnaeus, 1766; (ii) Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Bailey & Stewart, 1983, Silurus bajad Forskal, 1775; 16 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 (c) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (i) bagre Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Silurus bagre (specific name of type species of Bagre Cloquet, 1816); (ii) bajad Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Silurus bajad (specific name of type species of Bagrus Bosc, 1816); (d) to place BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858 (type genus, Bagrus Bosc, 1816) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES GEOFFROY SAINT-HILAIRE, ISIDORE. 1847. Vie, travaux, et doctrine scientifique d’Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire par son fils. Paris, 479 pp. LINNAEUS, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, ed. 12, vol. 1. MONGLOND, A. 1957. La France révolutionnaire et impériale. Annales de biblio- graphie méthodique et description des livres illustrés, vol. 8 (années 1809-1810). Paris. (SJOMARD, E. F., columns 268-343.) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 17 OPINION 1288 SPHINX TIPULIFORMIS CLERCK, 1759 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name salmachus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sphinx salmachus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The specific name tipuliformis Clerck, 1759, as published in the binomen Sphinx tipuliformis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2916. (3) The specific name salmachus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sphinx salmachus, 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 1137. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2138 An application for the conservation of Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759, was first received from Dr N. P. Kristensen (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) on | 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. 154-156. 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 journals. 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)13 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 155. 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, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen Negative Vote — Hahn. Dupuis abstained. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. Hahn commented: ‘Important details are missing here: are salmachus and tipuliformis 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.’ 18 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 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: salmachus, Sphinx, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 493 tipuliformis, Sphinx, Clerck, 1759, Icones Insectorum rariorum...e C. Linn. Syst. Nat. allegatis, pt. 1, pl. 9, fig. 1. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)13 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1288. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 July 1984 » Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 19 OPINION 1289 MESOPLODON GERVAIS, 1850 (MAMMALIA, CETACEA); CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Nodus Wagler, 1830, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Delphinus sowerbiensis Blainville, 1817, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2228. (3) The specific name bidens Sowerby, 1804, as published in the binomen Physeter bidens (the valid name, at the time of this ruling, of the type species of Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2917. (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Nodus Wagler, 1830, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 2144); (b) Micropteron Eschricht, 1849, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Micropterus Wagner, 1846 (Name Number 2145); (c) Mikropteron Eschricht, 1849, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Micropterus Wagner, 1846 (Name Number 2146). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2081 An application for the conservation of Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 was first received from Dale W. Rice (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) in 1965. A second application in the same sense was received from Dr Kenneth E. Kinman (University of Kansas) in November 1977. A joint application by both authors was eventually sent to the printer on 9 October 1979 and published on 25 April 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 30-33. 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 mammalogical 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) 14 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 32-33. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 20 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, 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 to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bidens, Physeter, Sowerby, 1804, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 7, p. 10 Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850, Ann. Sci. nat. (3), Zool., vol. 14, p. 16 Micropteron Eschricht, 1849, K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. (5), vol. 1, p. 97 Mikropteron Eschricht, 1849, K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. (5), vol. 1, p. 98 Nodus Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amphibien, p. 34. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)14 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1289. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 July 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 21 OPINION 1290 LEPTINOTARSA CHEVROLAT, 1837 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA); CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837, prior to the designation by Motschulsky, 1860, of Leptinotarsa heydenii Stal, 1858 as type species of that genus are hereby set aside. (2) The generic name Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Motschulsky, 1860, as ratified under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Leptinotarsa heydenii Stal, 1858, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2229. (3) The specific name heydenii Stal, 1858, as published in the binomen Leptinotarsa heydenii (specific name of type species of Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837) is hereby placed on the Official List of Speci- fic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2918. (4) The generic name Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2147. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2048 An application for the conservation of Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 was first received from Dr Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C.) and Dr Richard L. Jacques, Jr. (Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, New Jersey) on 7 June 1973. It was sent to the printer on 24 October 1973 and published on 20 September 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 144-145. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and seven entomological serials. No comment was received. FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1978)4 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 145. Although at the close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 there were 21 affirmative votes and 22 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 no negative votes, no Opinion was published because of a point raised by Dr L. B. Holthuis. He pointed out that the acceptance by the applicants of Chevrolat’s citation of juncta Germar’ under Polygramma as an available name logically entailed also the acceptance of the citations of ‘alternata Klug’ under Polygramma and of ‘cinctipennis Chev.’ under Leptinotarsa as available names also. Chrysomela juncta Germar, 1834, is a chrysomelid of the same subfamily as Polygramma; ‘alternata Klug’ must be taken to be Agra alternata Klug, 1834, Jahrb. Insektenk. vol. 1, p. 60, a ground beetle; and ‘cinctipennis Chev.’ as Altica cinctipennis Chevrolat, 1834, Coleopt. Mex. (3), no. 86, a species placed in a different subfamily from Leptinotarsa. In spite of the unlikelihood of coleopterists of the quality of Dejean and Chevrolat making such taxonomic allocations, the acceptance of those - logical conclusions radically alters the presentation of the case. V.P.(78)4 was accordingly cancelled. REPUBLICATION OF THE CASE Dr White accordingly prepared a fresh application which was received on 28 November 1979. A slightly revised form of this was sent to the printer on 23 January 1980 and published on 19 June 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 119-120. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was again 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)15 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 120. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-three, received in the following order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobo- gatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Ueno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. Dupuis commented: ‘Je pense, néanmoins, qu'il aurait fallu simultanément prendre des dispositions pour conserver Leptinotarsa decemlineata [the scientific name of the Colorado Potato Beetle] au cas ou l’on découvrirait que decemlineata et heydenii ne peuvent demeurer congéneres.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 23 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: heydenii, Leptinotarsa, Stal, 1858, Ofvers. k. Vetenskaps Akad. Forh. vol. 15, p. 475 Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837, in Dejean, Cat. Coleopt. vol. 5, p. 397 Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, in Dejean, Cat. Coleopt. vol. 5, p. 397. The following is the original reference to a type-species designation ratified by the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Leptinotarsa heydenii Stal, 1858, as type species of Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837, by Motschulsky, 1860, in Schrenk, Reisen Forsch. Amurldnde, vol. 2(2), p. 182. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)15 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly accepted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 1290. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 July 1984 24 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 OPINION 1291 ANTILOPE ZEBRA GRAY, 1838 (MAMMALIA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name zebrata Robert, 1836, as published in the binomen Antilope zebrata, is hereby suppressed for the pur- poses of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) it is hereby ruled that the specific name zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, is to be given pre- cedence over the specific name doria Ogilby, 1837, as published in the binomen Antilope doria, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name doria Ogilby, 1837, as published in the binomen Antilope doria, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2919); (b) doria Ogilby, 1837, as published in the binomen Antilope doria, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2920). (3) The specific name zebrata Robert, 1836, as published in the binomen Antilope zebrata, 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 1138. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1908 An application for the conservation of the name Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 as the name of the zebra duiker was first received from Mr W. F. H. Ansell (then of Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and National Parks, Zambia) on 10 November 1969. It was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 and published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, p. 104 on 10 August 1970. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to two mammalogical serials. A critical comment by Dr Hans-Jirg Kuhn (Anatomisches Institut, Frankfurt, Germany) was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 28, pp. 14-15 on 10 August 1971. Mr Ansell’s reply was published in vol. 30, p. 136 in Bull. zool. Nom. on 6 July 1973. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 25 In the light of these exchanges it was decided to put forward a fresh application, and this was published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 152-153 (the delay at this stage was largely due to the difficulty of procuring a copy of the original reference to Antilope zebrata Robert). 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 two mammalogical 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)16 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 153. 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, Starobo- gatov, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen Negative Votes — two (2): Holthuis, Cogger. Dupuis returned an invalid vote against proposals other than those presented for a vote. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. The following comments were returned by members of the Commis- sion with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘The difference between zebra and zebrata is so minor that it seems to me not worth while to use the plenary powers to get rid of the latter. Strict adherence to the Code solves the problem most easily and elegantly; moreover, A. doria then offers no problem.’ Cogger: ‘If Antilope doria is indeed a junior objective synomym of A. mhorr, as the applicant contends, then the application is redundant. If the converse, then taxonomic resolution should precede the nomenclatural.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: doria, Antilope, Ogilby, 1837, Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 4, no. 47, p. 121 zebra, Antilope, Gray, 1838, Ann. nat. Hist. vol. 1 (1), p. 27 zebrata, Antilope, Robert, 1836, Echo du Monde savant, 1 May 1836, Sci. nat. géogr., first page. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)16 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly 26 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 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. 1291. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 July 1984 Bull. zool..Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 27 OPINION 1292 VOLUTA PAPILIO LINK, 1807 (GASTROPODA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name papilio Link, 1807, as published in the binomen Voluta papilio, is to be given precedence over the specific name /eucostoma Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Voluta leucostoma, whenever the two Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) papilio Link, 1807, as published in the binomen Voluta papilio, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over leucostoma Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Voluta leucostoma, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2921); (b) /eucostoma Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Voluta leucostoma, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Voluta papilio Link, 1807, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2922). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1777 An application for the suppression of three unused specific names of species of Voluta was first received from Dr W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, New Zealand) on 29 September 1966. It was sent to the printer on 8 November 1966 and published on 6 March 1967 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, pp. 53-54. Public notice of the possible use of the plen- ary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin, to the statutory serials and to two malacological serials. Owing to the then unsatisfactory state of affairs surrounding Article 23b, the case was set aside. A revised application was received on 24 November 1978. This showed that two of the three names originally involved could be dealt with automatically; only Voluta leucostoma Gmelin, 1791 was still a threat to the stability of nomenclature. After an exchange of correspondence this application was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 149-151. 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 malacological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)7 for or against the 28 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 176. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 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, 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: Ride: ‘No case is made for the need to preserve V. leucostoma Gmelin, 1791; it is a forgotten name and the applicant has “tno doubt” that it is a synonym of V. papilio Link, 1807. The Commission should be asked to suppress V. Jeucostoma under Article 79b. Unless there is good reason for it, applicants should not seek to preserve forgotten senior synonyms under the relative precedence procedure. Such action is liable to confuse the nomenclature of the group.’ Heppell: ‘If there was a good case for the suppression of V. leucostoma thirteen years ago, there is an even better one now, as it has remained unused and doubtless will so continue. Why, therefore, does Cernohorsky ask for a relative-precedence decision?’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: leucostoma, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat., ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 3457 papilio, Voluta, Link, 1807, Beschr. nat. Samml. Univ. Rostock (3), p. 127. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)17 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1292. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 July 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 29 OPINION 1293 SCOLIA QUINQUECINCTA FABRICIUS, 1793 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF HETERELIS COSTA, 1887 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Heterelis Costa, 1887 are hereby set aside and the nominal species Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Heterelis Costa, 1887 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2230. (3) The specific name quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Scolia quinquecincta (specific name of type species of Heterelis Costa, 1887) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2923. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1175 The earlier history of this case was reviewed in a report by the Secretary to the Commission published on 19 June 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 117-118. 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)18, for or against the proposals set forth in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 118. 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, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis Negative Votes — none (0) No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 30 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 Heterelis A. Costa, 1887, Prospetto degli imenotteri italiani (2), p. 104 quinquecincta, Scolia, Fabricius, 1793, Entomol. Syst., vol. 2, p. 234. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)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 Number 1293. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 July 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 31 OPINION 1294 EDWARDSIA DE QUATREFAGES, 1841 (COELENTERATA, ACTINIARIA): CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Edwardsia da Costa, 1834, and all uses of that name prior to its publication by de Quatrefages in 1841, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Carlgren, 1949, Edwardsia beautempsii de Quatrefages, 1842) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2231. (3) The specific name beautempsii de Quatrefages, 1842, as published in the binomen Edwardsia beautempsii (specific name of type species of Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2924. (4) The family-group name EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 (type genus Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 563. (5) The generic name Edwardsia de Costa, 1834, 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 2149. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.((S.)2261 An application for the conservation of the generic name Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841 was first received from Dr R. B. Williams (Tring, Herts, U.K.) on 14 April 1978. It was sent to the printer on 17 May 1979 and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 175-179. 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 in the field of marine biology. Mr R. K. Brooke (University of Cape Town) and Professor J. H. Day (Rosebank, South Africa) observed that there was no need to conserve the family-group name EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881; Dr Williams replied that this proposal was an integral part of the case to be considered by the Commission (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 135-136). No other 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)7 for or against the 32 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 176. At the close of the voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski*, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Schuster*, Bayer, Uéno*, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride*, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Brinck, Corliss, Alvarado, Heppell* (those marked thus * voted against placing EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 on the Official List) Negative Votes — none (0). A late affirmative vote was returned by Cocks. Welch was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen and Savage. One of the problems mentioned (but not fully addressed) in the application concerned the status of Milnea Reichenbach as cited by Wright, 1866, Rec. zool. Lit. vol. 2, p. 782. That name is clearly a nomen nudum as of that citation, but it was proposed as a replacement name for Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841, and, if available, would clearly validly replace that name and preoccupy Milnea Lydekker, 1891 (Aves). Ride commented on this name in his voting paper as follows: ‘While the protection of Edwardsia is not needed against Milnea Reich. (the latter is a junior objective synonym of the former once the homonymy has disappeared), a palaeo-ornithologist should be asked to consider its effect on Milnea Lydekker, 1891. However, this issue raises the possibility that there may be a family-group name prior to EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 based on Milnea Reichenbach or on some other, undetected, replacement name for Edwardsia de Q.’ Dr Williams was asked if he knew of any such names but knew of none and found none. Further, Dr C. A. Walker (British Musuem, Natural History) could find no trace of ‘Milnea Reichenbach, 1866’ in the palaeo-ornithological literature; a search of the botanical literature (since Reichenbach was a botanist) was equally fruitless, but revealed that, if the name existed in botany, it would be invalid as a junior homonym of Milnea Roxburgh, 1824 and Milnea Rafinesque, 1838. 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: beautempsii, Edwardsia, de Quatrefages, 1842, Ann. Sci. nat. (Zool.), (2) vol. 18, p. 69 Edwardsia da Costa, 1834, Cenni zoologici (Naples), p. 62 Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841, I’ Institut vol. 9, p. 427 EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881, Mitt. zool. Stat. Neapel, vol. 2, p. 333. The following is the original reference for a type-species designation ratified by the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Edwardsia beautempsii de Quatrefages, 1842 as type species of Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841, by Carlgren, 1949, K. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl. (4) vol. 1, p. 23. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 33 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(83)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposal for the use of the plenary powers contained therein has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion Number 1294. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 August 1984 34 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 OPINION 1295 ACTINIA LINNAEUS, 1767 AND ACTINIIDAE RAFINESQUE, 1815 (COELENTERATA, ACTINIARIA) AND PENTACTA GOLDFUSS, 1820 (ECHINODERMATA, HOLOTHURIOIDEA): CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Priapus Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the generic name Actinia Pallas, 1766 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Thompson, 1858, Priapus equinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2232); (b) Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Actinia doliolum Pallas, 1766 (Name Number 2233); (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) equinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Priapus equinus (specific name of type species of Actinia Linnaeus, 1767) (Name Number 2925); (b) doliolum Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Actinia doliolum (specific name of type species of Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820) (Name Number 2926). (4) The family-group name ACTINIIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus Actinia Linnaeus, 1767) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 564. (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Priapus Linnaeus, 1758, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above (Name Number 2150); (b) Actinia Pallas, 1766, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above (Name Number 2151). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)825 The urgency of the need to conserve the generic name Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 was first mentioned to the Commission’s Secretariat by the late Professor F. Pax in 1954. No application was, however, submitted at that time. In 1979 Dr P. L. F. Cornelius (British Museum, Natural History), Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 35 on behalf of himself and of Dr Ray Williams (Tring) and Miss Ailsa Clark (British Museum, Natural History) announced that they were preparing a joint application on this subject. This was received on 3 April 1981, was sent to the printers on 25 August 1982 and published on 7 December 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 288-292. 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 periodicals and two marine biological periodicals. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)20 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 290-291. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss, Heppell Negative Votes — none (0). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. The applicants had originally attributed the family-group name ACTINIIDAE to Goldfuss, 1820, Handb. Zool. vol. 1, p. 166. Dr Holthuis observed on his voting paper that the name should be attributed instead to Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 155. This was accepted by Dr Cornelius and is incorporated in the present ruling. 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: Actinia Pallas, 1766, P.S. Pallas Misc. zool., p. 152 Actinia Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 1088 ACTINIIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 155 doliolum, Actinia, Pallas, 1766, P. S. Pallas Misc. zool., p. 152 equinus, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 656 Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820, Handb. Zool. vol. 1, p. 177 Priapus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 656. The following is the original reference to a type-species designation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Priapus equinus Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Actinia Linnaeus, 1767, by Thompson, W., 1858, Proc. zool. Soc. London, p. 146. 36 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)20 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 No. 1295. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 2 October 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 37 OPINION 1296 REQUEST FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO CONSERVE NETTASTOMELLA CARPENTER, 1865 (BIVALVIA) REFUSED RULING.— (1) The request for the use of the plenary powers to conserve Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865, through the suppression of Netastoma Carpenter, 1864, is hereby refused. (2) The generic name Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 (gender: neuter), type species, by monotypy, Pholas darwinii G. B. Sowerby II, 1849, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2234. (3) The specific name darwinii G. B. Sowerby II, 1849, as published in the binomen Pholas darwinii (specific name of type species of Netastoma Carpenter, 1864) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2927. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1054 An application for the conservation of Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 through the suppression of its senior objective synonym Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 was first received from Mr Joshua L. Baily (San Diego, California) on 12 December 1955. For reasons that cannot now be determined it was never published. A fresh application in the same sense was received from Dr Eugene V. Coan and Dr George L. Kennedy on 19 September 1976. After considerable correspondence, this was sent to the printer on 23 January 1980 and published on 19 June 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 114-116. 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 periodicals and three malacological periodicals. The application was supported by Professor Ruth D. Turner (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts) but opposed by Dr Lee A. Schremp and Dr Jack D. Mount (University of California, Riverside), who asked that Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 and Pholas darwinii G. B. Sowerby II, 1849 be placed on the Official List. This comment was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 9 on 26 February 1981. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)21 either for the original proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 115 (Alternative A) or for the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 9 (Alternative B). 38 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: For Alternative A—seven (7) received in the following order: Schuster, Binder, Starobogatov, Uéno, Hahn, Brinck, Corliss For Alternative B—eight (8) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Savage, Heppell, Sabrosky, Kraus. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: darwinii, Pholas, G. B. Sowerby II, 1849, Thesaurus conchylium, vol. 2 (10), p. 490, pl. 107, figs. 76-77 Netastoma Carpenter, 1864, Rep. brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. for 1863, pp. 529, 540, 605, 635, 637, 684. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)21 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 Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1296. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 October 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 39 OPINION 1297 XENOCREPIS PURA MAYR, 1904 DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF XENOCREPIS FOERSTER, 1856 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA) RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 are hereby set aside and Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2235. (3) The specific name morys Walker, 1848 as published in the binomen Pteromalus morys (the valid name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2928. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1437 The application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 was made in a report by the Secretary sent to the printer on 14 October 1980 and published on 26 February 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 74-75. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and was sent to the statutory serials, to seven general periodicals and eight entomological periodicals. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)22 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 75. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell (in part), Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Vote — Heppell (in part). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. Heppell voted for the use of the plenary powers but against placing any names on the Official List. He observed: ‘It is obviously important for the Commission to clarify whether Caenocrepis arenicola or Xenocrepis 40 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 pura is the type species of Xenocrepis Foerster. It would seem to be doubtful whether or not Xenocrepis sensu Ashmead represents the same taxon as Xenocrepis Foerster, and therefore I have no hesitation in voting for the fix- ation of X. pura as the type by the use of the plenary powers. The remainder of the proposals, however, seem to bring in complicated taxonomic con- siderations of whether Xenocrepis is a junior synonym of Mesopolobus and X. pura a junior synonym of Pteromalus morys. I can see no justification for putting the latter on the Official List of Specific Names and little for putting Xenocrepis on the Official List of Generic Names. Whatever the Commis- sion may believe is the status of names on the Official Lists, entomologists are certain to conclude that these names would not have been placed there unless they were intended to be used as the valid names of the taxa in question. Consequently, I vote for the principal proposition but against the subsidiary proposals.’ In reply to a request from the Secretary, Dr. Z. Boucek (of the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) provided the following reply: ‘It would be satisfactory if the type species of Xenocrepis were fixed as the X. pura Mayr, but it is immaterial whether either name is placed on the Official Lists, whatever their status may be. The main thing is to avoid destabilization of names, if Xenocrepis is regarded as a valid genus instead of as a part of the large genus Mesopolobus. If Ashmead’s action was accepted as correct, Caenocrepis Thomson could not be used as a valid name, and that genus, as understood, contains at least one species of econ- omic importance used in the USSR in biological control against a weevil pest of sugarbeet. That would change the name of that genus; hence it is a relatively important matter to have the type species fixed as proposed.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: morys, Pteromalus Walker, 1848, List Hym. Coll. Brit. Mus. (2), p. 197 Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856, Hym. Stud. Aachen (2), p. 64. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)22 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1297. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 October 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 41 DIRECTION 116 PAPILIONIDAE LATREILLE, [1802] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): REVISION OF OFFICIAL LIST ENTRY RULING.— (1) Entry No. 233 in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology is hereby deleted and replaced by the following: PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, [1802] (as ‘Papilionides’), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 387, type genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 233). (2) The family-group name Papilionides Latreille, [1802] (same reference as in (1) above), an incorrect original spelling of PAPILIONIDAE, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 500. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2245 An application for the correction of the Official List entry for the family-group name PAPILIONIDAE was first received from Lt-Col C. F. Cowan (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over-Sands, U.K.) on 5 January 1978. It was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 167-168. No use of the plenary powers was entailed. 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)4 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 167-168. 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, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Holthuis, Binder, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis Negative Votes—none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The original reference for the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Direction is given in paragraph (1) of the Ruling above. 42 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)4 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 Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Direction No. 116. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 June 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 43 DIRECTION 117 CORRECTION OF ENTRY NO. 462 IN THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY CONCERNING SPHAERIUM SCOPOLI, 1777 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) (CORRECTION TO OPINION 94) RULING.— (1) Entry No. 462 in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is hereby corrected to read: Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 (gender: neuter), type species, by monotypy, Tellina cornea Linnaeus, 1758. (2) The generic name Cyclas Lamarck, [1798], a junior objective synonym of Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2148. (3) The family-group name CYCLADIDAE (as ‘Cycladia’) Rafinesque, 1820 (invalid because the name of its type genus is a junior objective synonym rejected before 1961) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 501. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1892 The present case began as an application received on 27 June 1969 from Dr Arthur H. Clarke (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa) for the resolution of the homonymous use of the family name SPHAERIIDAE in both Mollusca (Bivalvia) and Insecta (Coleoptera). Although this issue has not yet been resolved by two votes of the Commission, certain peripheral issues can now be cleared away as a correction to Opinion 94. Dr Clarke asked for the use of the plenary powers to rule that SPHAERIDAE be accepted as the correct spelling of the coleopteran family name (type genus of the family, Sphaerius Waltl, 1838). His application was published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, pp. 235-237. After the possible use of the plenary powers in the case had been duly advertised, the question was put to the vote in V.P.(71)15 on 9 June 1971. Support had been expressed by Mr David Heppell. Although Dr Clarke’s proposals received a favourable vote by 15 votes to two, comments from Dr Starobogatov and Professor Tortonese caused me to re-examine the case. I found certain omissions in Dr Clarke’s proposals, and put for- ward fresh proposals in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 60-62. These attracted a number of comments and counter-proposals which led to the issue of V.P.(84)19 on 12 March 1984. This voting paper was divided into two parts, one concerned with the molluscan names, the other with the coleopteran names. Two alternatives were offered in each part. Part | offered: Alternative A (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 62, paras (2) (a), (3), (7) and (8)), namely, to place the bivalve family name SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862(1820) on the Official List, to correct entry no. 462 in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and to place the oo Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 junior objective synonyms Cyclas and CYCLADIDAE on the Official Index. Alternative B (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 202, paras (1), (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b) and (5)), namely to use the plenary powers to designate Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, 1818 as the type species of Cyclas Lamarck, [1798] with associated Official List action for Cyclas (and associated names) in Bivalvia and Sphaerius (and associated names) in Coleoptera. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984, the state of the voting was as follows: For Alternative A — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Melville, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Dupuis For Alternative B—three (3): Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Schuster. (It will be seen that this vote authorises the placing of SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (type genus Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. This is not being done on the present occasion because the status of that name under Article 55 remains to be clarified). V.P.(84)19 Part 2 offered: Alternative A: use of the plenary powers as requested in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 61, para (1) with associated proposals on p. 62, paras (2)(b), (4) and (5), namely to rule that the stem of family-group names based on Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 (Coleoptera) is SPHAERIUS—with associated Official List action for SPHAERIUSIDAE, Sphaerius, and Sphaerius acaroides Waltl, 1838. Alternative B: use of the plenary powers as requested in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 158, para (a), with associated proposals in paras (b), (c) and (d), namely to suppress Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 and place on the respective Official Lists Microsporus Kolenati, 1846, Microsporus obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, and MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: For Alternative A—ten (10) received in the following order: Halvorsen, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Cogger, Kraus © For. Alternative B—ten (10) received in the following order: Melville, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Ride, Heppell, Dupuis. Lehtinen abstained in both parts. The votes in Part 2 by Trjapitzin and Starobogatov were invalid. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. The issue in Part 2 of V.P.(84)19, which is the original issue raised by Dr Clarke, will thus have to be submitted for a third vote, in due course. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 45 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Direction: CYCLADIDAE (as ‘Cycladia’) Rafinesque, 1820, Ann. gén. Sci. phys., vol. 5, p. 318 (see also Prime, T., 1851, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., p. 155) Cyclas Lamarck, [1798], Tabl. encycl. trois régnes de la nature, pls 301, 302. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)19 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in Part 1, Alternative A of that voting paper have been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Direction No. 117. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 July 1984 46 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 SPIROGLYPHUS DAUDIN, 1800 AND STOA DE SERRES, 1855 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA, VERMETIDAE): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF TWO EQUIVOCAL GENERIC NAMES.Z.N.(S.)2340 By A. Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University, California 94305, U.S.A.) and Michael G. Hadfield (Kewalo Marine Laboratory, Pacific Biomedical Research Center, University of Hawaii, 41 Ahui Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, U.S.A., to whom any enquiries or requests for offprints should be addressed) This application seeks suppression of two nominal genera based on species not now adequately interpretable. The first is Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 (p. 39). Two species were described under it, S. politus (p. 49) and S. annulatus (p. 50, figs 28-29). Daudin considered both to be tubicolous annelids corroding a channel on other shells. He figured only one. Both were said to come from the Indian Ocean, the figured form entrenched on a fissurellid gastropod (a keyhole limpet). He had not seen living animals. Gray, 1840, cited Spiroglyphus as molluscan — a genus of marine snails. He allocated it to the family VERMETIDAE based on Vermetus which Cuvier, 1800, table 5, had also described and correctly considered a gastropod. 2. Vermetus was published twice in 1800: first by Cuvier: Legons anat. comp. vol. 1, table 5; the date of this is taken from J. typ. bibl. year 3, p. 218, 30 Germinal an 8 [=19 April, 1800], and the second by Daudin: Recueil de mémoires et de notes sur des espéces inédites ou peu connues de Mollusques, de Vers, et de Zoophytes, p. 34; the date of this is taken from J. typ. bibl. year 4, p. 43, 15 Brumaire an 9 [=5 November, 1800]. 3. Morch, principal reviser of the VERMETIDAE in the 19th century, selecting in 1861 the figured form as type species, reinterpreted its type locality and identified it as the sole entrenching vermetid of the Caribbean area. Actually, at least three such are known there now. Moreover, there are keyhole limpets in the Indo-Pacific that match Daudin’s figure well, and vermetids of both Caribbean and Indo-Pacific areas have entrenching species. 4. Faced with questions about the type locality and the morphology of the type species and having discovered that annelid specialists were like- wise uncertain about Daudin’s figure, one of us (Keen, 1961) suggested that the name Spiroglyphus should be set aside and regarded as a genus dubium until such time as type material could be recovered or a suitable neotype lot be selected. In the twenty years since this judgement was published, search has not revealed either Daudin’s original material or a plausible specimen for replacement. Meanwhile the alternative name Dendropoma Morch, 1861 (p. 153) (which then seemed preferable because it was based on extant type material in the British Museum (Natural History)), has gained currency not only among malacologists but also among ecologists and earth scientists, who are realising the usefulness of these mollusks as precise indicators of intertidal levels and hence of any shoreline changes. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 47 5. The second generic name, Stoa De Serres, 1855 (p. 238) was also described as applying to tubicolous annelids that were ‘perforating’, i.e. entrenching. De Serres named three species but did not select any one as type species, nor has a selection been made since. He said the animals corroded channels, especially in bivalves, and that the operculum, which was intact in one specimen, was steeply conic, solid and calcareous. He commented on its lack of a pedicel or stalk such as other serpulid genera exhibited and assumed it might have broken off. If his figure was accurate, the operculum is unlike that of any known vermetid, with a marked notch on the outer margin. M6rch, 1861—1862, who dismissed Stoa as a synonym of two earlier names (Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Siphonium Gray, 1850) was unable to recognise any of De Serres’ three species among the abundant vermetid material in European museums that he studied. His treatment of the taxon, however, was ambiguous. After synonymizing it and without defining Stoa as a separate unit, he cited the name subgeneri- cally for six species, under ‘Siphonium’ (actually an invalid name, pre- occupied by Siphonium Link, 1807). He reprinted De Serres’ descriptions but cited only one under the subgenus Stoa, the other two being considered Spiroglyphus by him. Subsequently, Stoa was cited in molluscan literature only as a synonym until 1939, when J. R. le B. Tomlin used it subgenerically for a new vermetid, again without designating the type species or supplying a diagnosis. It has not been used since. 6. De Serres stated that his specimens of Stoa were in the collections of the Université de Montpellier, but inquiry there has not produced any information about them. They can thus be presumed to be lost. If the operculum was as described — calcareous, steeply conic and solid — one can doubt that Stoa was based on molluscan material. Moreover, Fauchald, 1977, in a compilation of generic names of annelid polychaetes, lists Stoa under the family SPIRORBIDAE, classing it as ‘invalid’ and ‘indeterminable’. 7. Suppression of these two names would at present seem to have no adverse effect on nomenclatural stability. No family-group names are involved. Spiroglyphus as a generic name in the Mollusca has appeared in only one major faunal work in the last twenty years, and the author of that work now plans (personal communication) to adopt Dendropoma in future editions. Meanwhile, more than a dozen journal articles have been published, by various authors, in which the name Dendropoma appears either in the title or the abstract. Dendropoma has also been used, in pre- ference to Spiroglyphus, in at least four major faunal works. The late Dr Olga Hartman, a specialist on polychaete annelids, included Spiroglyphus in her 1959 list of possible genera (p. 47), but she regarded it as ‘doubtful’ (personal communication). Fauchald, 1977, did not list the name. Although Spiroglyphus was used by Californian palaeontologists for certain fossil annelids, this is generally conceded now to have been misidentification. The name Stoa, except for the ambiguous and inconsistent citation of Morch in 1861, was used in Mollusca only once since its proposal in 1855, and then 48 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 only as an undefined subgenus. Although of doubtful status, the unit is not completely rejected by annelid specialists. It would seem, then, that sup- pression would not cause problems in either field. Of the two names, only Spiroglyphus gained any status, when it was cited in Mollusca by various authors between — roughly — 1860 and 1960. Reviving it now involves morphologic problems and, because it has priority, would require tax- onomic readjustments in the classification of the family. The recommended replacement, Dendropoma, is based upon extant type material from known provenance, readily interpretable. 8. A number of malacologists who have been consulted on this pro- posed petition have offered no dissent. Their attitude seems to be that achieving stability by suppressing the names Spiroglyphus and Stoa would be preferable to trying to validate them, then having to readjust a classification that is coming into acceptance. 9. Therefore, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in the interests of current usage and nomenclatural stability, is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (a) the generic name Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800, as being based upon unidentifiable material; and to place the name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (b) the generic name Stoa De Serres, 1855, as being based upon unidentifiable material; and to place the name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; the specific names annulatus and politus, as published in the binomina Spiroglyphus annulatus and S. politus Daudin, 1800, and to place them on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; the specific names perforans (p. 241), ammonitiformis (p. 240) and spirulaeformis (p. 241) as published in the binomina Stoa perforans, S. ammonitiformis and S. spirulaeformis De Serres, 1855, and to place them on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (2) to place the generic name Dendropoma Morch, 1861 (gender: neuter), type species, by designation of Keen, 1961, Siphonium (D.) lituellum Morch, 1861 (p. 154), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name /ituellum Morch, 1861 as proposed in the binomen Siphonium (Dendropoma) lituella (specific name of type species of Dendropoma MOrch, 1861) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. — (c (d ~~ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 49 REFERENCES DAUDIN, F. M. 1800. Recueil de mémoires et de notes sur des espéces inédites ou peu connues de Mollusques, de Vers, et de Zoophytes. Paris, privately printed, pp. 1-50, 4 pls. DE SERRES, M. 1855. Notes sur un nouveau genre d’annélide tubicole perforant. Ann. Sci. nat., Paris, Zool., ser. 4, vol. 4, pp. 238-243, 1 pl. FAUCHALD, K. 1977. The polychaete worms: definitions and keys to the orders, families, and genera. Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, Science Ser., no. 28, 188 pp., 42 figs. GRAY, J. E. 1840. Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum. London, 42nd ed. p. 118. HARTMAN, O. 1959. Catalogue of polychaetous annelids of the world. Allan Hancock Foundation Occasional Paper No. 23, pt. 1, p. 47. KEEN, A. M. 1961. A proposed reclassification of the gastropod family Vermetidae. Bull. British Mus. (Nat. Hist.), vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 183-212, 2 pls. MORCH, O. A. L. 1861-1862. Review of the Vermetidae. Part I. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1861, no. 2, pp. 145-181, Sept., 1861; Part II, ibid, no. 3, pp. 326-365, pl. 25, Apr., 1862; Part III, ibid, for 1862, no. 1, pp. 54-83, June, 1862. 50 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 CARPOPHAGA AURORAE PEALE, 1848 AND SERRESIUS GALEATUS BONAPARTE, 1855 (AVES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF COLUMBA R. FORSTERI WAGLER, 1829. Z.N.(S.)2277 By Murray D. Bruce (8 Spurwood Road, Turramurra, N.S.W. 2074, Australia), D. T. Holyoak (Dept. of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, England) and J.-C. Thibault (Parc Natural Régional de Corse, Rue Général Fiorella, B.P. No 417, 20184 Ajaccio Cedex, Corse, France). This application is designed to preserve the long established and generally used specific names of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 (U.S. Expl. Exped., Birds vol. 8, p. 201) (type locality Aurora Island = Makatea, Tuamotu Archipelago), a fruit pigeon from Tahiti (Society Islands) and Makatea, and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855 (C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris vol. 41, p. 1110) (type locality Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands), a fruit pigeon from the Marquesas Islands. Both are currently placed in the genus Ducula (Goodwin, 1983, Pigeons and doves of the World, 3rd. ed., p. 320). 2. Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 (Isis von Oken col. 739) (based on Columba globicera var. ? of Reinhold Forster MS., from Tahiti) has been variously identified as a senior subjective synonym of both Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 (see paragraph 5 below) and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855 (see paragraph 4 below). 3. According to Art. 26(d) of the Code as amended as Monaco (Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 29, pp. 72-73 & 188, 1972, approving Declaration 42, 1966, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 23, pp. 198-200), an abbreviation in a compound name is to be written out in full. Hence Wagler’s name would become either reinholdiforsteri if the given name is put in the genitive case or reinholdforsteri if not. Subsequent authors have mostly quoted the name as ‘Columba forsteri Wagler, 1829’ which is technically incorrect. This usage invites confusion with Columba Forsteri Desmarest, 1826 (Dict. Sci. nat. ed. Levrault vol. 11, p. 340), which was proposed as a new name for Columba porphyracea Temminck, 1821 (Trans. Linn. Soc. London vol. 13, p. 130) from Tongatabu and Ulietea. Columba Forsteri Desmarest, 1826 has usually been regarded as an objective synonym of Prilinopus porphyraceus (Temminck, 1821). The name Columba forsterii was also used by Prévost (in Knip, 1838-1843 Les Pigeons 2nd edition, vol. 2, p. 87, pl. 47) for the bird later named as Hemiphaga forsteni ‘Temminck’ Bonaparte, 1854 (C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris vol. 39, p. 1077). 4. Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 was identified as a senior subjective synonym of Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855 by the following authors: (1) Gray, 1859. Cat. Bds Trop. Is. Pacific Ocean. (2) Wigglesworth, 1891. Abh. Ber. K. zool. anthr. Mus. Dresden 1890-1891 (6). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 51 (3) Lysaght, 1957. Ibis vol. 99, pp. 118-120 (as ‘Ducula forsteri (Wagler), 1829’, with recommendation that this name should be used to replace Serresius galeata [sic] Bonaparte). 5. Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 was identified as a senior subjective synonym of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 by the following authors: (1) Salvadori, 1893. Cat. Bds br. Mus. vol. 21, pp. 172-173 (identi- fied as the same as Carpophaga wilkesii Peale, 1848 (U.S. Expl. Exped. Bds vol. 8, p. 203), but with reservations; Carpophaga wilkesii Peale, 1848 was recognised as a junior subjective synonym of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 by Townsend & Wetmore (1919, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. vol. 63, p. 190), Murphy (1924, Am. Mus. Novit. No. 115, p. 8) and Mathews (1927, Syst. Av. Australas. vol. 1, p. 45)). (2) Mathews, 1927. Syst. Av. Australas. vol. 1, p. 45 (in synonymy of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 as ‘?Columba forsteri Wagler’). (3) Stresemann, 1950. Auk vol. 67, pp. 84-87 (as ‘Ducula forsteri (Wagler, 1829), with a recommendation that this name should not be adopted, ‘for the benefit of uniformity and stability’). We believe that the latter is the correct identification because Ducula aurorae is the only large fruit pigeon on Tahiti and the locality of Forster’s bird is given as Tahiti. However, others contend that there may formerly have been a second large species on Tahiti identical with D. galeata of the Marquesas Islands. 6. Forster (1844, Descript. Animal., ed. Lichtenstein, p. 166) gave the locality for his Columba globicera Varietas as ‘insulae Otaheite’ which Wagler quoted as ‘Habitat in insula Otaheite’. Murphy (1924, Am. Mus. Novit. vol. 115, pp. 7-8), Mayr (1940, Am. Nat. vol. 74, p. 270), Amadon (1943, Am. Mus. Novit. No. 1237, p. 12), Thibault & Thibault (1973, Oiseau, Rey. fr. Orn. vol. 43, p. 67) and Holyoak (1974, Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 44, pp. 163-164; 1975, Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 45, pp. 341-344) have firmly established that Ducula galeata (Bonaparte) is known only from the Marquesas Islands, where D. aurorae (Peale) is unknown, the latter species being known with certainty only from Tahiti and Makatea. Lysaght (op. cit.) suggested that ‘the giant pigeon [D. galeata auct.], found only in the Marquesas, should be known as Ducula forsteri (Wagner) [sic] 1829, the type locality being Tahiti’. However, there is no evidence for the former occurrence of a second species of large pigeon on Tahiti, beyond a state- | ment rejecting the idea by Bonaparte and an unsupported suggestion of for- | mer occurrence of another form by Bruner (1972, Field Guide to Birds of | French Polynesia, p. 67) in a popular guide produced by cyclostyling. | Bonaparte (1855, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris vol. 41, p. 1111) stated: ‘On a assuré | aM. Jardin qu'il est plus frequent a Otahiti; mais j’ai peine a le croire, ne trouvant du reste pas étonnant qu’un oiseau si remarquable ait un nom | dans la langue d’un pays ou on l’importerait seulement’. 52 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 7. The fruit-pigeon of Tahiti and Makatea has been universally known as Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848. A sample list of the literature mainly of the last fifty years but including some earlier standard works that were relied on for nomenclature is given in Appendix 1. 8. With the few exceptions noted in paragraph 4 above, the fruit- pigeon of the Marquesas Islands has been universally known as Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855. A sample list of the literature, mainly of the last fifty years but including some earlier standard works that were relied on for nomenclature, is given in Appendix 2. 9. While a proposal to accept Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 in place of either aurorae or galeata (depending on which identification were accepted), would be in accordance with the Principle of Priority, either replacement would disturb stability and universality of usage and cause confusion because of the disparate views as to its identity. Art. 79 of the Code allows that a junior name may be validated in the interest of pro- moting stability and universality of usage or avoiding confusion. As noted in paragraph 5 above, Wagler’s name has not been adopted in place of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 by any recent author, whereas numerous authors have used Peale’s name as indicated under paragraph 7 above. Intolerable confusion could arise if Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 were now adopted in place of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 or Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855. Even if Wagler’s name (following Lysaght’s view) is interpreted as a senior synonym of Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855 (which we consider would be incorrect), usage of galeatus has been almost universal, as indicated in paragraph 8 above. The suppression of Wagler’s name (of uncertain applicability to one or other) is preferable to a ruling that Peale’s or Bonaparte’s names should merely be given pre- cedence over it, as it must apply to one or the other of the species currently known as Ducula aurorae or D. galeata. The birds of the Society Islands and the Marquesas Islands are now sufficiently well known for it to be extremely improbable that a second species of large pigeon exists in either archipelago. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is, therefore, requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829, as published in the binomen Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) aurorae Peale, 1848, as published in the binomen Carpophaga aurorae; (b) galeatus Bonaparte, 1855, as published in the binomen Serresius galeatus; (3) to place the specific name R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829, as published in the binomen Columba R. Forsteri and suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 53 APPENDIX 1 Recent and major books and papers using the specific name aurorae for the fruit- pigeon of the Society Islands: SALVADORI, 1893. Cat. Bds Br. Mus. vol. 21, pp. 172, 180. TOWNSEND & WETMORE, 1919. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zocl. vol. 63, p. 190. MURPHY, 1924. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 115, p. 8. MATHEWS, 1927. Syst. Av. Australia. vol. 1, p. 45. PETERS, 1937. Checklist Bds World vol. 3, p. 43. MAYR, 1940. Am. Nat. vol. 74, p. 270. AMADON, 1943. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 1237, p. 12. GREENWAY, 1958. Extinct and vanishing bds World, p. 17. GOODWIN, 1967. Pigeons and doves World, pp. 385, 387, 398. THIBAULT & THIBAULT, 1973. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 43, p. 67. EDWARDS, 1974. Coded list bds World, p. 41. HOLYOAK, 1974. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 44, pp. 11, 163-164, 183-184. THIBAULT, 1974. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. D vol. 278, p. 2478. THIBAULT & RIVES, 1975. Bds of Tahiti, p. 92. THIBAULT & THIBAULT, 1975. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 45, p. 91. GRUSON, 1976. Checklist Bds World, p. 42. HOLYOAK & THIBAULT, (1984). Bull. Mus. natn. d’Hist. nat., Paris, sér. A. Tome 127. APPENDIX 2 Recent and major books and papers using the specific name ga/eatus for the fruit- pigeon of the Marquesas Islands: SALVADOR], 1893. Cat. Bds Br. Mus. vol. 21, p. 171. MURPHY, 1924. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 115, p. 7. MATHEWS, 1927. Syst. Ay. Australia. vol. 1, p. 44. PETERS, 1937. Checklist Bds World vol. 3, p. 43. ADAMSON, 1939. Bull. Bernice P. Bishop Mus. vol. 159, p. 64. MAYR, 1940. Am. Nat. vol. 74, p. 270. GREENWAY, 1958. Extinct and vanishing bds World, p. 95. KING, 1958. Elepaio vol. 19, p. 16. GOODWIN, 1967. Pigeons and doves World, pp. 385, 387, 399. THIBAULT, 1973. Bull. Soc. Et. Océaniennes, Polynésie orientale vol. 15, p. 268. THIBAULT, 1973. Alauda vol. 41, p. 314. THIBAULT & THIBAULT, 1973. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 43, p. 67. EDWARDS, 1974. Coded list bds World, p. 41. HOLYOAK, 1975. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 45, pp. 215, 217, 341-344, 363. GRUSON, 1976. Checklist Bds World, p. 43. HOLYOAK & THIBAULT, (1984). Bull. Mus. natn. d’Hist. natn., Paris, sér. A, Tome 127. 54 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 HUMEROBATES SELLNICK, 1928 (ARACHNIDA, ACARI): MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES NOTASPIS HUMERALIS HERMANN, 1804. Z.N.(S.)2374 By Roy A. Norton (State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York 13210, U.S.A.) This application is a plea for the Commission to use its plenary powers to designate Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936 as type species of Humerobates, in conformity with general usage. 2. Hermann, 1804, p. 92, proposed the name Notaspis humeralis for an arboricolous oribatid mite species from Strasbourg, France. 3. Banks, 1895, p. 7, proposed the name Oribata arborea for an arboricolous oribatid mite species collected from Sea Cliff, New York, U.S.A. 4. Sellnick, 1928, p. 11, proposed the genus Humerobates with Notaspis humeralis Hermann, 1804 designated as type species. 5. Jacot, 1931, p. 379, designated Oribata arborea a subspecies of H. humeralis (sensu Sellnick). His use of the heading ‘Humerobates humeralis arborea subsp. nov.’ was in error and Jacot corrected original reprints to read ‘Humerobates humeralis arborea (Banks, p. 7)’. 6. Grandjean, 1936, provided conclusive evidence, never since ques- tioned, that the species studied and illustrated by Sellnick, 1928, was not Notaspis humeralis; therefore, the type species of Humerobates was mis- identified. Grandjean, p. 79, then proposed the genus Diapterobates with Trichoribates numerosus (Sellnick) designated type species. At the same time it was suggested that 7. numerosus was a junior subjective synonym of Notaspis humeralis (sensu Hermann). Grandjean, p. 77, proposed the new name Humerobates rostrolamellatus for the species misidentified by Sellnick and considered it to be the type species of Humerobates Sellnick, 1928. 7. Jacot, 1938, considered Grandjean’s interpretation of the identity of Notaspis humeralis to be correct, but despite the misidentification implied that the rules of nomenclature required the type species of Humerobates to be the species bearing the name N. humeralis. He also implied, and later in 1940 specified, that Humerobates was therefore a junior synonym of Trichoribates Berlese, 1910 (he did not recognise Grandjean’s proposed genus Diapterobates). The problem of the synonymy and the type species of Trichoribates and Murcia C. L. Koch, 1835 will be the subject of a later application to the Commission. To provide a generic name for Humerobates rostrolamellatus and its American subspecies, H. rostrolamel- latus arboreus, Jacot, 1938, p. 14, proposed the genus Banksinus, with the older of the two species-group taxa, Oribata arborea, designated as type species. This resulted in the combinations Banksinus arboreus (Banks) and B. arboreus rostrolamellatus (Grandjean). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 55 8. Grandjean, 1971, p. 868, proposed the family HUMEROBATIDAE consisting of the single genus Humerobates. 9. Since its proposal, the name Banksinus has been used only once in the primary zoological literature, by Jacot, 1940. In contrast, Humerobates has been in continuous use (in the sense of Sellnick and Grandjean) since its proposal. This includes major systematic monographs such as Willmann, 1931; Sellnick, 1960; Kunst, 1971; Balogh, 1972 and earlier papers, and Shaldybina, 1975. The latter four, and all other published systematic works dealing with this group, list Humerobates rostrolamellatus as type species of Humerobates. Approximately three dozen publications of a distributional, ecological or morphological nature have used the name H. rostrolamellatus. Members of this species have some minor economic significance (Massee, 1932; Krantz & Lindquist, 1979) and are considered to be bioindicators of sulphur dioxide air pollution (Lebrun et a/., 1978; André et al., 1982). 10. Since strict adherence to nomenclatural rules would necessitate a change of the widely used name Humerobates and also affect the inter- pretation of the family name HUMEROBATIDAE, the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Humerobates Sellnick, 1928, and having done so to designate Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936, as type species for that genus; (2) to place the generic name Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936, as published in the binomen Humerobates rostrolamellatus (specific name of the type species of Humerobates Sellnick, 1928) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ANDRE, H. M., BOLLY, C. & LEBRUN, P. 1982. Monitoring and mapping air pollution through an animal indicator: a new and quick method. J. appl. Ecol., vol. 19, pp. 107-111. BALOGH, J. 1972. The oribatid genera of the world. Academiai Kiado, Budapest. pp. 1-188, 71 pl. BANKS, N. 1895. On the Oribatoidea of the United States. Trans Am. entomol. Soc., vol. 22, pp. 1-16. GRANDIJEAN, F. 1936. Les oribates de Jean Frédéric Hermann et de son pére (Arachn. Acar.). Annis Soc. entomol. France., vol. 105, pp. 27-110. 1971. Nouvelles observations sur les oribates. Acarologia, vol. 12, pp. 849-876. HERMANN, J. F. 1804. Mémoire Aptérologique. F. L. Hammer, Strasbourg, pp. 1-152, 9 pl. 56 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 JACOT, A. P. 1931. A common arboreal moss mite Humerobates humeralis. Occ. Pap. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., vol. 5, pp. 369-382, 1 pl. 1938. Some new western North Carolina moss-mites. Proc. entomol. Soc. Washington, vol. 40, pp. 10-15. 1940. New oribatid mites from South Africa. Ann. Natal Mus., vol. 9, pp. 391-400. KRANTZ, G. W. & LINDQUIST, E. E. 1979. Evolution of phytophagous mites (Acari). Ann. Rev. Entomol., vol. 24, pp. 121-158. KUNST, M. 1971. Nadkohorta Pancirnici— Oribatei. in Daniel & Cerny. Klic zvireny CSSR, pp. 531-580. Ceskoslovenska Akademie Ved. Praha. LEBRUN, P., JACQUES, J. M., GOOSSENS, M. & WAUTHY, G. 1978. The effect of interaction between the concentration of SO, and the relative humidity of air on the survival of the bark-living bio-indicator mite Humerobates rostrolamellatus. Wat. Air Soil Poll., vol. 10, pp. 269-275. MASSEE, A. M. 1932. Some injurious and beneficial mites on top and soft fruits. J. Pomol., vol. 10, pp. 106-129. SELLNICK, M. 1928. Formenkreis: Hornmilben, Oribatei. Tierwelt Mitteleur., vol. 3, lief. 4, pp. 1-42. 1960. Formenkreis: Hornmilben, Oribatei. Tierwelt Mitteleur., vol. 3, lief. 4, pp. 45-134. SHALDYBINA, E. S. 1975. Family Ceratozetidae, in: A key to the soil-inhabiting mites. Sarcoptiformes. Nauka, Moscow. pp. 277-303. WILLMANN, C. 1931. Moosmilben oder Oribatiden (Oribatei). Tierwelt Dtl., vol. 22, pp. 79-200. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 57 HATSCHEKIA POCHE, 1902 (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF PSEUDOCLAVELLA BASSETT-SMITH, 1898 Z.N.(S.)2390 By J. B. Jones (Fisheries Research Division, P.O. Box 297, Wellington, New Zealand) The purpose of this application is to retain the generic name Hatschekia Poche, 1902 and to suppress as a forgotten name Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898. 2. In 1898 Bassett-Smith (1898, pp. 92-96) proposed a new genus and species of parasitic copepod, Pseudoclavella ovalis, two syntype speci- mens of which he deposited in the British Museum (Natural History) (Cat. no. 98.12.2.13). Unfortunately, although his description of the specimens was reasonably accurate, his illustrations were poor. 3. Poche (1902, pp. 16-17) recognising the composite nature of Clavella Oken, 1815 as it was then constituted, and without any reference to Pseudoclavella, proposed the removal of four species of Clavella to a new genus which he named Hatschekia, designating C. hippoglossi Kroyer, 1838 as the type species. Krgyer’s specimens no longer exist, but the species is common and well described. 4. Meanwhile, Brian (1902, p. 38), also without reference to Pseudoclavella, proposed the transfer of seven species of Cycnus to Clavella, and these were subsequently transferred to Hatschekia by Goggio (1905, pp. 215-217). 5. Goggio noticed the similarity between certain Hatschekia species and Pseudoclavella, and in a note (1905, p. 219) remarked, ‘Veramente questa specie si avvicina, come del resto anche la Hatschekia (Clavella) labracis Van Ben., al genere Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith (reference) per la presenza delle appendici addominali: la colloco pero nel genere Hatschekia perche, fra l’altro, queste sono rappresentate da un solo paio, mentre al posta del 2 paio di appendici addominali non si trovano tutt’al piu che due setole’. Had Goggio access to the type of Pseudoclavella he would undoubt- ably have transferred H. labracis and H. cernae into Pseudoclavella and the rest of Hatschekia would eventually have followed. 6. By the time Wilson (1922) published his review of the North American DICHELESTHIIDAE, there were 25 recognised species of Hatschekia and one species of Pseudoclavella. Wilson, in comparing the genera within this family, apparently relied heavily on Bassett-Smith’s illustrations, and (p. 9) listed a number of differences between Pseudoclavella and Hatschekia, particularly in the structure of the antenna II and the third and fourth legs. 7. Yamaguti (1963) was also misled by the structure of the third and fourth legs and transferred Pseudoclavella to the PSEUDOCYCNIDAE (p. 171). Hatschekia (Yamaguti, 1963, pp. 135-140) had grown to approximately 75 described species. 58 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 8. Pillai (1969, pp. 171-172) finally re-examined the type specimen of Pseudoclavella ovalis and transferred the species to Hatschekia without commenting on the problems of priority that might occur. 9. Hatschekia now contains about 100 species. Since 1960 the following authors have described species ascribed to Hatschekia: Kabata, 1981, 1979, 1965 Ho & Dojiri, 1978 Cressey, 1970 Hewitt, 1969 Lewis, 1967 Yamaguti & Yamasu, 1960 The genus was transferred to a new family HATSCHEKIIDAE, by Kabata (1979). Pseudoclavella, while always recognised as a valid genus, has never been used as a senior synonym of Hatschekia. 10. The present application seeks to place the proposal of Pillai (1969) on a proper footing. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Clavella hippoglossi Kroyer, 1838; (3) to place the specific name hippoglossi Kroyer, 1838, as published in the binomen Clavella hippoglossi (specific name of the type species of Hatschekia Poche, 1902) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BASSETT-SMITH, P. W. 1898. Further new parasitic copepods found on fish in the Indo-tropical region. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. ser. 7, vol. 2, pp. 77-98. BRIAN. A. 1902. Note su alcuni Crostacei parassiti dei Pesci del Mediterraneo. Atti Soc. ligust. Sci. nat. geogr., vol. 13, pp. 30-45, | plate. CRESSEY, R. F. 1970. Hatschekia pacifica new species (Copepoda, Caligoida) a parasite of the sand bass, Paralebrax nebulifer (Giard). Proc. biol. Soc. Wash., vol. 82(66), pp. 843-846. GOGGIO, E. 1905. Intorno al genere Clavella Oken (Hatschekia Poche). Archo. zool. ital., vol. 2, pp. 215-225, 4 figs. HEWITT, G. C. 1969. Two new species of Hatschekia (Copepoda, Dichelesthiidae) from New Zealand waters. N.Z. JI mar. freshw. Res., vol. 3, pp. 159-168. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 59 HO, J. S. & DOJIRI, M. 1978. A new species of Hatschekia (Copepoda, Dicheles- thiidae) parasitic on leopard coral trout in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. J. Parasitol., vol. 64(4), pp. 727-730. KABATA, Z. 1965. Parasitic Copepoda of Fishes. Rep. B.A.N.Z. Antarctic. Res. Exped., ser. B, vol. 8(6), pp. 1-16. 1979. Parasitic Copepoda of British Fishes. London BM(NH) for The Ray Society, monograph 152, i-xii, 468 pp., 2031 figs. 1981. Relegation of Hatschekia acuta Barnard, 1948 to synonymy with Hatschekia conifera Yamaguti, 1939. (Copepoda: Syphonostomatoida). Can. J. Zool., vol. 59(11), pp. 2080-2084. LEWIS, A. G. 1967. Copepod crustaceans parasitic on teleost fishes of the Hawaiian Islands. Proc. U.S. Natn. Mus., vol. 121, pp. 1-204. PILLAI, N. K. 1969. Notes on some copepod parasites in the collection of the British Museum (N.H.), London. J. mar. biol. Ass. India, vol. 11(1-2), pp. 149-174, 138 figs. POCHE, F. VAN. 1902. Bemerkungen zu der Arbeit des Herrn Bassett-Smith, A Systematic Description of Parasitic Copepoda found on Fishes, with an Enumeration of the known Species. Zool. Anz., vol. 26, pp. 8-20. WILSON, C. B. 1922. North American parasitic copepods belonging to the family Dichelesthiidae. Proc. U.S. Natn. Mus., vol. 60, art. 5, pp. 1-100. YAMAGUTI, S. 1963. Parasitic Copepoda and Branchiura of Fishes. Interscience, New York, 1104 pp. ——& YAMASJU, T. 1960. New parasitic copepods from Japanese fishes. Publs Seto mar. biol. Lab., vol. 8, pp. 141-152. 60 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 THE DESCRIPTION OF NEW TAXA ON ENZYME DATA: A MATTER FOR DISCUSSION. Z.N.(S.)2458 (1) By Jens Erik Jelnes (Thyboron Alle 82, 2720 Vanloese, Denmark) The widespread use of isoenzyme techniques, electrophoresis and isoelectric focusing, in studies of molecular biology has had an impact on studies in taxonomy and phylogeny of species in different animal groups. As early as 1963, Manwell & Baker discovered two sibling species of the sea cucumber Thyonella gemmata using starch gel electrophoresis. In their study they were able to relate the isoenzyme pattern to some differences in morphology. The first formal description of new taxa on the basis of isoenzyme pattern (Ayala, 1973) were two subspecies of the Drosophila willistoni group. Since then, several studies using the isoenzyme technique have revealed the presence of sibling species within what was considered one morphological species; generally, these discoveries were made on sympatric material. Grassle & Grassle, 1976, found the polychaete Capitella capitella to be composed of six sibling species, the oligochaete Lumbricillus rivalis was shown to be composed of three sibling species (Christensen & Jelnes, 1976), the prosobranch Goniobasis floridensis consists of two species (Chambers, 1978). It is beyond the scope of this contribution to mention all such cases, but it is due time, through a debate, to obtain some agreement on procedures for describing taxa, if necessary, solely from enzymic evidence. In literature one can find examples where diagnostic enzymes can not readily be examined by other workers due to inadequate description of the methodology used. It would be fruitful if the suggestions resulting from the discussion opened by this paper could be included in the International Code for zoological nomenclature. 2. What is to be discussed applies on/y to the formal description of new taxa, although the recommendations might have an impact on other isozymic work. 3. The first four recommendations suggested apply to the reprodu- cibility of diagnostic enzyme characters. This is of great importance, as a zoological taxon should be described from diagnostic characters that are readily recognisable for colleagues. It does not suffice to state that 18 specified enzymes were investigated using 11 different buffers. It might well be that an enzyme is diagnostic in one buffer but not in another, e.g. the enzyme glutamate—oxaloacetate transaminase has clearly different mobili- ties in the species Bulinus tropicus and B. permembranaceus using buffer C (Jelnes, 1979), whereas the enzyme mobilities are identical using buffer B (Henriksen & Jelnes, 1980) (unpublished observations). 4. I therefore suggest the four following recommendations: (1) gel medium (starch, polyacryl amide, cellulose acetate, etc.) and gel concentration (where applicable) should be clearly specified, preferably with the name of the manufacturer; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 61 (2) chemical composition of buffers used, either in grams per litre or molarity, as well as pH of the buffers, should be clearly stated; (3) it should appear clearly in which gels, characterised by the buffer, the different enzymes are stained, and what the staining mixture is composed of; (4) the procedure of scoring should be indicated. Is it (a) relative mobility to a standard marker, (b) relative mobility to the cor- responding enzyme of a specified strain, (c) direct comparison between enzyme bands between the different taxa on the gels, or (d) isoelectric point. The last three recommendations suggested apply to the concept of the holotype. It is fully realised that these might not apply to all groups of animals, but it is of importance for possible later morphological studies that some material be preserved, labelled properly according to the ICZN as holotype and paratypes. (5) if possible, not whole animals, but parts of no obvious mor- phological significance, should be used for enzyme studies. The part of one individual that is not used should be preserved and labelled as the holotype, and those of other individuals from the same locality of similar phenotype or genotype, should be kept and labelled as paratypes; (6) if whole animals have to be used for enzyme studies, care should be taken to select the type locality as a locality where only the new taxon is found, i.e. without closely related species. This has to be shown by analysis of a number of specimens. The holotype and paratypes can then be designated from the remaining individuals of the collection, constituting only the new taxon as revealed enzymewise; (7) A photograph of the zymograms showing the diagnostic characters should be provided along with the description, pre- ferably showing the band position(s) of the related species as well. 5. There is no doubt that in the future, enzymic characters will come to play a more important role in systematic work. For those unacquainted with the use of enzymic data in systematics, Avise, 1974, has provided an informative account. I shall look forward to a hopefully fruitful debate on the subject. REFERENCES AVISE, J. C. 1974. Systematic value of electrophoretic data. Systematic Zoology, vol. 23, pp. 465-481. 62 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 AYALA, F. J. 1973. Two new subspecies of the Drosophila willistoni group (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Pan—Pacific Entomol., vol. 49, pp. 273-279. CHAMBERS, S. M. 1978. An electrophoretically detected sibling species of ‘Gonio- basis floridensis’ (Mesogastropoda: Pleuroceridae). Malacologia, vol. 17, pp. 157-162. CHRISTENSEN, B. & JELNES, J. E. 1976. Sibling species in the oligochaete worm Lumbricillus rivalis revealed by enzyme polymorphism and breeding experi- ments. Hereditas, vol. 83, pp. 237—244. GRASSLE, J. P. & GRASSLE, J. F. 1976. Sibling species in the marine pollution indicator Capitella (Polychaeta). Science, vol. 192, pp. 567-569. HENRIKSEN, U. B. & JELNES, J. E. 1980. Experimental taxonomy of Biom- phalaria (Gastropoda: Planorbidae) I. Methods for experimental taxonomic studies on Biomphalaria carried out by horizontal starch gel electrophoresis and staining of twelve enzymes. J. Chromatogr., vol. 188, pp. 169-176. JELNES, J. E. 1979. Experimental taxonomy of Bulinus. II. Recipes for horizontal starch gel electrophoresis of ten enzymes in Bulinus and description of internal standard systems and two new species of the Bulinus forskalii complex. J. Chromatogr., vol. 170, pp. 405-411. MANWELL, C. & BAKER, C. M. A. 1963. A sibling species of sea cucumber discovered by starch gel electrophoresis. Comp. Bioch. Physiol., vol. 10, pp. 39-53. (2) by Renaud Fortuner (Department of Food & Agriculture, 1220 N Street, Room 340, Sacramento CA 95814, U.S.A.) A zoological name published after 1930 is available only if it is ‘accompanied by a description or definition that states in words the charac- ters that are purported to differentiate the taxon’ (Article 13a(i)). The type affords the standard of reference that determines the application of the name (Article 61). It is evident that the differentiating characters given in the original description of a taxon must be visible in the type of this taxon. This is generally the case in taxa described and differentiated from purely morphological data. If a scientist suspects errors in the description of a taxon he may study his type and propose his own interpretation of the morphological data. 2. Nowadays, however, more and more non-morphological charac- ters are used to differentiate new taxa. Recently the nematode species Radopholus citrophilus was established by Huettel, Dickson & Caplan, 1984 (Proc. helminthol. Soc. Washington, vol. 51, pp. 32-35) and differentiated by its chromosome number and by seven diagnostic loci in starch gel electro- phoresis. These characters are not visible in the traditional glycerine mounts that constitute the type and the type series of the new species. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 63 3. ask the Commission to study this problem and to provide means for checking the accuracy of the description of a new taxon based on such non-morphological criteria. The type series might be allowed to include photographs or permanent mounts showing chromosomes or protein migration; or a living culture of the type population might be maintained, from which fresh specimens could be taken and processed to verify chromo- somes or proteins. Whatever solution is eventually found, I think it is important to give the new criteria equal status with the traditional morphological criteria. 64 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 AUTHORSHIP AND DATES OF THE SOWERBYS’ MINERAL CONCHOLOGY OF GREAT BRITAIN. Z.N.(S.)2483 By C. W. Wright (The Old Rectory, Seaborough, Beaminster, Dorset DT8 30 Y) & R. J. Cleevely (British Museum ( Natural History), London SW7 SBD) The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, published between 1812 and 1845, is recognised to be of fundamental importance in British invertebrate palaeontology, containing as it does 640 plates and the descrip- tions of many fossil invertebrates, the majority of them new. 2. The work was issued irregularly in parts. On the covers of the individual parts, James Sowerby was given as the sole author up to Part 70 which has the printed date of 1 May 1823. Thereafter the covers include the phrase ‘continued by J. de C. Sowerby’; Part 71 is dated 1 June 1823. In fact, James Sowerby died on 25 October 1822. An indication of the consequent change is given on the back cover of Part 66 (dated 1 November 1822) when ‘Messrs. Sowerby’ make the customary request for information previously requested by James Sowerby. 3. The dates of issue of the parts are of importance in questions of priority. In 1855 Renevier, after examining the set of parts in the British Museum and then consulting James de Carle Sowerby, published a list of dates for the parts of the Mineral Conchology in the Bull. Soc. vaudoise Sci. nat. but only referred to the plate numbers they contained. R. B. Newton, 1891, produced a table listing the parts and plates that were published in each year. Sykes in 1906, after examining the only known surviving set of the original wrappers, published a more detailed list that revised the plate groupings for parts in volumes 4, 5 and 6. Minor amendments to that list have been made by Cleevely, 1974, who also emphasised that the printed dates cannot be entirely relied upon but have to be accepted without other evidence. 4. Renevier, 1855, attributed all the plates and descriptions up to pl. 383 (in Part 66, dated November 1822) to James Sowerby and all subsequent plates beginning with pl. 384 (in Part 67, dated January 1823) to J. de C. Sowerby. R. B. Newton, 1891 p. 323, stated that James Sowerby completed Nos. 1-65 and that after his death in 1822, the subsequent portions Nos. 66-113, were brought out by his son, James de Carle Sowerby. Sykes, 1906, did not refer to the change in authorship. Sherborn noted in his copy of Renevier’s paper that plate 377 was the last described by James Sowerby and in his Jndex animalium, 1922-33, he gave J. de C. Sowerby as the author of all the new species described in Part 66 and subsequently. 5. In a published letter commenting on the pirated editions of the Mineral Conchology that were issued by Agassiz, J. de C. Sowerby, 1839, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 65 gave an account of the method employed by the family in producing material for the work: ‘The author James Sowerby being much more partial to the pictorial department, referred the principal part of the text to his two eldest sons, myself and Mr G. B. Sowerby, while he executed the plates wholly himself: and he continued his task regularly, even during a long and painful illness until within three or four days of his death in 1822... For some time previous to this sad event, it had fallen to my lot to describe the whole of the shells, and now I was obliged, in addition, to engrave the plates, a few only having been done in advance by my father.’ However, while this passage throws some light on the way in which the text was drafted it cannot be taken as giving conclusive evidence on authorship; there is no evidence either way whether James Sowerby read through or took responsibility for the publication of the parts issued in 1822 that carried his name on their covers. 6. It has been suggested (Cleevely, 1974) that in view of J. de C. Sowerby’s remarks, the authorship of the seven new molluscan species described in Part 66, i.e. pl. 378: Cypraea coccinelloides, C. retusa, C. avellana [all now Trivia]; Pl. 379: Auricula pyramidalis [= Melampus]; PI. 381: Plagiostoma rusticum and Pl. 382 Plagiostoma laeviusculum [both = Lima]: P|. 383: Gryphaea nana [= Nanogyra] should be attributed to him. However, on the same basis it could be argued that for an undefined period before the death of James Sowerby the authorship of all new names ought to be attributed to James, James de Carle and G. B. Sowerby. 7. The change of authorship from James to J. de C. Sowerby is thus given by: (i) Renevier, 1855, as from pl. 384, dated 1 January 1823; (ii) Newton, 1891; Sherborn, 1922—33; and Cleevely, 1974, as from pl. 378. dated | February 1822 [but known to be later]; (iii) the printed wrappers of the Mineral Conchology itself, as from pl. 408, dated 1 June 1823. Such confusion is intolerable. Unless a ruling is given, future authors on the basis of published statements will be free to choose between these three alternatives and between the various sets of publication dates. 8. It has to be assumed that the only basis that Newton and Sherborn had for their action of changing the authorship of the species described in Part 66 is the evidence mentioned in paragraph 5 above and the date of James Sowerby’s death. Neither of these authors provided any other information, nor is there any document in the volumes of Mss Notes & Correspondence relating to the Evidence of Dates of Books accumulated by C. D. Sherborn to substantiate his action. 9. In accordance with accepted practice the evidence of the covers as to authorship should be followed, but, to the best of our knowledge, for many years all authors have accepted either Renevier’s or Sherborn’s date 66 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 for the change of author. Arkell, 1934, p. viii, specifically followed Renevier and in fact, all recent usage has adopted the same practice, e.g.: Harmer, 1925; Arkell, [1930]; Cox & Arkell, 1948; the compilers of British Cainozoic Fossils, 1959 & 1975; H. B. Stenzel in the Treatise of Invertebrate Palaeon- tology, Part N, 1971; Duff, 1975. 10. It might be argued that a simple method of overcoming the difficulty over authorship would be to refer all new species in the Mineral Conchology to ‘Sowerby’ thereby avoiding the need for establishing the particular member in that family who was responsible. However, general usage over many years has been to differentiate between James and James de Carle Sowerby. Further, the adoption of such a practice would not allow for the differing degree of palaeontological understanding of father and son that in part was the result of the development of the science over the period during which the Mineral Conchology was published. 11. For the removal of uncertainty over authorship and to ensure stability of nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to rule that: (a) the publication dates of the pages and plates of the Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 1812-1845, are to be taken as set out by Cleevely, 1974 (and reproduced here as an Appendix); (b) the change of authorship from James to James de Carle Sowerby is to be taken as stated by Renevier in 1855; thus, all species described and figured in vols | to 3 and vol. 4, pages 1-114 and plates 1 to 383 (parts | to 66) are to be attributed to James Sowerby and all those described and figured in subsequent pages and plates are to be attributed to James de Carle Sowerby. REFERENCES ARKELL, W. J. 1929-37. A monograph of British Corallian Lamellibranchs. Monogr. palaeontogr. Soc., London. xxxviii+ 392 pp., 55 pls. 1934. Ammonites of the English Corallian Beds. Part 1. Monogr. palaeon- togr. Soc., London; xxxii+30 pp., pls. A—B, i-vi. BRITISH MUSEUM (Natural History), 1961. British Cainozoic Fossils. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London, Ist ed. 1961; 5th ed. 1975: vit+ 132 pp., 44 pls. CLEEVELY, R. J. 1974. The Sowerbys, the Mineral Conchology, and their fossil collection. J/. Soc. Biblphy. nat Hist., vol. 6 (6), pp. 418-481. COX, L. R. & ARKELL, W. J. 1948. A Survey of the Mollusca of the British Great Oolite series... A Nomenclatorial Revision... Pt. 1. Monogr. Palaeontogr. Soc., London, xxiii+ 105+ [xlii] pp. DUFF, K. L. 1975. Palaeoecology of a bituminous shale—the Lower Oxford Clay of central England. Palaeontology, vol. 18 (3), pp. 443-482. HARMER, F. W. 1920-25. The Pliocene Mollusca of Great Britain. Vol. 2, Supplement to S. V. Wood, Monograph of the Crag Mollusca. Monogr. palaeontogr. Soc., London, pp. i-xili+ 485-856. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 67 NEWTON, R. B. 1891. Systematic list of the F. E. Edwards collection of British Oligocene and Eocene mollusca in the British Museum (Natural History). Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London, xxviii+ 365 pp. PALMER, K. V. W. 1966. Who were the Sowerbys? Sterkiana, No. 23: 1-6. RENEVIER, E. 1855. Dates de la publication des espéces contenues dans les planches de la Conchologie minéralogique de la Grande Bretagne. Bull. Soc. vaudoise Sci. nat., vol. 4, pp. 318-320. SHERBORN, C. D. 1922-1933. Index animalium, 1801-1850. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London, 9 vols. [Cypraea avellana: p. 620; Cypraea coccinelloides: p. 1376; Plagiostoma laeviusculum: p. 3380; Gryphaea nana: p. 4248; Auricula pyramidalis: p. 5334; Cypraea retusa: p. 5487; Plagiostoma rusticum: p. 5697.] MSS Notes and Correspondence. Evidence of Dates of Books. 2 vols. B.M.(N.H.) Palaeontology Library. [Amongst the items relating to the Mineral Conchology [690-697] only the annotated copy of Renevier’s pamphlet and a letter from Professor Renevier dated 12 October 1888 have any bearing.] SOWERBY, J. de C. 1839. Letter on the subject of the French Edition of the Mineral Conchology. Mag. nat. Hist., London, New Ser., vol. 3, pp. 418-420. STENZEL, H. 1971. Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology, Part N, Mollusca 6, Vol. 3; Oysters. Geol. Soc. Amer. & Univ. Kansas, Lawrence, pp. i-iv+ N953-N1224. SYKES, E. R. 1906. On the dates of publication of Sowerby’s ‘Mineral Conchology’ and ‘Genera of Recent and Fossil shells’. Proc. malacol. Soc. Lond., vol. 7, pp. 191-194. 68 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 APPENDIX PUBLICATION DATES OF THE MINERAL CONCHOLOGY Based on Sykes (1906) and the full set of wrappers in the B.M.(N.H.) Vol. I: 18 Parts Part Plates Pages Date 1 1-3* i-vui, 9-16 June Ist, 1812 4-9 17-32 Aug. Ist 3 10-15 33-48 Feb. Ist, 1813 4 1621 49-60 Apr. Ist 5 22-27 61-72 June Ist 6 28-33 73*-76*, 73-84 Aug. Ist 7 33 bis, 34-38 73**-84** Oct. Ist 8 39-44 85-96 Dec. Ist 9 45-50 97-108 Feb. Ist, 1814 10 51-56 109-124 Apr. Ist 11 57-62 125-140 June Ist 12 63-67** 141-152 Aug. Ist 13 68-73 153-168 Oct. Ist 14. 74-78** 169-178 Dec. Ist 15 79-84 179-194 Feb. Ist, 1815 16 85-90 195-202 Apr. Ist 17 91-96 203-218 June Ist 18 97-102 219-234, & Index to Vol. [pp. 2] Aug. Ist Vol. II: 17 Parts 19 103-108 1-12 Oct. Ist, 1815 Includes Supplementary Index to Vol. 1: 8 20 109-114 13-28 Dec Ist 21 115-120 29-44 Feb. Ist, 1816 22 121-126 45-60 Apr. Ist 23 127-132 61-72 June Ist 24 133-138 [73-84] = 77-78 Aug. Ist 25 139-144 85-100 Oct. Ist 26 145-150 101-116 Dec. Ist 27 (151-156 117-128 Feb. Ist, 1817 28 157-162 129-140 Apr. Ist 29 163-168 141-154 June Ist 30 169-174 155-166 Aug. Ist 31 175-180 167-178 Oct. Ist 32 181-184, 184A, 185-1869 179-194 Dec. Ist 33 187-192 195-210 Feb. Ist, 1818 34 193-198 211-224 Apr. Ist 35 199-203** 225-235 & Index to Vol. II: [237-239] June Ist N.B. Supplementary Index to Vol. II (pp. 240-251) appeared in No. 38 (Dec. Ist, 1818). Vol. III: 18 Parts 36 6204-209 37. 210-215 38 216-221 39 222-227 40 228-233 41 234-239 42 240-245 43 246-248* 44 249-253** 45 254-259 46 260-265 47 266-271 48 272-277 49 278-283 50 284-289 51 290-294** 52 295-300 53 301-306 Supplementary Index to Vol. III published in No. 61 (June Ist, Vol. IV: 17 Parts 54 307-312 55 313-318 56 319-324 57 325-330 58 331-336 59 337-342 60 343-348 61 349-354 62 355—-359** 63 360-365 64 366-371 65 372-377 66 378-383 67 384-388** 68 389-394 69 395-400 70 401-4079 1-16 17-28 29-40 41-48 49-58 59-68 69-80 81-88 89-98 99-106 107-118 119-126 127-138 139-150 151-162 163-166, 166*—167* 167-170 171-178 179-184 & Index to Vol. III: [185-186] 1-8 9-16 17-24 25-32 33-44 45-56 57-68 69-76 771-82 83-90 89b, 91-96 97-104 105-114 115-122 123-130 131-138 139-148 & Index to Vol. IV: [149-151] Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 69 Aug. Ist, 1818 Oct. Ist Dec. Ist Feb. Ist, 1819 Apr. Ist June Ist Aug. Ist Oct. Ist Dec. Ist Feb. Ist, 1820 Apr. Ist May Ist May Ist, 1821 June Ist July Ist Aug. Ist Sept. Ist Oct. Ist 1822): 187-194 Nov. Ist, 1821 Dec. Ist Jan. Ist, 1822 Feb. Ist Mar. Ist Apr. Ist May Ist June Ist July Ist Aug. Ist Sept. Ist Oct. Ist Jan. Ist, 1823 Feb. Ist Apr. Ist May Ist Supplementary index to Vol. IV published in No. 73 (Aug. Ist 1823): 153-160 70 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 Vol. V: 16 Parts 71 408-413 1-12 June Ist, 1823 72 414-419 13-20 July Ist 73 420-425 21-32 Aug. Ist 74 426431 33-40 Sept. Ist 75 432-437 41-48 Nov. Ist 76 438-443 49-64 Dec. Ist 77 445-450 65-72 Jan. Ist, 1824 78 *444, 451-455 63*—64*, 73-78 Mar. Ist 79 456-461 79-90 Apr. Ist 80 462-467 91-98 May Ist 81 468-473 99-114 Aug. Ist 82 474-479 115—130 Nov. Ist 83 480-485 131-138 Dec. Ist 84 486491 139-144 Mar. Ist, 1825 85 492-497 145-152 May Ist 86 498-503 153-168 & Index to Vol. V: [169-171] Sept. Ist * Note on cover=“‘this table was accidentally passed over in No. 77, which should have begun with it”’. Vol. VI: 19 parts 87 504-509 1-12 Feb. Ist, 1826 88 510-515 13-28 Mar. Ist 89 516-521 29-36 Apr. Ist 90: -$22-S27 37-44 May Ist Ol) 528—955 45-50 July Ist 92 534-539 51-76 Sept. Ist 93 540-545 771-86 Nov.. Ist 94 546-551 87-96 Jan. Ist, 1827 95) 5552-951 97-108 Mar. Ist 96 558—562** 109-120 May Ist 97 563-568 121-132 Aug. Ist 98 569-574 133-140 Sept. Ist 99. 575-580 141-156 Nov. Ist 100 581-586 157-164 Jan. Ist, 1828 101 3587-591 165-184 June Ist 102 592-597 185-200 Aug. Ist 103 598-603 201-214 Jan. Ist, 1829 104 604-609 215-230, Title & Index to Vol. VI: [231-235] — July Ist, 1829 105 Portrait of James Sowerby: Preface to the General Indexes and the Systematical Index to the Six volumes by J. de C. Sowerby: [239}-250 Aug Ist, 1835 Vol. VII: 8 Parts 106 610-6137 614-618** 619-623** 624-628** 629-633** 634-638** 639-643** 644-648 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 71 Alphabetical Index to the first 6 vols.: 1-11 March, 1840 1-8 9-16 17-24 25—40 41-48 49-56 57-80 Oct. 1840 Mar. 1841 Feb. 1843 Jan. 1844 Mar. 1844 Nov. 1844 Jan. 1846 All parts contain 6 pls, except for those marked * = 3, ** =5, gp=7, + =4 72 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 HYMENOLEPIS WEINLAND, 1858 (CESTODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)1156 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (CIOMS Case No. 1) There are two reasons why the Commission should give urgent consideration to the generic name Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858. The first is connected with the work of the Council of International Organisations of Medical Sciences, an affiliate of the World Health Organisation. This Council is drawing up an international nomenclature of diseases, in several volumes. Vol. II, part 4 deals with the parasitic diseases of the human species. The Commission’s Secretariat has undertaken to verify the nomen- clatural status of the scientific names involved (some 700 in number), excluding names in the order-class group. The second reason is that Hymenolepis was placed on the Official List by the ruling given in Opinion 77 (Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 73(1), pp. 71-73, 1922); but when the first instalment of the Official List of Generic names in Zoology in book form was being prepared in 1958, the entry concerning Hymenolepis was found to ° be defective. The name was therefore given a number on the Official List (No. 243) but full publication of the entry was deferred. 2. The entry for Hymenolepis in Opinion 77 reads in full: ‘Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858a, 52; tsd Taenia diminuta Rud., 1819a, 689 (type host Mus rattus: Brazil). [HSW; S.]’ This is to be interpreted as follows: the references ‘1858a’ and ‘1819a’ are to the comprehensive bibliography published by Stiles & Hassall, 1902, in the Index Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology; ‘tsd’ means type [species] by subsequent designation; ‘HSW; S’ means that the case had been studied by a committee of the Helminthological Society of Washington and by Stiles. 3. The facts are that Hymenolepis was established by Weinland, 1858, pp. 49-57, by a lengthy discussion and description. Only one species, H. flavopunctata Weinland, 1858, ibid., is referred to the genus in the text, but in a footnote to p. 52 is found: ‘The Taenioids belonging to this genus live in insectivorous Mammalia and birds, and we may distinguish two sub- genera, which separate pretty well those of the Mammalia from those of the birds, viz.: Subg. 1, Lepidotrias Weinl.... Nearly all the species living in insectivorous Mammalia. As the type we may consider Taenia murina, Dujardin; and besides this belong here [10 previously described species] and Hymenolepis flavopunctata. Subg. 2, Dilepis Weinl.... The tapeworms of this subgenus live particularly in insectivorous birds and we may consider Taenia angulata Rudolphi as its type.’ Three other previously described species were referred to Dilepis. 4. It will be seen that Taenia diminuta Rudolphi was not originally included in the genus and therefore that it cannot be the type species under | | Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 73 Article 67g. The type species, by original designation, is clearly Taenia murina Dujardin, and Lepidotrias is a junior objective synonym of Hymenolepis. 5. Stiles further misunderstood the situation when he said (1896, p. 32): ‘Weinland proposed this genus, with Taenia flavopunctata as type, but as this form is identical with Taenia diminuta the name H. diminuta is here inserted as type species.’ This has been accepted ever since. As Hymenolepis has been used in this sense in many hundreds of works, and is still so used, it is clearly desirable to regularise this usage. H. diminuta and H. nana (von Siebold, 1852) occur in humans and present medical problems. Lepidotrias does not appear ever to have been used. 6. The family-group name HYMENOLEPIDINAE (as ‘Hymenolepinae’) was established by Perrier, [1896], p. 1852. 7. According to Burt, 1980, the H. diminuta infests some 70 species and subspecies of mammals, including humans, and some birds, and is found in all countries. The larva infests some 57 species of insects, some of which are closely associated with humans. There is recent evidence of pathological effects in humans at the physiological and biochemical levels. He lists 348 references, about 75% of which have appeared in the last 50 years; they are by many different authors. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of type species hitherto made for Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 and to designate Taenia diminuta Rudolphi, 1819 as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Taenia diminuta Rudolphi, 1819, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (3) to place the specific name diminuta Rudolphi, 1819, as published in the binomen Taenia diminuta (specific name of type species of Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name HYMENOLEPIDINAE Perrier, [1896] (type genus Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BURT, M. J. B. 1980 in ARAIT, H. P. ed. Biology of the tapeworm Hymenolepis diminuta. Academic Press, 733 pp. (pp. 1-57). RUDOLPHI, C. A. 1819. Entozoorum Synopsis, cui accedunt mantissa duplex et indices locupletissimi. Berlin, pp. x, 811 (p. 689). STILES, C. W. 1896. Report on the present knowledge of the tapeworms of poultry. Bull. Bur. Anim. Ind. U.S. Dept. Agric., no. 12, 73 pp., 20 pls. WEINLAND D. F. 1858. Human Cestoides. An essay on the tapeworms of Man. Cambridge [Mass.], 93 pp. 74 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 ECHINOCOCCUS RUDOLPHI, 1801 (CESTODA): PROPOSED CONFIRMATION OF ENTRY ON THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.)1157 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (CIOMS Case No. 2) The same reasons why the Commission should give urgent attention to the case of Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (see pp. 72-73) apply also to the case of Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801: the entry in Opinion 84 placing this name on the Official List was found to be defective in 1958 (when the Name Number 283 was allotted to it); and the name figures in the CIOMS list of human parasitic diseases. 2. The full entry for Echinococcus in Opinion 84 reads as follows: ‘Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801a, 52-53, type granulosus (in sheep; Europe).’ Echinococcus was described by Rudolphi, 1801, Archiv Zool. (Wiedemann), vol. 2(1), pp. 52-53 and 55 for the parasitic worms divided by Goeze into Taenia visceralis, cerebrina, multiceps and Taenia visceralis socialis granulosa. Neither of those specific names is available, since both are polynominal. Rudolphi did not designate a type species nor clearly indicate which of Goeze’s species he regarded as valid. However, ‘Taenia granulosa’ is always cited as the type species. It was first formally so designated by Stiles & Stevenson, 1905, Bull. Bur. Anim. Ind. U.S. Dept. Agric., vol. 80, p. 13 as ‘Taenia visceralis socialis granulosa’. That designation under a polynominal name cannot be accepted as valid. 3. The specife name granulosa was first made available, in the binomen Hydatigena granulosa, by Batsch, A. G. C., 1796, Naturgeschichte der Bandwurmgattung (Halle), pp. 87-88. By his synonymic reference to ‘GOtze, p. 258’ he shows that he is referring to the nominal species described by Goeze, 1782, Versuch Naturg. Eingeweidewiirmer, pp. 42, 192, 258. The species is cited as ‘Echinococcus granulosus (Batsch, 1786) in two recent authoritative reference works: Yamaguti, 1959, Systema Helminthum, vol. 2, p. 442, and Wardle & Mcleod, 1952, Zoology of Tapeworms, p. 391. 4. Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 is clearly to be regarded as a genus established without any included species, since none were then cited under available names (Art. 69a(i)). The species (or one of those species) first subsequently referred to it must therefore be the type species. The first sub- sequent reference of species to the genus that I have traced is by Rudolphi himself. In 1805, Bemerk. Gebiet Naturges., Med. Thierarzneyk. Reise Deutschland, Holland, Frankreich, part 2, p. 41, he cited ‘Echinococcus granulosus mihi’. This is to be read as a citation of Hydatigena granulosa Batsch, 1786, which is in consequence the type species of Echinococcus by subsequent monotypy. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 75 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (a) to confirm the entry of Echinococcus on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to complete it as follows: Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent monotypy, Hydatigena granulosa Batsch, 1786 (Name Number 283); (b) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name granulosa Batsch, 1786, as published in the binomen Hydatigena granulosa (specific name of type species of Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801). 76 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 ANOPLOCEPHALA BLANCHARD, 1848 (CESTODA): PROPOSED CONFIRMATION OF ENTRY ON OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.)2498 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (CIOMS Case No. 3) The generic name Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 77 as follows: ‘Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848e, 344-345; tsd Taenia perfoliata Goeze, 1782a, 43, 353 (type host Equus caballus; Europe). [HSW; S] [Not Anoplocephala Stal, 1870, hemipteron.]’ This is to be interpreted as follows: ‘Blanchard, 1848e’ refers to the com- prehensive bibliography published by Stiles & Hassall, 1902, in the Index Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology; ‘tsd’ means type [species] by subsequent designation; ‘HSW; S’ means that the case had been studied by a committee of the Helminthological Society of Washington and by Stiles. When the first instalments of the Official Lists were being prepared in 1958, the Name Number 242 was allotted to Anoplocephala; but the entry was not completed because the statement in Opinion 77 was found to be defective: Goeze, 1782 is not a binominal work, and consequently no name acquired availability by having been published in it. In addition, the ruling gives no indication of how, by whom or where the type species was designated. 2. Anoplocephala, like Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (p. 74), must be considered to be a genus established without any included species (Article 69a(i)), since none was referred to it under an available name. The first subsequent reference of species to the genus that I have traced was by van Beneden, 1858, Compte rendu Acad. Sci. Paris, Suppl. vol. 2, p. 144, as follows: ‘M. Blanchard a proposé le nom d’anoplocephala [sic] pour le Ténia de cheval et celui du lapin (Tenia perfoliata et pectinata) a cause de l’absence de trompe et de crochets’. This is to be read as a reference to the first use of those specific names as available names. For perfoliata this is Schrank, 1788, Verz. der bisher hinlanglich bek. Eingeweidewtirmer, p. 37. What is to be read as T. perfoliata Schrank, 1788 was first subsequently designated as type species of Anoplocephala by Braun, 1900, Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen Tierr, vol. 4, p. 1657. 3. Before these particulars can be incorporated in the Official List entry for Anoplocephala, and before T. perfoliata Schrank can be entered on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the status of Taenia equina Pallas, 1781 must be considered. Goeze’s original name for 7. perfoliata— T. equina perfoliata—could be taken for a normal trinomen, with perfoliata used with subspecific rank, were it not for the fact that the polynominal character of his work makes all names in it unavailable. T. equina Pallas, though senior to 7. perfoliata Goeze, seems to have been treated as an Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 7 invalid synonym of it from an early date and then to have disappeared alto- gether from use as a valid name. I have examined the Supplements Part 3, Parasite-subject index, to the Index Catalogue from Supplement 15, 1966 to Supplement 23, 1982. I find 48 uses of perfoliata by a large number of authors; and no mention of equina in combination with either Anoplo- cephala or Taenia. Furthermore, Lichtenfels, 1975, Proc. helminthol. Soc. Washington, vol. 42, special issue, p. 9, lists ‘T. equina Pallas, 1781, part’ in the synonymy of A. perfoliata, though no clear disposition is made of the remainder of the species. It seems certain that the name serves no useful purpose and that it can be suppressed without causing any disturbance to stability of nomenclature. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name equina Pallas, 1781, as published in the binomen Taenia equina, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to confirm the entry of Anoplocephala on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to complete it as follows: Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Braun, 1900, Taenia perfoliata Schrank, 1788 (Name Number 242); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology perfoliata Schrank, 1788, as published in the binomen Taenia perfoliata (specific name of type species of Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1788); (4) to place the generic name Anoplocephala Stal, 1870 (a junior homonym of Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the specific name equina Pallas, 1781, as published in the binomen Taenia equina, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. NOTE ADDED IN PROOF I am grateful to Dr Ralph Lichtenfels (Biosystematic Parasitology Laboratory USDA, Beltsville, Maryland U.S.A.) for having ‘checked the card files of the Index-Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology to determine whether any additional records of Taenia equina were known, especially between Stiles & Hassall’s 1912 “‘Cestoda and Cestodaria” and the publication of the parasite- subject index which began in 1966’. There were only two such references and I have verified both of them, as follows: (1) Becker, R., 29 Sept. 1923, Zur Nomenklatur der Pferdebandwiirmer (Anoplocephalidae), Centralbl. Bakteriol. etc., Abt. 1, Originale, vol. 91 (1), pp. 63-67. In this historical review, Taenia equina Pallas is referred to, but not as a valid name; T. perfoliata is recognised as valid. 78 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 (2) Sprehn, C. E. W. 1932, Lehrb. Helminthol., pp. 407. 416. Taenia equina Pallas is divided into three parts: one is treated as an invalid synonym of Anoplocephala perfoliata (Goeze, 1782), the second as an invalid synonym of A. magna (Abildgaard, 1789), and the third as an invalid synonym of Paranoplocephala mamillana (Mehlis, 1831). It is thus practically certain that Taenia equina Pallas has not been used as a valid name at least since 1912, and probably for very much longer. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 79 HOMONYMY IN THE FAMILIES HARPIDAE HAWLE & CORDA, 1847 (TRILOBITA) AND HARPIDAE BRONN, 1849 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.)2331 By J. G. M. Raven (Binnenweg 46, 2264 MK Leidschendam, The Netherlands) The problem of homonymy in the HARPIDAE was first raised as part of Z.N.(S.)1938, published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 28, pp. 57-58. In Opinion 1023 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31, pp. 127-129, a ruling was made on part of the case but the HARPIDAE problem was deferred, pending further investigation. The present application seeks to resolve this issue. 2. Homonymy, as defined in Article 55 of the Code, exists between the family-group names HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) and HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Both family-group names are correctly derived as specified in Articles 11(e) and 29 of the Code, the former from the generic name Harpes Goldfuss, 1839 (p. 358) and the latter from the generic name Harpa [RGding], 1798 (p. 149). 3. In 1847 Hawle & Corda (p. 161) erected the trilobite family HARPIDES based on the genus Harpes Goldfuss, 1839. Miller, 1889 (p. 524) corrected the name to HARPIDAE. 4. In 1849 Bronn (p. 469) erected the gastropod family HARPINA based on the genus Harpa [R6ding], 1798. Chenu, 1859 (p. 204) used the name HARPIDAE in the modern sense. 5. In accordance with Article 55(a) of the Code, I refer this case to the Commission. Although there are no formal grounds for preferring con- servation of one family-group name over the other, in view of the following facts it is requested that the trilobite name be conserved; firstly that the trilobite family antedates that of the gastropods, and secondly, that the trilobite family contains more genera and species than the gastropod family, namely twelve genera (Moore, 1959) as against three (Rehder, 1973). 6. In altering the spelling of the gastropod family-group name, I believe the insertion of the letter ‘a’ preceding the ending ‘idae’ could be sufficiently distinct. Therefore I request that the gastropod family be emended as HARPAIDAE. The procedure of using the complete name has precedent in the case of Merops (Aves) and Merope (Insecta), where each resulted in the family name MEROPIDAE. To avoid homonymy, the Commis- sion ruled that Merope (Insecta) should form the family name MEROPEIDAE (Opinion 140, 1943). 7. I therefore request that the Commission: (1) use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic name Harpa [Roding], 1798 (Gastropoda) for the purposes of Article 29 is HARPA-; 80 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 (2) place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Harpes Goldfuss, 1839 (Trilobita), (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Harpes macrocephalus Goldfuss, 1839; (b) Harpa [Roding], 1798 (Gastropoda), (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Buccinum harpa Linnaeus, 1758; (3) place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (type genus Harpes Goldfuss, 1839) (Trilobita); (b) HARPAIDAE Bronn, 1849 (type genus Harpa [Réding], 1798) (Gastropoda). I wish to thank Professor L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum voor Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) for his considerable help in the preparation of this appeal. REFERENCES BRONN, H. G. 1849. Handbuch der Geschichte der Natur, 3(3) Index Palaeontolo- gicus. Stuttgart, 980 pp. CHENU, J. C. 1859. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique, vol. 1. Paris, vii +508 pp., 3707 figs. GOLDFUSS, G. A. 1839. Beitrage zur Petrefactenkunde. Nova Acta Acad. Caes. Leop. Carol., vol. 19(1), pp. 358 & 359. HAWLE, I. & CORDA, A. J. C. 1847. Prodrom einer Monographie der BGhmischen Trilobiten. K. Bohm. Gesell. Wiss. (Prague), (Abhandl.), 5, 176 pp., 7 pl. LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae ed. 10, Holmiae, p. 738. MILLER, S. A. 1889. North American geology and paleontology. 644 pp., 1194 figs. MOORE, R. C. (Ed.) 1959. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, part O, Arthropoda 1. Kansas University Press, xix + 560 pp. REHDER, H. A. 1973. The Family Harpidae of the world. Indo-Pacif. Mollusca, __ vol. 3(16), pp. 207-274. [RODING], P. F. 1798. Museum Boltenianum part 2, viii+ 199 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 81 ARGYRODES SIMON, 1864, AND ROBERTUS O. PICKARD- CAMBRIDGE, 1879 (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF ARGYRODES GUENEE, 1845 AND CTENIUM MENGE, 1871. Z.N.(S.)1481 By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present request is for the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature to permit the accustomed usage of two generic names of the spider family THERIDIIDAE: Argyrodes and Robertus. Present use of the names does not correspond with the strict application of the Rules. 2. A previous application (which included two lesser used generic names: Dipoenura and Theonoe) was published in 1962, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 19(1), pp. 43-47. Because of accidental irregularities in procedure by the Secretary of the Commission at the time and despite considerable sup- port, the voting paper issued in 1963 was cancelled. Under Article 80 the two names, Argyrodes and Robertus, have been protected since 1962. Argyrodes Simon, 1864 3. Argyrodes Simon, 1864, Hist. Nat. Araignées, ed. 1, p. 253, with type species by tautonymy Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841, Hist. Ins. Apt., vol. 2, p. 282, from southern Europe and North Africa, is preoccupied by Argyrodes Guénée (1845, Ann. Soc. entomol. France, ser. 2, vol. 3, p. 322) (Lepidoptera) with type species by monotypy Tinea vinetella Fabricius, 1787. 4. Strand, 1928, Arch. Naturgesch., vol. 93, p. 42, first noted the homonymy and proposed the name Argyrodina for Argyrodes Simon. In the 1940s Conopistha Karsch, 1881, Berliner entomol. Zeitschr., vol. 25, p. 39, with type species by original designation C. bonadea Karsch, ibid., from Japan, was recognised as a subjective synonym of Argyrodes Simon. Between 1940 and 1962 Conopistha was generally used as the name for the genus. A revision of the American spiders of the genus by Exline & Levi, 1962, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., vol. 127, pp. 73-203, and a study of all theridiid genera by Levi, 1962, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., vol. 127, pp. 1-72 place both Ariamnes Thorell, 1869, Nova Acta reg. Soc. Sci. Uppsala, ser. 3, vol. 7, p. 37 (new name for Ariadne Doleschall, 1857, Nat. Tijdschr. Nederland Ind., vol. 13, p. 410, preoccupied by two older homonyms, with type species by monotypy A. flagellum Doleschall) and Rhomphaea L. Koch, 1872, Die Arachniden Australiens, vol. 1, p. 289, with type species by monotypy R. cometes L. Koch, 1872, as additional subjective synonyms of Argyrodes, both antedating Conopistha Karsch, 1881. For the last 20 years most authors have used the name Argyrodes. 82 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 5. If we follow the Principle of Priority, the genus should be called Ariamnes, a name previously used for a small group of rare tropical — spiders. However, those who disagree with the synonymy may still consider Conopistha or Rhomphaea the generic name. Others, like Bonnet, 1953 (Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2(1), p. 704) continue to consider Argyrodes as the correct name. Besides being the oldest name of this assemblage of species, Argyrodes is the type genus of a taxon in the family group. Simon, 1892, Hist. Nat. Araignées, vol. 1, p. 496, divided the THERIDIIDAE into groups, one of which he called ARGYRODEAE. Later authors (e.g. Petrunkevitch, 1928, Trans. Connecticut Acad. Sci., vol. 29, p. 45) have interpreted ARGYRODEAE as a subfamily name, and have changed it to | ARGYRODINAE. Argyrodes contains about 70 American species, and at least 100-200 species in the tropics and subtropics of other parts of the world. 6. According to Prof. W. T. Forbes and Dr E. G. Munroe (personal communication, 1961), Argyrodes Guénée (type species Tinea vinetella Fabricius) is a junior objective synonym of Eucarphia Hibner, [1825], Verz. bekannt. Schmett., sign. 23, p. 364, which contains three species, with Tinea vinetella Fabricius, 1787 as type species, by subsequent designation by Ragonot, 1885, Entom. mon. Mag., vol. 22, p. 18. Argyrodes Guénée cannot, therefore, be used for a lepidopteran genus as proposed by Guénée. 7. The genus Argyrodes contains many species which are klepto- parasites in the webs of other spiders, and whose interesting predatory behaviour has been studied by several zoologists in recent years. 8. The preservation of Argyrodes (spiders) through the suppression of Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) is thus advisable for 3 reasons: (a) The continued widespread usage of Argyrodes in the aranean literature (e.g. Bonnet, 1955), owing to non-acceptance of the earlier senior homonym. (b) The fact that the generic name is the basis of an available and currently used name of the family group. (c) The uncertainty of what replacement name for Argyrodes (spiders) to adopt, owing to disagreement among specialists about the generic relation of the various generic names in the Argyrodes group. All these difficulties would be removed at once if Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) were suppressed. Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 9. B. J. Kaston, 1946, Amer. Mus. Novitates, No. 1306, p. 1, pointed out that Simon, 1884, Arachnides de France, vol. 5, p. 195 incorrectly rejected Ctenium Menge, 1871, Schrift. naturf. Ges. Danzig ser. 2, vol. 2, p. 292, type species, by monotypy, Erigone pinguis Westring, 1851, Géteborg k. Vet. Vitter. Samh. Handl., vol. 2, p. 43 (= Neriene livida Blackwall, 1836), because he thought it preoccupied by Ctenia Lepeletier, 1825, Encycl. Méth., vol. 10, p. 650. Simon proposed the name Pedanostethus (1884, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 83 Arachnides de France, vol. 5, p. 195) as replacement for Crenium Menge. However, Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879, The Spiders of Dorset, p. 103, type species, by monotypy, R. astutus O. Pickard-Cambridge (= Neriene neglecta O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1871, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 27, p. 443), was found to be a senior subjective synonym. 10. Between 1884 and 1911 Pedanostethus was generally used for the genus. From 1907 to the present time Robertus has been in use in Europe, and, until Kaston’s 1946 paper, in North America. 11. At present Robertus is used. A. Holm, who has studied species of the genus, uses Robertus. The late H. Wiehle, a specialist in the THERIDIIDAE, published a short discussion on names indicating his preference for Robertus (1960, Zool. Jahrbiicher, Abt. Syst., vol. 88, p. 237). The name has also been used by Tullgren (1949, Entomol. Tidskr., vol. 70, p. 60) and by G. H. Locket & A. F. Millidge (1953, British Spiders, Ray Soc., vol. 2). In the United States Crenium has been used in Kaston’s revision of North _ American species (cited above) and in several regional lists. During the last 20 years the predominant use has been Robertus. 12. Universality of use demands that one or the other name be used for the genus. Usage strongly favours Robertus. It is therefore requested that the Commission use its plenary powers to suppress Ctenium. (1) The International Commission is therefore asked to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the generic name Argyrodes Guénée, 1845, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Argyrodes Simon, 1864, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the generic name Ctenium Menge, 1871, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The Commission is also asked to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Argyrodes Simon, 1864 (gender: masculine), type species, by tautonymy, Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841: (b) Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Robertus astutus Pickard- Cambridge, 1879: (c) Eucarphia Hiibner [1825], type species, by subsequent desig- nation by Ragonot, 1855, Tinea vinetella Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera). (3) The Commission is requested to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841, as published in the binomen Linyphia argyrodes (specific name of type species of Argyrodes Simon, 1864); (b) neglectus Pickard-Cambridge, 1871, as published in the bi- nomen Neriene neglecta (the valid name at the date of this 84 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 application, of the type species of Robertus O. Pickard- — Cambridge, 1879); (c) vinetella Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Tinea vinetella (specific name of type species of Eucarphia Hubner, [1825]) (Lepidoptera). (4) Finally, the Commission is asked to place the following generic names as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) and (b) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Argyrodes Guénée, 1845; (b) Ctenium Menge, 1871. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 85 OLPIUM L. KOCH, 1873 (ARACHNIDA, PSEUDOSCORPIONIDA, OLPIIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES AND RELATED PROBLEMS. Z.N.(S.)2484 By M. S. Harvey (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) and V. Mahnert (Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Genéve, Switzerland) The pseudoscorpion species described in the work Description de 1 ‘Egypte ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Egypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée francaise have generally been ascribed to Savigny. However, while Savigny was responsible for publishing the first eight plates of the work some time prior to 1826 (possibly in 1812, see Sherborn, 1897), and was responsible for naming the species treated in the first four plates (Bonnet, 1945), there is no doubt that the name Chelifer hermannii (along with the other two species) was established, in the meaning of Article 50 of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- -clature, by Audouin in 1826. Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, is a junior homonym of Chelifer hermanni Leach, 1817, and Simon (1879) provided the replacement name Olpium savignyi Simon, 1879. : 2. L. Koch (1873) erected the genus Ol/pium, with four included : species, Olpium dimidiatum L. Koch, 1873, Olpium chironomum L. Koch, 1873, Olpium graecum L. Koch, 1873, and ‘Olpium Hermannii Sav.’ (i.e. Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826), but did not designate a type species. Simon (1879) by subsequent designation fixed Chelifer hermanni Savigny _ sensu L. Koch as the type species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873, noting that 'Koch’s description of that species did not agree with Savigny’s (i.e. Audouin’s). At the same time he suggested that this species could be identi- fied as Obisium pallipes Lucas, 1849. That view also has been generally accepted, and Obisium pallipes Lucas, 1849 has been consistently treated as the type species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873. Olpium pallipes Lucas, [1846] has been mentioned in the literature many times, and is widely distributed in southern Europe and northern Africa (Beier, 1963). Its female holotype has recently been redescribed by Heurtault (1979). 3. The problem of the type species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873, is not resolved automatically by the International Code on Zoological Nomen- clature. Article 69 does not apply to the case because even though the nominal taxon Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, was originally included in Olpium by Koch, it was a misidentification, but not a stated misidentifica- tion. Chelifer hermannii Audouin sensu L. Koch, 1873, and Obisium pallipes Lucas, [1846], are not originally included species in terms of Article 69. Article 70a does not strictly apply either because the type species was designated explicitly in the sense of a previous misidentification. Similarly Article 70b is not applicable because Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, 86 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 was not designated the type species of a new nominal genus, but of a pre- established nominal genus. Therefore, the Commission is requested to use | its plenary powers to designate Obisium pallipes Lucas, [1846] as the type | species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873. 4. Two other options are available, both of which have considerable disadvantages: (a) to designate the nominal species Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, as type species—this is undesirable because Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, is regarded as a nomen dubium (see (5) below); or (b) to set aside under the plenary powers Simon’s (1879) designation of Olpium hermanni ‘Savigny’ sensu L. Koch, and to designate one of the other three species originally included in the genus Olpium L. Koch, 1873 — these three taxa have since been removed from the genus, and if this course were followed, stability would not be well served, because Olpium L. Koch, 1873, is the type species of the family OLPIIDAE Banks, 1895. 5. The type material of Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, is not present in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, and is con- sidered lost. The diagrams presented with the original description (Plate 8, Fig. 5) clearly show that the species belongs in the genus Minniza Simon, 1881, but they are not sufficiently detailed to determine its specific identity, and four species of Minniza Simon, 1881, are currently known from Egypt. Thus, Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, and its replacement name, Olpium savignyi Simon, 1879, are regarded as nomina dubia. 6. Simon (1881) described Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, and cited ‘Chelifer Hermanni Sav., Egypte, Ar., pl. VIII, f. 5, 1827’ under the species name, thus giving the appearance that it was offered as another replacement name for Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826. Indeed, at the end of the description he stated ‘Le nom d’Hermanni ne peut étre maintenu, ayant été employé par Savigny par confusion avec le C. Hermanni de Leach, qui est synonyme de C. cancroides L.’ If this interpretation is accepted Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, becomes a junior objective synonym of Olpium savignyi Simon, 1879. However, the specimens on which Simon (1881) based his description of Olpium kochi Simon, 1881 (lodged in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, and examined by V.M.) do not conform to the original description or diagrams of Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826. They represent a distinct species of the genus Olpium L. Koch, 1873, and were recently redescribed by Mahnert (1981). If Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, can be treated as a new species separate from Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826 (even though Simon wrote ‘Olpium kochi E. Simon’ rather than his custom- ary ‘n.sp.’), the specimens in Paris can be treated as its type material, as was done by Mahnert (1981). We consider that this is desirable and therefore ask the Commission to rule that Olpium kochi Simon, 1881 denotes a differ- ent nominal species from Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826. A lectotype male for Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, is here designated from ‘nord de la grande Pyramide’, Egypt, collected by A. Letourneux, and deposited in the Muséum national d’ Histoire naturelle, Paris (Simon collection number 3329, preparation number 84-86). The female is designated as a paralec- Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 87 totype. If this course is not followed, Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, remains a junior objective synonym of Olpium savignyi Simon, 1879, and a new species name needs to be created for this material. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby requested: (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Olpium Koch, 1873 and to designate Obisium pallipes Lucas, 1849 as type species of that genus; (b) to rule that the specific name kochi Simon, 1881, as published in the binomen Olpium kochi, denotes a different nominal species from hermannii Audouin, 1826, as published in the binomen Chelifer hermannii; (2) to place the generic name Olpium L. Koch, 1873 (gender: neuter), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species, as designated in (1) above, Obisium pallipes Lucas, 1849; (3) to place the specific name pallipes Lucas [1846], as published in the combination Obisium pallipes, (specific name of type species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the specific name kochi Simon, 1881, as published in the combination Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (5) to place the family-group name OLPIIDAE Banks, 1895 (type genus, Olpium L. Koch, 1873) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES AUDOUIN, V. 1826. Explication sommaire des planches d’arachnides de Egypte et de la Syrie. In Description de l’Egypte ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Egypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée frangaise. \st edition. Vol. 1, part 4, Paris (C. L. F. Panckoucke), pp. 99-186. BANKS, N. 1985. Notes on the Pseudoscorpionida. J. N.Y. entomol. Soc., vol. 3, pp. 1-13. BEIER, M. 1963. Ordnung Pseudoscorpionidea. Bestimmungsbiicher zur Boden- fauna Europas. Berlin (Akademie-Verlag), vol. 1, pp. i-vi, 1-313. BONNET, P. 1945. Bibliographia araneorum. Vol. 1, Toulouse (Douladoure), pp. i-xvii, 1-832. HEURTAULT, J. 1979. Complément 4 la description de Olpium pallipes Lucas, 1845, type de la famille Olpiidae (Arachnides, Pseudoscorpions). Rev. suisse Zool., vol. 86, pp. 925-931. KOCH, L. 1873. Uebersichtliche Darstellung der europdischen Chernetiden ( Pseudoscorpione ). Nurnberg (Bauer and Raspe), pp. i—vi, 1-68. 88 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 LEACH, W. E. 1817. On the characters of the genera of the family Scorpionidea, with descriptions of the British species of Chelifer and Obisium. In LEACH, W. E. The zoological miscellany; being descriptions of new or interesting | animals. London (Nodder), pp. 48-53. LUCAS, H. 1849. Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés. Part I. Crustacés, Arachnides, Myriapodes et Hexapodes. In Exploration scientifique de l’Algérie pendant les années 1840, 1841, 1842. Zoologie, Vol. 2, Paris (Imprimerie Nationale), pp. i-xxv, 1-403. MAHNERT, V. 1981. Taxonomische Irrwege: Olpium savignyi Simon, O. kochi Simon, O. bicolor Simon (Pseudoscorpiones). Folia entomol. Hung., vol. 42, pp. 95-99. SHERBORN, C. D. 1897. On the dates of the Natural History portion of Savigny’s ‘Description de l’Egypte’. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., vol. 1897, pp. 285-288. SIMON, E. 1879. Les arachnides de France. Vol. 7, Paris (Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret), pp. 1-316. 1881. Descriptions d’arachnides nouveaux d’Afrique. Bull. Soc. zool. France, vol. 6, pp. 1-15. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This application has benefited immensely from the nomenclatural expertise of Dr K. H. L. Key (CSIRO, Canberra). Dr W. D. L. Ride kindly viewed a draft of the manuscript. Dr A. D. Austin and Mr R. V. Melville assisted with some of the older literature. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 89 ICHNOTROPIS PETERS, 1854 (REPTILIA, SAURIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF THERMOPHILUS FITZINGER, 1843. Z.N.(S.)2377 By William R. Branch (Port Elizabeth Museum, P.O. Box 13147, Humewood 6013, South Africa) and Donald G. Broadley (National Museum, P.O. Box 240, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe) The purpose of this application is to suppress a generic name not used in the literature during the last hundred years and which is a senior synonym of /chnotropis Peters, 1854. 2. In 1843 Fitzinger erected the genus Thermophilus, designating Tropidosaura capensis ‘Dumeéril & Bibron’ (i.e. Algyra capensis A. Smith, 1838) as the type species (Syst. Rept., p. 21). 3. In 1854 Peters erected the genus Jchnotropis (Mber. Acad. Wiss. Berl., p. 617), of which the type species by subsequent designation by FitzSimons, 1943, p. 349, is J. macrolepidota Peters, 1854 (= Algyra capensis A. Smith). 4. In 1921 Boulenger (Monograph of the Lacertidae, vol. 2, pp. 179-193) cited the use of Ichnotropis Peters by 12 authors in 17 papers, but overlooked the name Thermophilus Fitzinger. 5. In 1957 Loveridge pointed out that the name Thermophilus Fitzinger had priority over Jchnotropis Peters and urged that the Commis- sion be requested to set aside the older name (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv., vol. 117, pp. 149, 233). 6. Since 1921, the name Jchnotropis Peters has been used in at least 35 papers by 16 authors. In accordance with Article 79(b) of the Code, approved by the XVII Congress in 1972, the following is a selection of ‘at least 5 different authors and in at least 10 different publications’ in which Ichnotropis Peters has been used during the last 50 years: Cott, H. B. 1934, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1934, vol. 1, pp. 145-173. FitzSimons, V. F. 1943. The Lizards of South Africa. Transvaal Mus. Mem., vol. 1, xv +528 pp. Witte, G. F. de & Laurent, R. F. 1942. Rev. Zool. Bot. Africa, vol. 36(2), pp. 165-180. Loveridge, A. 1953. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv., vol. 110(3), pp. 143-322. Mertens, R. 1955. Abh. senkenb. naturforsch. Ges., vol. 490, pp. 1-172. Marx, H. 1956. Fieldiana Zool., vol. 39, pp. 5-9. Laurent, R. F. 1964. Publgdes cult. Co. Diam. Angola, vol. 67, pp. 1-165. Broadley, D. G. 1967. Arnoldia Rhodesia, vol. 3(24), pp. 1-5. Pianka, E. R. 1971. Ecol., vol. 52(6), pp. 1024-1029. Broadley, D. G. 1971. Puku. No. 6, pp. 1-143. 90 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 7. Since its establishment, the generic name Thermophilus Fitzinger has not been formally used again. 8. In the interests of nomenclatural stability the International. Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) (2) (3) (4) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; to place the generic name IJchnotropis Peters, 1854 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by FitzSimons, 1943, macrolepidota Peters, 1854, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name capensis A. Smith, 1838, as published — in the binomen Algyra capensis (the valid name at the date of this request of the type species of Ichnotropis Peters, 1854) on | the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the generic name Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 91 ERIGONE AUDOUIN, 1826 (ARTHROPODA, ARANEAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2480 By A. F. Millidge (Little Farthing, Upper Westhill Road, Lyme Regis, Dorset DT7 3ER, England) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to set aside Erigone vagans Audouin, 1826 (fide Sherborn, 1897, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., pp. 285—288) as the type species of the genus Erigone Audouin, 1826 and to designate as the type species Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830. 2. Erigone is a large and well-known spider genus. As currently con- stituted, more than 200 species are listed for this genus in the published catalogues (vide C. F. Roewer, 1942, Katalog der Araneae, vol. 1, pp. 719-728; P. Bonnet, 1956 Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2(2), pp. 1740-1780; P. Brignoli, 1983, Catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981, pp. 336-337). The genus is widely distributed, and there are few areas in the world where Erigone species are not present. 3. The type species of Erigone Audouin, 1826 (Description de lEgypte: Histoire Naturelle, vol. 1(4), p. 115) is Erigone vagans Audouin, 1826 (ibid., p. 116) by monotypy. Comparison of the genitalia of Erigone vagans with those of other Erigone species, however, indicates (A. F. Millidge, 1984, Bull. Br. arachnol. Soc., vol. 6(6), p. 265) that E. vagans is not congeneric with the vast majority of the species which have been assigned to Erigone; E. vagans does not, in fact, have the female epigynum and the male palpal organ of the well-known and easily recognisable ‘Erigone type’. 4. This situation will necessitate the transfer of approximately 150 species from Erigone to a new genus; this estimate takes into account that some Erigone species listed in the catalogues quoted above have sub- sequently been moved to other genera. Many of the species to be trans- ferred to a new genus are common and widespread, and have been known in the literature as Erigone species for 50-150 years; a change in the generic name would consequently produce a good deal of undesirable confusion in the arachnological literature. 5. In order to preserve the name Erigone for the many species which (i) have always been known by this name, and (ii) have the characteristic genitalia associated with the name Erigone, it is requested that the designa- tion of Erigone vagans as the type species of the genus Erigone be set aside and Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830 (K. Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., 1829, p. 212) be designated instead as the type species. This latter species, which was the second to be described under the name Erigone, has the female epigynum and the male palpal organ of the typical ‘Erigone’ form, and has been well described in the literature (e.g. W. Kulczynski, 1902, Bull. Acad. Cracovie, 1902(8), p. 541; G. H. Locket & A. F. Millidge, 1953, | 92 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 British Spiders, vol. 2, p. 311; H. Wiehle, 1960, Tierwelt Deutschlands, vol. 47, p. 576). 6. If it is agreed that the Commission should take the action — requested, then it will subsequently become necessary to place vagans in a new genus. Apart from vagans, the species to be transferred from Erigone to this new genus would be few in number and of limited distribution (e.g. Erigone afroalpina Holm, 1962, Zool. Bidr. Upps., vol. 35, p. 73), and these few name changes would cause only a minor ripple in nomenclatural stability. 7. In summary the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type — species hitherto made for the nominal genus Erigone Audouin, 1826, and to designate Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830 as © the type species of that genus; (2) place the generic name Erigone Audouin, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name /Jongipalpis Sundevall, 1830 (specific name of the type species of Erigone Audouin, 1826) on the . Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 93 ACTIA ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, 1830 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2491 By James E. O’Hara (Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3) Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, is a cosmopolitan genus belonging to the SIPHONINI with about 60 described species. The only valid type species designation for Actia makes it a senior objective synonym of Elfia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1850. Current authors do not accept this type species designation because it was based upon a misconception of the species involved, and they continue to regard Elfia as a valid genus of moderate size in the NEAERINI (a tribe whose affinities to the SIPHONINI are unresolved). The unofficially accepted type species of Actia, A. pilipennis R.-D., 1830, isa junior secondary homonym of Tachina pilipennis Fallén, 1810; a valid Actia species. Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1838, has been recognised as a junior sub- jective synonym of A. pilipennis R.-D. since Robineau-Desvoidy’s second treatment of Actia in 1850, and has been used as a replacement name for A. pilipennis R.-D. since at least the 1920s. This junior subjective synonym, A. lamia (Mg.), has no type, but syntypes survive of the junior secondary homonym, 4A. pilipennis R.-D. To fix the synonymy of A. pilipennis R.-D. and A. Jamia (Mg.), a syntype of the former is designated below as lectotype of that species and neotype of A. Jamia. The Commission is requested to suppress all type designations hitherto made for Actia R.-D. and to use its plenary powers to designate Roeselia lamia Mg. as type species, to preserve Actia and Elfia in their accepted usage. Details of the application follow. 2. In 1830 Robineau-Desvoidy described the new genus Actia and included in it new species A. pilipennis and A. cingulata (1830, pp. 85-86). Subsequently Robineau-Desvoidy removed cingulata and placed it in his new genus E/fia along with one new species (1850, pp. 190-191). A year later Robineau-Desvoidy revised Actia and added one new species to the already included pilipennis (1851, pp. 185-187). In his final (and post- humous) work Robineau-Desvoidy retained Actia and Elfia in the senses established in his 1850 and 1851 publications, and designated cingulata R.-D., 1830, as type species for the latter (1863, p. 672). Unfortunately, he did not similarly designate a type species for Actia. 3. Most authors of the late 1800s and early 1900s followed Robineau-Desvoidy’s concept of Actia, but were uncertain about the iden- tity and placement of E. cingulata (R.-D.). For example, Elfia was placed as a synonym of Actia in the catalogue by Bezzi & Stein (1907), with cingulata R.-D. questionably placed as a synonym of Actia frontalis (Macquart). (Bezzi & Stein did not explain why they replaced pilipennis R.-D. with fron- talis Macq., 1845, rather than with the more senior synonym, /amia Mg., 1838. Later Jamia Mg. became entrenched in the literature as the recognised replacement name for pilipennis R.-D.). Coquillett (1910, p. 503) may have relied upon Bezzi & Stein’s catalogue when he mistakenly considered 94 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 cingulata R.-D. and pilipennis R.-D. synonyms and designated cingulata R.-D. as type species of Actia. In so doing Coquillett fixed Elfia as junior objective synonym of Actia. 4. Coquillett’s type species designation in 1910 went unchallenged for many years because cingulata R.-D. was generally unrecognised. Mesnil (1954) attributes Stein (1924, p. 141) with first recognising the true identity of cingulata R.-D., though Stein’s recognition was overlooked by many of his contemporaries. When the identity of cingulata R.-D. was eventually established, it became apparent that the species did not conform to the genus based upon pilipennis R.-D., as indeed recognised earlier by Robineau-Desvoidy in his works subsequent to 1830. Only two major revi- sionary works to my knowledge accepted Coquillett’s type species designa- tion once the distinction between pilipennis R.-D. and cingulata R.-D. — became clear. These were Townsend’s Manual of Myiology (1940, p. 189) | and Mesnil’s revision of African Actia and allies (1954). In the latter, Mesnil (1954, p. 5) followed Coquillett’s designation in part because he misunder- stood Robineau-Desvoidy’s own explanation (1863, p. 672) about the tribal placements of Actia and Elfia (but see Mesnil’s subsequent position in paragraph 7 below). 5. Rondani first treated the genus Actia briefly in 1856, keying the genus and adding below the generic epithet, ‘Spec. Typ: (Nova) Vitripennis Mihi’ (1856, p. 60). A few years later Rondani (1859, pp. 18-19) fully des- ’ cribed Actia vitripennis, clearly using the name as a replacement name for Actia pilipennis R.-D. because the latter is a junior secondary homonym of A. pilipennis (Fallén). Bezzi (1926, p. 238) considered the two publications by Rondani sufficient to fix pilipennis R.-D. as type species of Actia, and concluded that Coquillett’s designation of cingulata was in error. Herting (1974, p. 19) similarly regarded Rondani’s type designation as valid, even though he recognised that in 1856 vitripennis was a nomen nudum and that the name was not validated until Rondani’s description of the species in 1859. 6. Contrary to the opinions of Bezzi and Herting in paragraph 5 above, Rondani’s 1856 type designation cannot be accepted because it does not fulfill the necessary requirements of the Code. If Rondani had simultaneously described vitripennis as a replacement name for pilipennis R.-D. and designated it type species of Actia, then under Article 69a(iv) pilipennis R.-D. would automatically become the type species of Actia. Since Rondani’s type designation was in 1856 and his species description in 1859, his designation is invalid. 7. At least two authors (Mesnil, 1963, p. 814 and van Emden, 1954, p. 63) have argued that Actia became monotypic when cingulata R.-D. was removed from it by Robineau-Desvoidy in 1850, and concluded that pilipennis R.-D. was fixed as type species of Actia from that time forth. However, there is no provision under the Code for acceptance of a type species designation by subsequent elimination of included species, so this interpretation by these authors must be rejected. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 95 8. Despite attempts like those above to lend credence to the use of pilipennis R.-D. as type species of Actia, the evidence presented here indi- cates that the only valid type species designation was that of cingulata R.-D. by Coquillett in 1910. It is therefore necessary to suppress Coquillett’s type species designation in order to preserve both Actia and Elfia in their current usage. That this interpretation is favoured by the majority of specialists is evident from the following list of recent works which employ both Actia and Elfia in the sense of Robineau-Desvoidy, and whose authors explicitly state that suspension of the I.C.Z.N. rules is required to validate this usage: Sabrosky & Arnaud (1965, p. 1061), Guimaraes (1971, p. 164), Crosskey (1973, p. 136; 1976, p. 211; 1980, p. 852) and Andersen (1983, p. 12). Those who favour this interpretation also recognise A. pilipennis R.-D. as a junior secondary homonym of A. pilipennis (Fallén), and replace the name with A. lamia (Mg.). The type of /amia is lost, so its synonymy with pilipennis R.-D. is disputable unless action is taken to preserve it permanently. Below pilipennis R.-D. and lamia Mg. are made objective synonyms by designation of a neotype for Jamia Mg. from among the syntypes of Robineau- Desvoidy’s A. pilipennis. To further stabilize this synonymy, the specimen chosen as neotype of /amia Mg. is also designated lectotype of A. pilipennis R.-D. The Commission is requested to designate Roeselia lamia Meigen as type species of Actia rather than Actia pilipennis R.-D. to avoid possible confusion of the latter name with its senior homonym, A. pilipennis (Fallen). 9. If the Commission rules against this proposal, then the genus Elfia must be called Actia, and the old Actia must be renamed. Besides the nomenclatural objections to this raised above, one must also consider the effects a reapplication of the name Actia would have on host/parasite records. Published records would probably be frequently misinterpreted, and undated parasite records existing in collections or on unpublished lists as ‘Actia sp.’ would become equivocal. 10. The syntype series of Actia pilipennis R.-D. is composed of 6 specimens: 5 males and | specimen lacking head and abdomen. They have been examined and one specimen has been chosen to serve as lectotype of pilipennis R.-D. and neotype of Jamia Mg. The following information about the specimen is provided to satisfy the conditions of lectotype and neotype designations outlined in Articles 74 and 75 respectively: Male, length 44mm, good condition though slightly mouldy, without labels (type- locality published as Saint-Sauveur, France), deposited in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris). The specimen is consistent with the original descriptions of Actia pilipennis R.-D. (1830, p. 86) and Roeselia lamia Meigen (1838, p. 254). A label bearing the following information has been attached to this specimen: ‘Lectotype of Actia pilipennis R.-D., Neotype of Roeselia lamia Mg., O'Hara designation, Selected 1984’. The species, under the name Actia lamia, is keyed and fully described by Mesnil (1963, pp. 814, 820). 96 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type © species hitherto made for the nominal genus Actia Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830, and having done so to designate Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1838, as type species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) the generic name Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1838, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) the generic name Elfia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species Actia cingulata Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, by designation of Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863, thereby removing Elfia from objective synonymy with Actia under the plenary powers of (1) above; and (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) the species name Jamia Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Roeselia lamia (specific name of type species of Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) and as defined by the neotype designated above; (b) the species name cingulata Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Actia cingulata (specific name of type species of E/fia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1850). Special thanks are extended to Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky for his valuable advice concerning an early draft of this proposal. REFERENCES ANDERSEN, S. 1983 Phylogeny and classification of Old World genera of Siphonini (Diptera: Tachinidae). Entomol. scand., vol. 14, pp. 1-15. BEZZI, M. 1926. A new tachinid (Dipt.) from Australia, with notes on the forms with obliterated fourth vein. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., series 9, vol. 17, pp. 236-241. BEZZI, M. & STEIN, P. 1907. Band III. Cyclorrapha Aschiza. Cyclorrapha Schizophora: Schizometopa. In BECKER, T., BEZZI, M., KERTESZ, K. and STEIN, P. Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren. 828 pp. Budapest. COQUILLETT, D. W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. 37, pp. 499-647. CROSSKEY, R. W. 1973. A conspectus of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of Australia, including keys to the supraspecific taxa and taxonomic and host catalogues. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Entomol. Suppl., vol. 21, 221 pp. 1976. A taxonomic conspectus of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the Oriental Region. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Entomol. Suppl., vol. 26, 357 pp. 1980. 93. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 822-882. In CROSSKEY, R. W., ed., Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical region. 1437 pp. London. EMDEN, F.:I. VAN 1954. Diptera Cyclorrhapha. Calyptrata (1) Section (a). Tachinidae and Calliphoridae. Roy. entomol. Soc. Lond., Handb. Ident. brit. Ins., vol. 10, part 4(a), 133 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 97 FALLEN, C. F. 1810. Férs6k att bestamma de i Sverige funne flugarter, som kunna foras till slagtet Tachina. K. Vetensk. Acad. Nya Handl., series 2, vol. 31, pp. 253-287. GUIMARAES, J. H. 1971. 104 Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). In A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. 333 pp. Sao Paulo. HERTING, B. 1969. Notes on European Tachinidae (Dipt.) described by Rondani (1856-1868). Mem. Soc. entomol. ital., vol. 48, pp. 189-204. 1974. Revision der von Robineau-Desvoidy beschriebenen europdaischen Tachiniden und Rhinophorinen (Diptera). Stuttgart. Beitr. Naturk., series A, no. 264, 46 pp. 1975. Nachtrage und Korrekturen zu den von Meigen und Rondani beschriebenen Raupenfliegen (Dipt. Tachinidae). Stuttgart. Beitr. Naturk.., series A, no. 271, 13 pp. MACQUART, J. 1845. Nouvelles observations sur les insectes Diptéres de la tribu des Tachinaires. Ann. Soc. entomol. France, series 2, vol. 3, pp. 237-296. MEIGEN, J. W. 1838. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten. Vol. 7: ‘oder Supplementband’, xii+ 434 pp. Hamm. MESNIL, L. P. 1954. Genres Actia Robineau-Desvoidy et voisins (Diptera Brachycera Calyptratae). Explor. Parc natn. Albert, Miss G. F. de Witte (1933-1935), vol. 81, 41 pp. 1963. 64g. Larvaevorinae (Tachininae). Pp. 801-848. In LINDNER, E., ed., Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, vol. 8. Stuttgart. ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, J. B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Inst. de France, Sci. Math. et Phys., Acad. Roy. des Sci., Mém. présentés par divers Savans, series 2, vol. 2, 813 pp. Paris. 1850. Myodaires des environs de Paris (suite). Ann. Soc. entomol. France, series 2, vol. 8, pp. 183-209. 1851. Myodaires des environs de Paris (suite). Ann. Soc. entomol. France, series 2, vol. 9, pp. 177-190. 1863. Histoire naturelle des Diptéres des environs de Paris. Vol. 1, xvi+ 1143 pp. Paris. RONDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Vol. 1. Genera Italica ordinis dipterorum ordinatim disposita et distincta et in familias et stirpes aggregata. 228 pp. Parma. 1859. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Vol. 3. Species Italicae ordinis dipterorum in genera characteribus definita, ordinatim collectae, methodo analitica distinctae, et novis vel minus cognitis descriptis. Pars secunda: Muscidae, Siphoninae et (partim) Tachininae. 243 pp. Parma. STEIN, P. 1924. Die verbreitetsten Tachiniden Mitteleuropas nach ihren Gattungen und Arten. Arch. Naturgesch., series A, vol. 90(6), pp. 1-271. TOWNSEND, C. H. T. 1940. Manual of myiology in twelve parts. Part 10: Oestroid generic diagnoses and data (Anacamptomyiini to Frontinini). 335 pp. Sao Paulo. haga aurorae Peale, 1848 and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte (Aves). M. D. Bruce, D. T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault . ‘obates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari). R. A. Norton . ekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea, Copepoda). J. B. Jones . ption of new taxa based on enzyme data. J. E. Jelnes; R. Fortuner. ship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral skins of Great Britain. C. W. Wright & R. J. Cleevely . ; ‘olepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda). The Secretary eoccus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda). The Secretary locephala Blanchard, 1848 (Cestoda) The Secretary. . onymy in the families HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) d HARPIDAE ania 1849 onan hi) ated J. G. M. Sean Araneae). H. W. Levi , . Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida, Otpiidae). M. S. ee Mahnert 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 Se Se Comments Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia). A. F. Stimson... Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), W. Speidel. ‘ Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). R. W. Hodges; Ww. E. Miller; J. D. Bradley, W. G. Tremewan, K. Tuck & C.J. Hamilton. : : Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, 1828 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Secretary | On the proposed amendment to Article S5Ic of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. J. C. Cokendolpher, O. F. Francke & D. Quintero Jn.. ! On the proposed amendment to Article 70b of the International Code of | Zoological Nomenclature. C. W. Wright Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Pisces, Siluriformes). W. R. Taylor Opinions Opinion 1288. Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Opinion 1289. Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Mammalia, Cetacea) Opinion 1290. Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . Opinion 1291. Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 (Mammalia) : Opinion 1292. Voluta papilio Link, 1807 (Gastropoda) ; Opinion 1293. Scolia eee Fabricius, 1793 (nsecta, Hymen- optera) Opinion 1294. Edwardsia “de Quatrefages, 1841 " (Coelenterata, Actiniaria) . Opinion 1295. Actinia Linnaeus, 1767, ACTINIIDAE “Rafinesque, 1815 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria) and Pentacta sabi jt 1820 (Echinodermata, Holothurioidea). Opinion 1296. Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Bivalvia) Opinion 1297. Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . Direction 116. PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, [1802] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . ry Direction 117. Correction of Entry No. 462 in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology concerning Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). (Correction to Opinion 94). New and revived cases Piers Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, 1855 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Vermetidae). A. Myra Keen & M. G. Hadfield . Continued on Inside Back Cov vel 27 June, 1985 Volume 42 Part 2 pp. iii-iv, 99-204 ISSN 0007-5167 - The Bulletin of Zoological : Nomenclature 7 The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature BRITISH MUSEUM (NATHRAL HISTORY) 2:6 JUL 1985 | PURCHASED - ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 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. to: CENTRAL SALES 4 Y COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX ‘a FARNHAM ROYAL SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K. © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1985. 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 t ‘he prior permission of the copyright owner. 7. a THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON... ihenai 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 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 (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. 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 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 I JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpetology Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Jnstitut 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 Tucumdan, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical Hymenoptera Dr. G. C. GRUCHY (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0M8) (15 April 1985) Ichthyology 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 Prof. C.B. Cox Mr. D. Curry 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.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. ME. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) Mr. J.D.D. Smith ( Administrator ) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, April 1985 99 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN CLATURE UN a ec es Volume 42, part 2 (pp. iii-iv, 99-204) 27 June 1985 I wh hoe 4 NOTICES (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. This period is nor- mally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his con- tribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve months of the date of publication of the application. (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: (1) Southernia Allgen, 1929: proposed conservation by suppres- sion of Southernia Filipjev, 1927 (Nematoda). Z.N.(S.) 940. The Secretary. (2) Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola): pro- posed conservation by suppression of Entomobrya cavicola Banks, 1897. Z.N.(S.) 2210. P. F. Bellinger. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for vol. 42 (1) (published on 2 April 1985) (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23b and 79c): *(1) Filellum Hincks, 1868 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2508. P.F.S. Cornelius & D.R. Calder. (2) Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 (Crustacea, Isopoda): request for confirmation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2509. H.M.L. Ton & G.C.B. Poore. (3) ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 (Coleoptera) and EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1878 (Flagellata): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2510. M. Mroczkowski & S. A. Slipinski. (4) Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (Coleoptera, Cucujoidea): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2511. I.C. Watt & R.A. Crowson. *(5) Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (Mollusca): proposed conser- vation. Z.N.(S.) 2512. A.E. Bogan & J.D. Williams. (6) ‘Nomenclaturally valid’: a useful new term in nomenclature. Z.N.(S.) 2513. R.V. Melville (Secretary). (7) Hydatigena taeniaeformis Batsch, 1786 (Platyhelminthes, Cestoda): proposed conservation. Z.NAS) oi 2514. «C.C. Bursey. 100 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 (d) Guidelines for applications to the Commission. Intending appli- cants should draw up their applications in line with the Guidelines published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, volume 42, part 1, pages 3-5. Copies of the Guidelines can be obtained from the Secretary. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS CHANGES IN THE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP The retirement from the Commission of Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky (of the Systematic Entomology Laboratory, United States Department of Agri- culture, c/o United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on reaching the age limit is recorded with great regret. Dr Sabrosky has given 22 years of painstaking and valuable service as a Commissioner; from 1977 until the spring of 1983 he was President. His contribution to the prep- aration of the 3rd Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was of the highest value. My personal debt to his encourage- ment and friendship is immense. Dr G. C. Gruchy (of the National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada) was elected on 15 April this year to the place vacated by Professor Harold Welch. His speciality is Ichthyology. THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE THIRD EDITION This was published on 12 February 1985, for the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, by the British Museum (Natural History). This new edition, with official French and English text on facing pages, has been approved by the International Union of Biological Sciences and is the only set of rules of worldwide authority that guides zoologists and palaeontologists who are describing new families, genera and species. It is an indispensable working tool for all taxonomists and those engaged in identification services in applied fields. The price is £15+ £1.50 postage and packing. Pre-paid orders should be sent to the Publications Department, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD. Orders from applicants in North America should be sent to the University of California Press, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90024, U.S.A. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature June 1985 a a a SW i Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 101 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF DAPSILARTHRA FOERSTER, 1862. Z.N.(S.)2312 (see vol. 41, pp. 53-55) (1) By Dr G. C. D. Griffiths (Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Canada) I support the intent of van Achterberg’s submission regarding the need to protect the name Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 against any possible attempt to sub- stitute Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 for it, but consider his exposition unnecessarily complex. Two issues are involved: what is the correct spelling of Gnamptodon/ Gnaptodon, and which species should be recognised as the type species? Protection of Dapsilarthra will be automatic if the question of the type species of Gnamptodon/ Gnaptodon is settled. Gnamptodon and Gnaptodon are not different names but different spellings of the same name. When a name is spelt in two different ways in the same paper, this is evidence that one or other spelling is a lapsus or error of some kind. The fact that we are not dealing with two different names is shown by Haliday’s inclusion of only Bracon pumilio Nees in Gnaptodon in 1837 and his citation of the same species as the type of Gnaptodon in 1840. Since the spelling Gnamptodon was used by Haliday at least three times (in 1833, 1837 and 1840, as cited by van Achterberg) while the spelling Gnaptodon appears only once (in 1837), clearly Gnamptodon was the intended spelling. Van Achterberg’s preference for Gnaptodon is no doubt due to that spelling having been used in his 1983 revision and other recent literature. If recent usage is sufficient ground for the Commission to rule Gnaptodon to be the spelling to be used, I have no objection to this. But the case should be argued in terms of usage, not through the stratagem of treating Gnamptodon and Gnaptodon as different names when they are not. A ruling on the type species of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 is needed because the type species, by monotypy, Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812], was misidentified. This specific name is at present applied to an alysiine braconid placed in Dapsilarthra. In Haliday’s (1833) key the gaping (exodont) mandibles characteristic of alysiine braconids are denoted by the phrase ‘Mandibulae hiantes’. But Gnamptodon, with rufiventris as sole included species, is denoted by ‘mandibulae forcipatae’. Therefore Haliday did not intend to apply the name to an alysiine braconid and it is not necessary to assume any change in Haliday’s concept of Gnamptodon between 1833 and 1837. The species included in 1837, Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834, could represent the species misidentified as Bassus rufiventris in 1833, although this cannot be determined with certainty. Designation of Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834 as type species of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 would solve the problem and remove any possible threat to Dapsilarthra. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ACHTERBERG, C. VAN 1983. Tijdschr. Entomol., vol. 126, pp. 25—57. NEES VON ESENBECK, C. G. D. 1834. Hymenopterorum Ichneumonibus affinum monographiae etc. Stuttgart and Tubingen. 102 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 (2) By R. Wharton (Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas) I should like to express my support for the proposal to conserve Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862. I believe that the suppression of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 will result in greater stability and consistency of usage in the BRACONIDAE. However, I am surprised to find that the proposal is inconsistent with the radical changes the same author has proposed for generic names in this family, which are based on strict priority (van Achterberg, 1979, 1982). Some minor points may be helpful to the Commission in considering this case: (1) Dapsilarthra in its widest sense has been the subject of recent studies by K6nigsmann, 1959, Griffiths, 1968a, b, Wharton, 1980 and van Achterberg, 1983. Griffiths and Wharton are at present rearing and collecting material to be used ina revision of the Nearctic species. Dapsilarthra is quite diverse (Wharton, 1980; van Achterberg, 1983) and is unlikely to be maintained in its present sense (Wharton, 1980). However, D. apii (Curtis, 1826), the type species of Dapsilarthra, and D. rufiventris (Nees), the type species of Gnamptodon, are in separate but apparently closely related species groups. Thus any reorganisation at the generic level will probably lead to the retention of both species in Dapsilarthra s.s. (2) There are several generic names available for the species now placed in Dapsilarthra; and Adelura Foerster, 1862 has been used in the past about as frequently as Dapsilarthra (Shenefelt, 1974). Thus the contention that Dapsilarthra is ‘... long established and much used ...’ (vol. 41, p. 54, lines 28-29) is a weak argument for its conservation. The similar statement that ‘... Dapsilarthra has been used consistently for the genus since 1862 ...’ (vol. 41, p. 54, lines 24-25) is somewhat misleading because of the widespread use of Adelura until Strand, 1928, showed that it was a junior homonym. Even after this discovery, one of the most detailed biological studies on any species of Dapsilarthra, that by Keilin & Tate, 1943, used the combination Adelura apii (Curtis). ADDITIONAL REFERENCES GriFFITHs, G. C. D. 1968a. Beitr. Entomol., vol. 18, pp. 5-62. 1968b. Beitr. Entomol., vol. 18, pp. 63-152. KeILin, D. & Tate, P. 1943. Parasitology, vol. 35, pp. 27-36. KONIGSMANN, E. 1959. Beitrs. Entomol., vol. 9, pp. 580-608. SHENEFELT, R. 1974. Hymenopterorum Catalogus (nov. ed.) Pars 11, Braconidae 7, p. 986. Junk, The Hague. STRAND, E. 1928. Arch. Naturges., vol. 92(A), p. 51. VAN ACHTERBERG, C. 1979. Tijdschr. Entomol., vol. 122, pp. 241-279. 1982. Entomol. Ber., vol. 42, pp. 133-139. Wuarton, R. A. 1980. Univ. California Publs Entomol., vol. 88, pp. 1-112. (3) Replies by Dr van Achterberg (1) to Dr Griffiths: The statement that there is doubt about the identity of the nominal type species of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833, p. 265 (where it is clearly indi- cated) and of Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837, p. 220, where only one species is included, is in my opinion incorrect. If the interpretation of these species by Haliday is taken as } Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 103 the basis for the interpretation of the genera, the uncertainty about both names will continue. As Dr Griffiths correctly notes, there is no proof that Haliday’s Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834, is the same as his Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812], 1814; it is even unlikely. For instance, according to the original descriptions, the colour of the two species is very different and this should have been noted by Haliday. However, Haliday made some sort of mistake and the case should be settled to avoid possible confusion in the future. (2) to Dr Wharton: I agree with most of these remarks. I prefer the appli- cation of generic names to be based strictly on priority. However, if this increases the chance of confusion (in this case, two generic names differing only in one letter, both proposed by the same author in a conflicting manner) the case should, in my opinion, be brought before the Commission. The solution proposed is to conserve the name most in use at the moment. Therefore whether the term ‘much used’ or another is used is not important: it is a relative statement. Dapsilarthra is commonly accepted as the name for the genus that includes Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812], 1814 and Alysia apii Curtis, 1826 (see e.g. Shenefelt, 1974, pp. 986-991). Adelura Foerster, 1862 (non Bonaparte, 1854; = Adelurola Strand, 1928) has been used extensively, but in terms of its type species it is not closely related to Dapsilarthra; its use for the group including D. rufiventris and D. apii was incorrect and cannot be accepted. Of the available names for this genus Dapsilarthra has indeed been the most consistently used since 1862. (4) Note by the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The Commission must clearly decide on the relative status of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 and Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837. On the direct evidence of the 1837 work, on the assumption that Haliday knew what he was doing, they must be regarded as separate names; for Gnamptodon is sunk as a synonym of Opius (Opius) Wesmael, 1835 (though it is difficult to see why), while Gnaptodon is a separate subgenus of Opius, with its own type species. Furthermore, it is not necessary to treat Gnaptodon as a misspelling of Gnamptodon. The Greek verb gnampto means to bend or curve; the Greek word gnapto means to card or comb wool. Haliday was a good enough classicist to have known this. I therefore conclude that Dr Griffiths’ argument has little to sustain it and that Dr van Achterberg’s original proposals should be preferred. DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR ADIANTHUS BUCATUS AMEGHINO, 1891 (MAMMALIA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS: A RESPONSE. Z.N.(S.)2430 (see vol. 41, pp. 56-57, 208-211) (1) By Richard L. Cifelli (Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, 20560, U.S.A.) A comprehensive review of the ADIANTHIDAE, published recently (Cifelli & Soria, 1983), includes detailed discussion of all issues raised by Schoch in his critique, which otherwise largely reiterates the substance of my joint proposal with 104 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 Soria for designation of a neotype (Cifelli & Soria, 1984). For clarification here and by way of summary, the review of Cifelli & Soria (1983): (1) established the ADIANTHIDAE as a unique and holomonophyletic group (2 (3 (4 (5 rd — ~— pertaining to the indigenous South American order Litopterna (Mammalia). The morphological integrity of this group and its roster of constituent taxa have, however, been long and universally recog- nised (see primary zoological literature citations in Cifelli & Soria, 1983), so that modifiers used by Schoch such as ‘presumably’, ‘usually’, and ‘certain authors’, implying doubtful usage of this family-group name, are inappropriate in this context; provided diagnoses for the ADIANTHIDAE and for all subordinate taxa contained by the family; discussed the observable morphology of the type figure of Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 and of MACN A1812 (referred to that species by Ameghino in 1894) with respect to these diagnoses, concluding that the former pertained to a caviomorph rodent while the latter clearly represents a distinct species of ADIANTHIDAE as that family is univer- sally conceived. Schoch’s assertion to the contrary, the loss of the type specimen was in no way ‘convenient’ for us in making this evaluation or in assessing the possible solutions to the problem. While the description and figure of the type are sufficient to determine rodent rather than litoptern affinities for the original specimen, no more speci- fic identification or assessment of validity is possible until more com- plete materials, including but not limited to another tooth sufficiently similar to it, are discovered. (It is conceivable, for instance, that the type of Adianthus bucatus belonged to a presently recognised species otherwise known only from the lower dentition.) Should the Commis- sion designate MACN A1812 as neotype of Adianthus bucatus, thereby leaving the original type figure of that species nameless, it is therefore uncertain at present whether or not a new name will be required for it; selected and designated MACN A1812 as neotype of Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891, noting that a proposal for action by the Commission on the matter had been made; presented all existing evidence as to the geographic and stratigraphic provenience of all materials pertaining to the ADIANTHIDAE. While it is virtually certain that the two specimens in question were collected from different localities, there is considerable doubt as to the origin of the type. MACN A1812 was obtained at a locality (Corriguen Aike) not visited by Carlos Ameghino—brother of Florentino Ameghino— when he made the collection which includes the type (Ameghino, 1913-1936, vol. 20, pp. 146 ff.). Available evidence, consisting of an oblique reference (Ameghino, 1903—1904a), implies but does not establish the locality (Karaiken) from which the type derived (Cifelli & Soria, 1983, p. 8); this locality is of a slightly earlier age (Marshall & Pascual, 1977) than that of MACN A1812. 2. Schoch’s suggestion that, in accordance with Article 75 of the Code, ‘it is logical to wait until more material of Adianthus bucatus is collected from the fauna from which it is derived and designate one such future specimen the neotype’ is in contradiction with his acceptance (without restudy) of our contention that the figure and description given by Ameghino (1891) are adequate (designation of such a Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 105 neotype is thus excluded by the provisions of Article 75a). This is, in any case, irrelevant because the proposal concerns suppression of an existing type and designation of a neotype under Article 79, not Article 75, of the Code. 3. Aside from issues dealt with explicitly in the revision of the family (Cifelli & Soria, 1983), Schoch’s sole stated objection to designation of MACN A1812 as neotype of Adianthus bucatus is that ‘confusion will remain in the older literature’. Such confusion will inevitably remain. Because Adianthus bucatus has not univer- sally been applied to a single species, no course of action (including, as Schoch advocates, retention of the species-name with the figure of the original type and its transferral to the Rodentia) will rectify confusion in the early literature except, perhaps, suppression of the name entirely. The evidence presented in a recent review (Cifelli & Soria, 1983) should, in any case, be sufficient to clarify misunderstanding due to an error made by Ameghino nearly 100 years ago and never correctable in a strict sense. 4. The promotion of stability is the expressed central purpose of the Code; that of the plenary powers, Article 79, to suspend the provisions of the Code ‘if such application to a particular case would in its [the Commission’s] judgment disturb stability or universality or cause confusion’. Designation of MACN A1812 as neotype of Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 would preserve usage and convention in concept of the species and therefore of the genus and of the family ADIANTHIDAE, whereas retention of the species name with the type figure, their removal to another order, and the erection of new names would cause considerable confusion. Designa- tion of MACN A1812 as neotype would, first, preserve tradition in concept and usage (a tradition established, in fact, by Ameghino [1894] himself). Adianthus bucatus is a species universally considered as pertaining to a group of small, mor- phologically distinctive litopterns (see Cifelli & Soria, 1983, for literature citations). The name, if retained with the type figure, would be new to the Rodentia and, as noted above, is in this case presently of uncertain validity within that order (should, for instance, Adianthus bucatus be found to be synonymous with another described rodent species, further confusion could ensue). Secondly, and more fundamentally, designation of the neotype would permit maintenance of the family-group name ADIANTHIDAE. Because Adianthus (type species A. bucatus) is the type genus of the group of litopterns under consideration, removal of the species Adianthus bucatus from the family will necessitate application of another family-group name to them. No other such name has ever been proposed or used, so that the name would be entirely new to zoological nomenclature. Proposal of a new name would clearly have a disruptive effect on nomenclature: in addition to usage in the primary zoological literature (cited in Cifelli & Soria, 1983), the family-group name ADIANTHIDAE is widely cited in general reference works on South American mammal evolution (e.g., Patterson & Pascual, 1972; Simpson, 1980; Marshall et al., 1983; Cifelli, 1985) and in comprehensive treatments of mammalian evolution, classifica- tion, and systematics (e.g., Trouessart, 1898-1899; Palmer, 1904; Simpson, 1945; Romer, 1966; Savage & Russell, 1983), which are standard reference works for non-specialists. REFERENCES AMEGHINO, F. [1891]. Caracteres diagnosticos de cincuenta especies nuevas de mamiferos fosiles argentinos. Rev. Argentina Hist. nat., vol. 1, pp. 129-167. 106 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 — 1894. Enumération synoptique des espéces de mammiferes fossiles des forma- tions éocénes de Patagonie. Bol. Acas. nac. Cien. Cordoba, vol. 13, pp. 259-452. —— 1903-1904a. Nuevas especies de mamiferos cretacicos y terciarios de la Republica Argentina. An. Soc. cien. Argentina, vol. 56 (1903), pp. 193-208; vol. 57 (1904), pp. 162-175, 327-341; vol. 58 (1904), pp. 35-41, 56-71, 182-192, 225-240, 241-291. —— 1913-1936. Orbas completas y Correspondencia cientifica. Edicion oficial ordenada por el gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Torcelli, A., ed. La Plata, Impresiones Oficiales, vols. 1-24. CIFELLI, R. L. 1985. South American ungulate evolution and extinction. In: Webb, S. D. and Stehli, F., eds., The Great American Interchange. Plenum Publ. Co., New York, in press. — & Soria, M. F. 1983. Systematics of the Adianthidae (Litopterna, Mammalia). Amer. Mus. Novitates no. 2771. — & Soria, M. F. 1984. Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia): proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nomen., vol. 41, pp. 56-57. MARSHALL, L. G., HOFFSTETTER, R. & PASCUAL, R. 1983. Mammals and strati- graphy: geochronology of the continental mammal-bearing Tertiary of South America. Palaeovertebrata, Montpellier, Mem. Extr. 1983, pp. 1-93. — & PAScuAL, R. 1977. Nuevas marsupiales Caenolestidae del ‘Piso Notohip- pidense’ (SE de Santa Cruz, Patagonia) de Ameghino. Sus aportaciones a la cronologia y evolucion de las comunidades-mamifero del Cenozoico medio y tardio sudamericano. Obra del Centenario Del Museo de La Plata, vol. 5, pp. 11-28. PALMER, T. S. 1904. Index generum mammalium: a list of the genera and families of mammals. U.S. Dept. Agriculture Repts. North American Fauna, no. 23, pp. 1-984. PATTERSON, B. & PASCUAL, R. 1972. South American fossil mammals. Jn: Keast, A., Erk, F. C. and Glass, B. eds., Evolution, Mammals, and Southern Continents. State Univ. New York Press, Albany, pp. 247-309. Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1-468. SavaGE, D. E. & RUSSELL, D. E. 1983. Mammalian Paleofaunas of the World. Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Reading, pp. 1-432. Simpson, G. G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 85: 1-350. — 1980. Splendid Isolation: The Curious History of South American Mammals. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, pp. 1-266. TROUESSART, E.-L. 1898-1899. Catalogus Mammalium tam Viventium quam Fossilium, Nova Edito (Prima Completa). R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin, vol. 1-2: 1-1469. (2) By M. F. Soria (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadivia’, Ay. Angel Gallardo 470, [1405] Capital Federal, Republica Argentina) Dr Cifelli’s reply to Dr Schoch covers most of the points that need to be dealt with, but I should like to add a few remarks. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 107 (1) A simple reading of Schoch’s comment shows his inadequate knowledge of the problem of A. bucatus, because he ignored (as Cifelli shows) our comprehensive reivew of the ADIANTHIDAE (Cifelli & Soria, 1983). (2) Schoch’s statement relies for much of its support on his paragraph 4, in which he misunderstood the sense given to the name A. bucatus by both Patterson, 1940 and Simpson & Minoprio, 1949: Patterson, 1940, compared his specimen not, as Schoch suggests, with the type specimen of A. bucatus, but with that of A. patagonicus Ameghino, 1904. On p. 17, footnote 3, he says of A. bucatus: *... from an examination of the inadequate figure, it is impossible to homologise the remaining two [fossettes] with the fossettes of other described specimens.’ Simpson & Minoprio, 1949, referred to the genus Adianthus but not to A. bucatus by name. They clearly described features of the type specimen of A. patagonicus, as when, for instance (p. 7), they indicated the presence of a ‘strong parastylar spur’. Ameghino’s 1891 description and figure of the type specimen of A. bucatus show no such character. Starting from this confusion, Schoch states ‘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 the species represented by M.A.C.N. no. A1812’. This conclusion does not fit the facts. After Ameghino, 1891, all workers who have studied A. bucatus (Ameghino, 1894, 1896, 1898; Scott, 1910; Patterson, 1940; Simpson & Minoprio, 1949, 1950; Simpson, Minoprio & Patterson, 1962; Soria, 1981; Bond & Vucetich, 1983) have followed Ameghino’s 1894 concept of the species, based on the hemimandible MACN A-1812 (Schoch’s rendering of this number is incorrect). Occasional mentions of the original type (e.g. Patterson, 1940, see above) do not affect this. Schoch seems to have confused ‘specimens’ with ‘species’ and not to have distinguished between A. bucatus and A. patagonicus. Schoch states ‘Scott (1910) and Soria (1981) mistakenly took M.A.C.N. no. A1812 [sic] to be the type or neotype [sic] of Adianthus bucatus’. In 1981 (p. 29) I wrote ‘... resultaria aceptable tomar la hemi- mandibula como neotipo...’ (‘...it would be acceptable to take the hemimandible as the neotype...’). I did not say that the hemimandible ‘was’ or ‘must be’ the neotype. I compared the figure of the type specimen of A. bucatus with that of the type specimen of A. patagonicus (see also Cifelli & Soria, 1983). I concluded that those species are not congeneric and proposed the new combination Proheptaconus patagonicus. I based this on a comment by Simpson, Minoprio & Patterson, 1962, p. 248: ‘We cannot attempt to solve or even state these problems here, and indeed their solution probably must await discovery of better post-Deseadean specimens and perhaps also arbitrary designation of neotypes or nomina conservanda’. (3) The type specimen of A. bucatus is presumably lost, as Cifelli & Soria, 1983, 1984, point out. As Schoch appears not to agree, I offer the following information: (a) After his first description of 1891, Ameghino never mentioned the type again. Until 1904 Adianthus was a monotypic genus, so that up to that date any mention of the genus was equivalent to a mention of the type 108 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 species. In 1896, when he mentioned only the generic name, he cited the teeth features of the hemimandible MACN A-1812 alone. In 1903-1904a he described the second species of Adianthus, A. patagonicus, of which the type is an isolated third upper molar (MACN A-52-218), but he did not compare this with the type of A. bucatus. In his monograph on the phylo- genetic morphology of ungulate upper molars, he figured only the type specimen of A. patagonicus (1904b, figs 98, 100). (b) In 1900 Scott visited Ameghino but was unable to examine the Litopterna of the Ameghino collection for lack of time (Scott, 1910, p. 1). In his treatise on Santacrucian Litopterna (1910) he considered the hemi- mandible as the type specimen of A. bucatus and (p. 154) mentioned some features of the type specimen of A. patagonicus when discussing the genus. If Scott knew the type specimen of A. bucatus it is inexplicable that he did not refer to it, especially as he gave a reference to Ameghino, 1891. (c) When the Ameghino Collection was incorporated in the Seccion Paleozoologia of the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadivia’, all specimens were numbered and card-indexed. Under A. bucatus only the hemimandible MACN A-—1812 was found and (erroneously) considered as the type. (d) I have been working on the fossil mammal collections of the Museum (including the Ameghino Collection) since 1974. I have located many missing specimens and, of course, a good number of type specimens (many recorded in internal reports). I have searched especially for specimens believed to be lost. In several such searches I was unable to find the type specimen of A. bucatus. (e) There is no evidence that any other worker has been able to examine this specimen. Had anyone been able to do so, I believe it would have been mentioned at least once in the last 94 years. For these reasons I believe that Schoch has no grounds for supposing that it was convenient for us that the type specimen was lost. We suspect that the type was lost during Ameghino’s lifetime. Indeed, it was Ameghino, 1894, who set up the specimen MACN A-~—1812 as a sort of informal neotype. Hence the proposal to designate MACN A—1812 as the neotype of Adianthus bucatus (Cifelli & Soria, 1983, 1984) is the best way to preserve stability and to respect the traditional criteria for the ADIANTHIDAE, for its type genus Adianthus, and for the type species of that genus, universally recognised as small and peculiar Litopterna. The other alternative, to pro- pose a new name for the hemimandible with the removal of A. bucatus to the Rodentia, would merely increase the degree of confusion shown by the antecedents cited above, as pointed out by Cifelli in his reply. This would be contrary to nomenclatural stability. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AMEGHINO, F. 1896. Sur l’évolution des dents des mammiféres. Bol. Acad. nac. Cienc. Cordoba, vol. 14, pp. 381-517. 1898. Segundo censo de la Republica Argentina. Capitulo I. Territorio. Tercera parte, Sinopsis geologico-paleontologica. Buenos Aires, Taller Tipograf. Penit. nac., vol. 1, pp. 113-225. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 109 1904b. Recherches de morphologie phylogénétique sur les molaires supérieures des ongulés. An. Mus. nac. Buenos Aires, vol. 3 (10), pp. 1-541. BOND, M. & VUCETICH, M. G. 1983. Indalecia grandensis gen. et sp. nov. del Eocene Temprano del Noroeste Argentino... Rev. Assoc. geol. Argentina, vol. 38 (1), pp. 107-117. SIMPSON, G. G. & MINOPRIO, J. L. 1950. La fauna del Deseadense de Mendoza. Resumen. Colaboracion. An. Soc. cient. Argentina, vol. 149, pp. 245-253. ——_., & PATTERSON, B. 1962. The mammalian fauna of the Divisadero Largo formation, Mendoza, Argentina. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 117 (4), pp. 239-293. COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING ATRACTOCERA LATIPES MEIGEN, 1804. Z.N.(S.)2393 (see vol. 41, pp. 83-93, 211) (1) By I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R.) Professor I. A. Rubtsov has asked me, as Secretary of the Soviet committee on zoological nomenclature, to comment on the disputed views of this case put forward by him and by Dr Crosskey. I am not a dipterologist, but I prefer a stable nomenclature and objective information. Prof. Rubtsov has provided me with some facts but I have personally verified all the references and have studied many other sources not indicated by him. I use /atipes throughout in the pre-1972 sense and do not differentiate between narrow and broad applications of the name (the latter for a group of sibling species) because I regard both usages as important. References to RAE followed by the year and number of the work reviewed are to the Review of Applied Entomology Ser. B. Medical and Veterinary. Nearly all the other references are to works already mentioned in the discussion. Rubtsov puts forward the following arguments: (1) Medical and veterinary importance of the species. — Rubtsov stated: ‘Asa very active bloodsucker it has great medical and veterinary importance. It is included in many monographs. .., in many bulletins of WHO... and in hundreds of papers’. Crosskey & Davies, 1972, said, to the contrary: ‘not a blackfly species of any medical and veterinary importance’. Crosskey, 1984, remarks: ‘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 attribu- table to the species, but localised to eastern U.S.S.R. The species has never been the target of any control operation nor is it even mentioned in a recent book concerned with SIMULIIDAE as pests (Laird, 1981)’. The above statements are the only ones seen by me. 110 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 For the U.S.S.R. (half of the area of the species) Rubtsov, 1956, stated: ‘Malicious bloodsucker. Attacks man and domesticated animals’ and Gutsevich included the species (‘mass attacks on man and livestock’) in the Soviet Great Medical Encyclopaedia (ed. 2, 1961, vol. 19, p. 367). Neither of these references limits the pest to ‘eastern U.S.S.R.’. I have also found references to ‘important species biting man and livestock’ (RAE 1983, 2007, Switzerland) and ‘mass bloodsucking species’ (RAE 1983, 2333, Czechoslovakia). In England it was shown by Davies and others, 1962, Trans. r. entomol. Soc. London, vol. 114, pp. 25-26, using serological methods, that the species feeds mostly on birds, predominantly domestic birds, but also on man and domestic animals. In Canada it is, and in England it is supposed to be (Davies et al., loc. cit.; RAE 1976, 1333, etc.) a vector of leucocytozoonosis, a dangerous and widely distributed disease of domestic and wild birds (see Laird, ed., 1981, p. vii). References to bloodsucking habits, abundance and wide distribution of the species are numerous. Davies et al. (loc. cit.) analysed about 280 bitings of /atipes, much more than of any other British species. The title of Laird’s 1981 book — Blackflies: the future for biological methods in integrated control— shows his concern. Crosskey’s chapter on geographical distribution contains a table of 43 ‘more important’ species in the world fauna with a note that not all vectors of leucocytozoonosis are included. It is the only general review of blackfly species as pests in the book and does not include /atipes. But the species is mentioned in the book on 15 pages (add p. 292 to the index) in six papers by eight authors working in England, West Germany, Czechoslovakia, Canada and U.S.A. All used ‘/atipes’ or ‘latipes auctt.’ and none mentioned ‘vernum’. This goes counter to Crosskey’s arguments. In the index to the book I found only 14 other species mentioned on 14 or more pages. (2) Importance of latipes as a type species. — This is not commented on by Crosskey & Davies, 1972 or Crosskey, 1984. Regardless of the taxonomic status of Cnetha, there will be no problem if Rubtsov’s proposal is accepted. Otherwise, the type species of Cnetha and Pseudonevermannia will have to be designated by the Commission using its plenary powers (Art. 70a). (3) Doubtful status of the presumed holotype. — Rubtsov suggested that the presumed holotype disagrees with Meigen’s figure and with the known distribution of the species. Neither point is mentioned by Crosskey & Davies, 1972 or by Zwick & Crosskey, 1981, and only the second is discussed by Crosskey, 1984. He regards Rubtsov’s suggestion that the specimen was received from France or England after 1804 as a ‘remarkable, groundless and unwarranted assumption’ although Zwick & Crosskey, 1981, correctly mentioned that Meigen received much material from various countries after 1804. In 1818 or later Meigen obtained the Baumhauer col- lection (50,000 specimens) mainly from western and southern France and including many small and delicate species of the suborder Nematocera to which the blackflies belong. English Diptera (but perhaps not Nematocera) were sent to Meigen by Leach (see Morge, 1974, pp. 121, 122, ‘Leach’ misprinted as ‘Beach’; Meigen, 1818-1838, Syst. Beschr. zweifi. Ins., numerous references to Baumhauer; for Leach see vol. 2, p. 348, vol. 3, p. 292, etc.). According to Horn & Kahle, 1936, Entomol. Beihefte Berlin-Dahlem, vol. 3, p. 171, Meigen specimens, possibly including types, exist in Vienna, Bonn and Halle/Saale, besides Paris. I can add Berlin and Leningrad. No effort seems to have been made to study these specimens in revising Meigen’s blackfly species. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 111 The problem of ‘types’ in old collections is discussed by Mayr, 1969, Principles of systematic Zoology, para 13.48, and I agree with his conclusions: ‘Evidence derived from old types must be treated with extreme care and discrimi- nation and never be used to upset stable nomenclature.’ I agree further with Rubstov that, even in the absence of any doubts about the holotype, conservation of the name in its accustomed use was necessary. (4) Usage of the name. — Crosskey in Laird, ed., 1981, lists selected identi- fication keys mostly published in taxonomic monographs. According to my calcu- lations, 12 of these (for the Palaearctic, U.S.S.R., Scandinavia, British Isles, France, Roumania, Czechoslovakia, Italy, east Canada and parts of U.S.A.) use /atipes and only two (for Iceland and Michigan) use vernum. Numerous papers in which this common and widespread species is used in ecological, physiological, parasitological and other studies and published before 1972 use /atipes. For the post-1972 period I used the indexes to RAE. I agree that such evidence is not complete and that it does not reflect the nature and importance of publications, but I think it gives objective evidence on the usage of names, and in my opinion, usage is usage (Art. 79b(ii)) and cannot be discounted even if the author is dead or did not show awareness of the proposed nomenclatural changes. From 1972 to 1975, RAE indexes only Jatipes (except for Crosskey & Davies, 1972). From 1976 to 1984, number 5, 16 papers using /atipes are given and 20 using vernum. Clearly, even in recent years, vernum has not acquired very considerably predominant usage. The problem of a neotype is identical in both Rubtsov’s proposal and Crosskey’s counterproposal (for vernum). In both cases a neotype is desirable, but the identity of the species can be fixed by reference to Davies, 1966, as already indicated by Rubtsov. (2) By Heide Zwick, Limnologische Flussstation d. Max-Planck-Instituts f. Limnologie, Postfach 260, D-6407 Schlitz, West Germany I wish to comment on the proposal by Rubtsov (1984, Bull. zool. Nom. 41(2), pp. 83-86) and counter-proposal by Crosskey (ibid., pp. 86-93) on the inter- pretation of the name J/atipes Meigen, 1804, and in particular to comment on paragraphs 9 and 13 of Rubtsov’s application. For more than 15 years I have studied sIMULIIDAE, and have spent much time elucidating the identity and status of European species described by early workers such as Enderlein, Fries, Friederichs, Lundstrém, Meigen, and Zetterstedt. A paper on Meigen’s types has already been published (Zwick & Crosskey, 1981) and the results of studies on the other workers are now being prepared for publication. Thus I am well aware of the /atipes — vernum problem, and I feel qualified to comment on the proposals. I fully agree with Crosskey, and strongly support his arguments which have been made in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. His proposal to introduce the name vernum Macquart, 1826 for /atipes sensu auct., nec Meigen (Crosskey & Davies, 1972) has been accepted by most simuliid special- ists. Even in countries where current literature can be difficult to obtain authors are beginning to use the name vernum (e.g. Jedli¢ka, 1976; Joost & Zimmermann, 1983). 112 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 The main point which arises from Rubtsov’s proposal (paragraph 9) seems to be that he does not accept that the single male in the Meigen collection under the name Jatipes is in fact the holotype male of /atipes Meigen, 1804. The Meigen collection of simuliids has been carefully looked after since it was purchased in 1840 by the Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. So closely has it been looked after that it was not until 1969 that experienced simuliid workers first received permission to make genital preparations which are essential for identifying species. Earlier workers had to be content with examining unsatis- factory external features, and many of their identifications are no more than guesswork. In 1978 I studied the male /atipes of Meigen and I am convinced (like Crosskey & Davies, the first revising authors) that it is the male which Meigen refers to in his original description (1804) for the following four reasons: (1) the male bears a label ‘latipes’ in Meigen’s handwriting (note Zwick & Crosskey 1981, p. 227); Meigen very precisely noted: ‘Ich fing nur einmal ein Mannchen im Mai in einer Hekke’. The proper translation is: Only once I caught one male on a hedge in May. Later, in 1818, he repeated: ‘Nur einmal im Mai das Mannchen’. (Trans- lation: Only once a male [was caught] in May) and gave a more detailed description which evidently must have been based on the same specimen as in 1804; in the old catalogue of the Paris Museum (from 1840 — compare fig. 1 in Zwick & Crosskey, 1981) there are 2 specimens mentioned under the name of Jatipes (No. 525). Two specimens are in the collection of Meigen: one being a male, the other being a female (which has not been mentioned by Meigen) and misidentified; (4) the figure of /atipes, drawn by Meigen (pl. 223, fig. 9) shows a male and is in accordance with his descriptions. I cannot agree with Dr Rubtsov’s argument that because the male in ques- tion has no collecting label it may have been added to the collection subsequently. At the time of Meigen it was not usual to give locality information on labels. Furthermore, if it was a subsequently added specimen, it would mean that the holotype male was lost and someone must have placed another male in the correct place and added the handwritten label of Meigen onto the pin! Taking all these points into account I consider that there is no reason to reject this specimen as being the holotype of /atipes Meigen. If even more absolute proof is required before this conclusion can be accepted by others we may as well stop all our efforts to identify and revise the type-specimens of early authors [and thereby lose one of our fundamental bases in taxonomy]. (2 ~~ (3 ~— Paragraph 13. In my view a neotype is not needed for Jatipes Meigen, 1804. I consider that the specimen in the MNHN, Paris, number 525, is the holotype of /atipes Meigen, 1804 as shown by the first revising authors (Crosskey & Davies, 1972). The name vernum Macquart, 1826 has been successfully introduced for the species /atipes sensu auct. (=sensu Edwards, 1915, 1920; Rubtsov, 1956, 1959-1964; Davies, 1966, 1968). To the best of our knowledge types of vernum Macquart do not exist, and the designation of a neotype would be desirable. However, this is not necessary at the moment, and should only be done by a specialist who is revising all species of the vernum-group. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 113 Finally, I would like to comment on Rubtsov’s paragraph 12. The type locality of vernum Macquart is most probably northern France, as Macquart lived at Lille. Despite a special collecting trip by Dr L. Davies to this area at the right time (May), there is still no appropriate specimen available to make a neotype designation. The only specimens I could provide are from Schlitz, Federal Republic of Germany, some 300 km east of Lille, and these would not be appropriate for such an important designation. REFERENCES CROSSKEY, R. W. & DAVIES, L. 1972. The identities of Simulium lineatum (Meigen), S. /atipes (Meigen) and S. vernum Macquart (Diptera: Simuliidae). Entomologist’s Gaz. vol. 23, pp. 249-258. JEDLICKA, L. 1976. Black flies (Diptera, Simuliidae) spread in middle Slovakia. Acta F.R.N. Univ. Comen. — Zoologia vol. XX, Bratislava, pp. 97-127. JOOST, W. & ZIMMERMANN, W. 1983. Dreijdhrige Emergenz-Untersuchungen an einem rhithralen Gewdsser des Thiiringer Waldes als Beitrag zur Okologie, inbesondere Produktionsbiologie merolimnischer Fraktionen der Bergbach- Biozonose.— Dissertation zur Promotion A. Karl-Marx-Universitat Leipzig, Sektion Biowissenschaften, Leipzig, Juni 1983, 275 pp.+ XLII pp. ZWICK, H. & 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. [issued in 1981]. (3) By Jan E. Raastad (Zoological Museum, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway N-0562) It is correct, as stated by Rubtsov, that /atipes sensu Edwards, now commonly recognised as vernum Macquart, 1826, is very common and widely dis- tributed and that it is a very active blood sucker. However, the species seems to be almost exclusively a bird biter of little or no veterinary medical importance. The species will therefore be of little practical interest, but for the taxonomist much time- consuming work will be caused by an attempt to separate what are possibly sibling species covered under the shadow of a long-standing misidentification. This species has for long been placed in the genus-group taxon Eusimulium Roubaud, 1906. Rubtsov, 1974, AN SSR Trudy zool. Inst. vol. 53, pp. 230-281, erroneously split Eusimulium and re-assessed Cnetha Enderlein, 1921, which correctly has Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 as type species. Raastad, 1979, Rhizocrinus, vol. 11, pp. 1-28, argued against this course and re-evaluated Cnetha Enderlein, 1921, which is based on /atipes Meigen sensu Enderlein. It seems reasonable to question the identity of the species that was before Enderlein. Was it Jatipes Meigen, 1804, or /atipes auctorum? Enderlein does not say much about this species, which he clearly did not know very well, and there is not much in the literature to clarify the matter. However, in 1936 (Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. 6 (3)2, pp. 36-42 he presents a fairly accurate drawing (fig. 82) of the third leg of a female Cnetha latipes showing a deep tibial pedisulcus. This shows that Enderlein was not basing his Cnetha on the true /atipes Meigen as that species 114 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 has only a very shallow pedisulcus. Apparently Enderlein followed Edwards (Bull entomol. Res. vol. 6, pp. 23-42) in his misidentification of /atipes Meigen. If so (and this is what we have to assume), Cnetha is a genus based on a misidentified type species and vernum Macquart, 1838 would be its most suitable type species. Thus there is not much to support Rubtsov’s view. On the contrary, his pro- posal means a threat to existing stability of nomenclature. To follow his application would mean setting back simuliid taxonomy at least 10 years. I must therefore fully support the alternative action proposed by Crosskey. (4) By R. W. Crosskey (British Museum (Natural History), London) I had not intended to advert again to Rubtsov’s request concerning the simuliid specific name /Jatipes Meigen, 1804, but the comments by Dr Kerzhner in support of Rubtsov’s position do not give a sufficiently exact account of the situ- ation; further comment is now needed on matters raised by Dr Kerzhner so that the Commission can be more fully informed before deciding its standpoint. Three main issues are involved in Rubtsov’s request and in my opposition to it (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 83-93, 1984). They are: (1) Is the male specimen accepted as the holotype of /atipes Meigen, 1804, by Crosskey & Davis, 1972, to be recognised and treated as the holotype or not? (2) Even if it is held to be the holotype, are there grounds for disregarding its characters and interpreting /atipes in its misidentified sense? That is to say, are there grounds for reverting to pre-1972 usage based on a then-unrecognised misidentification and for maintaining ‘usage’. (3) What is the type species of Cnetha Enderlein, 1921, a genus based on the nominal species /atipes Meigen, 1804? (1) The holotype question. Dr Heide Zwick has dealt so carefully and effec- tively with this matter in her comment (pp. 111-113) that there can be no reason to doubt that the male specimen labelled by Meigen as /atipes (Paris Museum) is the one referred to in Meigen’s works. There is no contrary evidence, and therefore no ground for not accepting it as the holotype. Kerzhner refers to the ‘doubtful status of the presumed holotype’, though it is hard to see how it can be doubtful in the light of Zwick’s comments. As I stressed earlier, if we do not accept evidence of the kind marshalled by Zwick as sufficiently conclusive for type status then we might as well cease all attempts to fix the identity of early-described species by objective appeal to their types. In his comments Kerzhner disputes the Crosskey and Zwick interpretation of the specimen as holotype on the grounds that Meigen received Diptera from various sources (including France and England) after the 1804 description of Jatipes and might have substituted another specimen for the original one. Rubtsov and Kerzhner appear to assume that this actually happened, but provide no substanti- ating evidence that it did or even might have done. References by Kerzhner to Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 HS Meigen’s receipt of dipterous specimens from England and France do nothing to support the Rubtsov-Kerzhner position. As I said previously, ‘there is no documen- tary evidence that Meigen ever received simuliid material from these countries’ (I stress the word simuliid because Kerzhner appears to have overlooked it and to have assumed that my statement referred to Diptera as a whole). Meigen described certain other Diptera from these countries in his 1818 et seq. works, but not simuliids. Rubtsov’s statement (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 84) that subexcisum (=/atipes) ‘has never been found in West Germany’ is not correct. It was found there a few years ago by Prof. Dr W. Riihm at Briickel (Hannover) (unpublished, Zwick to Crosskey, in /itt. 23. ii. 1985), and is currently being reported from West Germany at the present time (Erpelding, in press). On the type question, Kerzhner states that some of Meigen’s Diptera material ‘possibly including types’ is present in Museums other than in Paris. This is correct, and a few of Meigen’s nominal species of SIMULIIDAE were described from Austria — a fact giving rise to the obvious likelihood that the types of these species could be preserved in Vienna. However, for the SIMULIIDAE, there is no actual or presumptive evidence for the existence of original specimens in a collection other than Meigen’s own (since 1840 in Paris Museum) or possibly in that of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna. Paris and Vienna are the only two locations in which Meigen types of SIMULIIDAE can reasonably be expected to be found and recognised. In criticism of the Zwick-Crosskey acceptance of the Paris specimen as latipes holotype, Kerzhner attempts to imply that because some Meigen Diptera found depositories other than Paris the Jatipes type did also. This is a tendentious argument that he attempts to support by a statement that Zwick and Crosskey apparently made ‘no effort’ to study Meigen specimens that might or might not be in collections other than Paris. In fact, Zwick and Crosskey could not have written their account of Meigen’s simuliids without considering the nominal species for which Vienna was the likely depository (on the basis of the descriptions). No Meigen simuliids are present today in Vienna, as was made clear throughout the Zwick & Crosskey 1981 work. With the aid of the dipterist at the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, this collection was searched for any specimens that might, by any possibility, be Meigen types of simuliids recorded by him from Austria; none was found (nor, it should be noted, in German collections examined by Zwick, including Berlin). Kerzhner’s implication of negligence by Zwick and Crosskey is unfounded. Kerzhner has not commented on Rubtsov’s own acceptance of certain specimens in Paris as Meigen simuliid types, for example (Rubtsov, 1963, p. 546) that of Simulium argyreatum Meigen, 1838 on which Rubtsov comments ‘Die uns im Jahre 1958 gebotene Gelegenheit, die Typen von Meigen im Muséum d’Histoire naturelle in Paris (1 Mannchen). ..’. It is not evident from Rubtsov’s application or Kerzhner’s support of it why they consider the Crosskey—Davies—Zwick acceptance of type status for the /atipes specimen in Paris is suspect when the Rubtsov interpretation for other types is apparently not. The information given by Kerzhner that there is Meigen material in Leningrad, if correct, is unfamiliar to most dipterists but is in any case irrelevant: Rubtsov has worked with the Leningrad collection for some 50 years and would long since have found any Meigen specimens of SIMULIIDAE. In summary, Rubtsov and Kerzhner appear to have made no case justifying an assumption that the male specimen of /atipes so named in Meigen’s hand is not a type specimen. I therefore continue to request that the Commission rule that this specimen is to be accepted as the holotype of Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804. 116 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 (2) Maintenance of latipes in the sense of pre-1972 usage. My comments here allude to Kerzhner’s comments Nos. | and 4 together, as if there is an argument favouring the maintenance of pre-1972 usage of the name /atipes it can only be hung on the putative medico—veterinary importance of the species concerned — the one renamed as vernum Macquart after reinterpretation of /atipes from its holotype. I do not differ from Kerzhner in the view that usage of a name should in some circumstances be maintained, and it is important that the Commission should use its plenary powers from time to time (in the interests of stability) to preserve a well-known name when it is threatened by a technical provision of the Code. But such action should be used sparingly, and only when a very important animal is concerned — e.g. a severe pest, pathogen, or disease vector for which the name has significance to more than a small group of specialists. The blackfly species to which the name /atipes Meigen was for a long time misapplied cannot by any reasonable yardstick be regarded as an important pest of man or livestock, despite the attempts of Rubtsov and Kerzhner to depict it in this light. It is unknown to all but workers on SIMULIIDAE, although familiar to a range of specialists of various kinds working in the context of this family. It takes bloodmeals mainly from birds, but in parts of its range also from mammals. Most simuliid species are bloodsuckers, and several hundred have been reported to bite man and domestic animals, but we do not on that account regard every one as a pest—with a sacrosanct name that must never be changed in the light of better taxonomic knowledge. In the /atipes case it is essential to distinguish between reports of bloodsuck- ing by this species per se, and reports that provide evidence that this bloodsucking is a serious menace to man or livestock. Kerzhner’s comments seem to equate one with the other. A specific example is his reference to Davies et al. (1962), who showed that wild-caught flies in Britain had fed on birds. What has this to do with pest status for /atipes sensu authors in Britain? Kerzhner does not note that, later, in his definitive monograph of British Simuliidae, Davies (1966, p. 442) could only say this of its habits — ‘Adult females appear to bite birds, although there is no precise knowledge of the species of birds attacked’. Also, Dr Kerzhner will not be aware that in the last 16 years I have collected /atipes sensu authors from 203 breeding sites in England and not once either seen, or been bitten by, the adult fly. The species has no pest status in Britain, but the paper of Davies et al. (1962) was, as Kerzhner notes, abstracted in the Review of Applied Entomology. The importance of the point here is that citations of /atipes sensu authors in the secondary recording periodicals, upon which both Rubtsov and Kerzhner have laid stress, are not evidence for an assertion of major pest status; if the primary literature is traced it will be found that almost all the secondary citations (in the RAE, WHO works, etc) relate to no more than casual findings on bloodsucking. This is so even for the work specifically selec- ted for reference by Kerzhner: the bloodfed flies reported by Davies et al. were not found as part of a special investigation prompted by the bloodsucking habit but were precipitin-tested to determine the blood-source (mammalian or avian) after being incidentally trapped. Kerzhner mentions Crosskey in Laird, 1981, a work in which I published a list of the major simuliid pests. A serious pest cannot be precisely defined. A ‘short list’ of major pests on a world scale must be selective, disregarding occasional or localised less severe pests in areas where really important ones also occur. My list excluded J/atipes (sensu authors, not Meigen) because — although a nuisance in parts of the steppe/forest-steppe — it does not on any reasonable assessment have Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 117 the same socio-economic significance as the major simuliid pests of the U.S.S.R. (which are included in the table). Kerzhner says that /atipes is mentioned on 15 pages in Laird, 1981. So it is, but in no case as a pest. To urge a case for the maintenance of usage requires an exaggerated argu- ment by which a minor pest status for /atipes (sensu authors, not Meigen) in the U.S.S.R. is allowed to hold sway as if it were representative of the importance of the species throughout its enormous Holarctic range. Despite the importance that Rubtsov and Kerzhner claim for the species in the U.S.S.R. they cannot point to any work specifically on the control of this putatively important pest. The reason for this is that it has never been the target of any insecticidal or biological control pro- gramme: it is not so important a pest. Notably, the other specialists commenting on the case (from Canada, Germany, Norway, where the species occurs) have not men- tioned that it is a pest in these areas. Raastad (pp. 113-114) specifically says that it has little or no medico-veterinary importance, and Cupp & Gordon, 1983, for the U.S.A., summarise (as vernum) its ‘Medical-veterinary importance’ thus: ‘occasional [biting] nuisance in New York and Michigan’. It is probable, as Kerzhner says, that the species transmits (in common with many other ornithophilic simuliids) the pro- tozoan parasite Leucocytozoon, but it is not among the few simuliid species that are the carriers of economically important leucocytozoonosis amongst poultry in North America. Kerzhner points out, as part of Rubtsov’s case, that the name Jatipes has gone on being used in its old usage sense in the literature of several countries, despite Crosskey & Davies (1972) having adopted (because of misidentification revealed by the type) the name vernum Macquart for it. This is true, but it would be surprising if it was otherwise — because it takes a while for corrections to nomenclature to become generally known, and because Rubtsov’s taxonomic papers are influential source-works. Workers in the U.S.S.R. and a few elsewhere (relying on Rubtsov’s works) have naturally continued to use /atipes in the traditional sense, not being aware of the misidentification. Rubtsov in fact ignored the Crosskey & Davies 1972 work from the time of its publication up to his application to ICZN (1983), though he has in his work just published (Rubtsov & Yankovsky, 1984), whilst continuing the use of /atipes in its misidentified sense, now cited it in a footnote (p. 103). In defence of usage Kerzhner argues that in his opinion ‘usage is usage’, unconnected with whether an author ‘is dead or did not show awareness of the pro- posed nomenclatural changes’: in other words, ignorant use of a name is just as important in deciding the merits of a case involving misidentification as informed use, and the usage of names by authors who never knew of the nomenclatural prob- lem at all (because dead or scientifically inactive) just as relevant as that of aware and actively involved specialists. If the Jatipes case concerned a nomenclatural change brought about by synonymy, i.e. because an even older (pre-1804) name applying to the same species had been ‘lost’ for a century or two and then been used to supplant /atipes Meigen as its senior synonym, I would be in full agreement with Rubtsov and Kerzhner. In such a circumstance it would obviously have been very detrimental to stability of nomenclature to have supplanted the use of Jatipes, and preservation of the junior synonym would have been extremely desirable. In such a situation mere counting of literature ‘usages’ could be meaningful and relevant to a Commission decision. It is not relevant where — as in the actual case under consideration — the question is not one of straightforward synonymy (involving the same species) but one of misidenti- fication (involving different species). In the latter circumstance what matters most is 118 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 the literature and usage after the misidentification has been discovered and made known — for this alone determines whether the action taken by the discoverer(s) of the misidentificatidn has been deemed correct and desirable by authors au fait with the new situation. The prime point for the Commission to consider is, therefore, not how many times the word /atipes happens to have appeared in the literature, but whether the nomenclatural change first introduced by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, in the light of new evidence has or has not been accepted by the generality of those working on SIMULIIDAE — in particular by the specialists in taxonomy (who in turn influence the use of names in the non-taxonomic sphere). Supporting comments (this issue of BZN) for the nomenclatural readjustments introduced by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, and restated by Zwick & Crosskey, 1981, as they emanate from taxonomists in several countries, indicate that predominating specialist opinion favours the use of the name vernum Macquart for /atipes sensu authors, not Meigen. In summary, the blackfly species Jatipes sensu Edwards, etc. (vernum Macquart) is not a familiar pest of such over-riding importance that the Commis- sion should give it exceptional nomenclatural treatment and rule in favour of pre-1972 usage, and Kerzhner fails to make a case that it is. He similarly does not establish that perpetuation of the name in its misidentified application is wanted by taxonomists aware of the nomenclatural situation. In fact, comments submitted on the case strongly suggest otherwise. 3. The type-species of Cnetha Enderlein. The genus Cnetha Enderlein was first described in an identical key published almost simultaneously in two periodicals (Enderlein, 1921a p. 199 and 1921b p. 44). Eight nominal species were included, and ‘latipes (Meig. 1804)’ was designated as the type species (original designation) in both works. Enderlein continued subsequently to recognise his genus as valid in SIMULIIDAE, mentioning Cnetha in 13 additional works published between 1921 and 1936. Limits of the genus fluctuated, some species being added and others removed, but the nomenclatural pivot was consistently /atipes (Meigen, 1804) and was cited as such in two of the 13 post-original works in which the genus was mentioned (Enderlein, 1925, 1930). It is not in doubt that Enderlein misidentified the species he designated as type species of Cnetha. He used the specific name /atipes Meigen, both when he founded Cnetha upon it and subsequently, in exactly the same sense as his pre- decessor Edwards (1915, 1920): neither specialist saw Meigen’s material or ever became aware that their sense of /atipes was different from Meigen’s. This is clear from the characters consistently cited by Enderlein as defining or categorising Cnetha and latipes, and Dr Raastad deals with this point in his comments. To confirm Enderlein’s misidentification beyond any possible doubt, how- ever, I have examined (whilst preparing these comments) specimens identified by him and still in the Berlin Museum (loaned to me by courtesy of Dr H. Schumann). There are three pinned adult male specimens bearing Enderlein’s determination labels dated 1920 or 1921, i.e. at or about the time of Cnetha description (1921); each is accompanied by an excellent preparation (Canada Balsam on celluloid) of one hind leg and dissected genitalia. One specimen from Silesia has his 1921-date identification label as “‘Cnetha latipes (Meig.)’, and the other two from Ledingen, Norway, have his 1920 and 1921 determination labels as ‘Simulium latipes Meig.’ and ‘Cnetha latipes (Meig.)’ respectively. The dilated hind basitarsus, genital parts, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 119 and all other characters, are those diagnostic for the morphospecies /atipes sensu Edwards, and not for /atipes Meigen as interpreted from its holotype, i.e. they are the characters of the morphospecies vernum Macquart following the Crosskey & Davies (1972) use of this name for the misidentified /atipes of earlier authors. Enderlein’s misidentification is unequivocally confirmed from the Berlin Museum specimens named by him as /atipes Meigen. According to Kerzhner’s comment No. 2 the problem of the misidentified type species of Cnetha was ‘not commented’ upon by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, when they published on the true identity of /atipes. Contrary to what Kerzhner says, these authors dealt with this aspect in a special comment (p. 254 of their paper) as follows: ‘Lastly with regard to /atipes Meigen we call attention to the fact that this nominal species is the type species of Cnetha Enderlein, 1921, and of Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926, both of which are based on a misidentified type species in view of the true identity of /atipes. No practical problem of nomenclature arises as Cnetha and Pseudonevermannia remain in synonymy with Eusimulium Roubaud regardless of the misidentification; the case does not therefore require sub- mission to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at this time’. What more should these authors have said on the matter? Enderlein’s highly split generic system found little favour, and Cnetha was hardly at all used as the valid name for a genus-group taxon until Rubtsov, 1974, restored it to generic use for the ‘/atipes’ (authors) species group previously in Eusimulium Roubaud. Baranov, 1936, adopted Cnetha as valid for a genus, and Vargas et al., 1946, for a subgenus, both citing /atipes Meigen as its type; these are the only authors who gave validity to Cnetha until Rubtsov, 1974. Neither of them knew of the misidentification, and each used the then universally accepted meaning of Jatipes. In the period 1936-1974 such few other authors as mentioned Cnetha listed the name as a synonym, either of Simulium Latreille (e.g. Smart, 1945) or of Eusimulium (e.g. Edwards, 1931; Rubtsov, 1962; Stone, 1963); synonymy with Eusimulium was the status quo for Cnetha at the time the misidentification of its type species was discovered. The finding that /atipes Meigen had been misidentified had at the time (1972) no nomenclatural bearing on genus-group names because both the actual and the misidentified species were still placed in the same genus-group taxon (Eusimulium as genus or subgenus) and the generic names based on J/atipes (Cnetha and Pseudonevermannia) were long-buried synonyms. The situation is changed now that Rubtsov (1974 et seq.) uses Cnetha as the name for a genus considered by him to be valid, and (as Kerzhner says) it is desirable for the Commission to determine what the type species of Cnetha (also Pseudonevermannia, see later) should be. This is par- ticularly necessary because, to complicate the issue, the species named by Enderlein as type of Cnetha no longer belongs to the same genus-group taxon as the one intended to be the type. Rivosecchi & Cardinali, 1975, erected the genus Hellichiella for the assembly of species known to their predecessor authors either as the annulum or the subexcisum group within Eusimulium, designating H. saccai (Rivosecchi, 1967) as type species. Rubtsov & Yankovsky, 1982, erected the genus Boreosimulium also for the annulum group, designating B. annulum (Lundstrom, 1911) as type species, and indicating that it included the 10 species of that group (one of which is subexcisum, i.e. latipes Meigen). In their latest work Rubtsov & Yankovsky, 1984, have restricted Hellichiella to its type species, and have placed all other annulum-subexcisum group species in Boreosimulium. From the situation as described it follows that, because the correctly inter- preted name /atipes Meigen is a senior synonym of subexcisum, the effect of 120 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 designating the species named as type species of Cnetha Enderlein would be to make this name a senior synonym of Boreosimulium (and of Hellichiella also, for other taxonomists who prefer not to adopt the refined taxonomic splitting favoured by the Russian workers mentioned). Hellichiella is becoming well accepted as a valid name for the taxon containing /Jatipes Meigen, recently used for example (as also /atipes in its correct sense with subexcisum as its synonym) in the cytological work of Rothfels & Golini, 1983. There would be no virtue in switching the name Cnetha to a concept that has never borne it before and at the same time forcing into synonymy at least one and probably two recently proposed and currently used generic names; the Commission is asked therefore, in determining the type species of Cnetha, not to fix the species named by Enderlein, but instead to fix the one actually before Enderlein that he intended to be the type. If the actual species on which Enderlein based Cnetha, not the one he named, is fixed as type species, stability is maintained and Rubtsov’s (1974 et seq.) concept for this taxon is upheld; the name can continue in use for the same taxon as that to which it is and has in the past been applied (i.e. to an assemblage of species centring on Jatipes sensu Edwards, not Meigen). This preserves Rubtsov’s application of the name Cnetha. The last question for the Commission concerning Cnetha is by what name this species, the one actually used by Enderlein to found the genus, should be known. I have already put the case (Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pp. 86-93) that this spe- cies should be known as vernum Macquart, following the taxonomic clarification of Crosskey & Davies 1972 and acceptance of their action by a majority of workers since. As a corollary I now ask the Commission to designate Simulium vernum Macquart, 1828, as type species of Cnetha. As a ‘tidying-up’ operation, the type species of Pseudonevermannia Baranov should be fixed by the Commission whilst dealing with that of Cnetha. The situation is comparable. This name was proposed (Baranov, 1926, p. 164) for a new subgenus in a key to subgenera of Simulium, with ‘latipes Meig. 1804’ cited as type species. It was never mentioned again by Baranov in his substantial oeuvre on SIMULIIDAE, although he subsequently (Baranov, 1935, p. 100; 1936, p. 191) assigned the type species to Cnetha, implicitly but not explicitly recognising the objective synonymy of his Pseudonevermannia with Cnetha. No author since its description has used Pseudonevermannia as a valid name, and it has been listed only a few times as a synonym, e.g. of Nevermannia Enderlein by Rubtsov, 1940, of Simulium by Smart, 1945, of Cnetha by Vargas et al., 1946, and of Eusimulium by Stone, 1963 and Crosskey, 1969. It is certain from Baranov, 1927, where he figured the branching of the four-filamented pupal gill (under the name Nevermannia latipes) and from his mention of such a gill in the original characterisation for Pseudonevermannia, that Baranov based this taxon on the same actual species as that used by Enderlein to found Cnetha, the species now known to be misidentified, and to which vernum is now applied. As Pseudonevermannia is isogenotypic with Cnetha both nominal genera should be similarly treated in determining their type species. Conclusion and request for action Rubtsov and Kerzhner have not satisfactorily shown: (a) that the specimen accepted as holotype of /atipes Meigen by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, does not have such status; or (b) that /atipes sensu Edwards is a pest of such severity that it warrants the intervention of the Commission to ensure continued application of the Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 121 name /atipes Meigen to it; or (c) that the name vernum Macquart now in use for the misidentified /atipes sensu Edwards has not found general acceptance. I agree with them that the type species of Cnetha Enderlein, nominally based on /atipes Meigen, needs to be decided by the Commission now that the name is in use again by some authors as the valid name for a genus-group taxon. There has not as yet been a need for specialists to redescribe Simulium vernum Macquart under this name. In practice the morphospecies concerned is identified by reference to descriptions and figures of it under the former name /atipes. As Dr Davies (now retired) coauthored the original paper establishing the existence of the misidentification, I suggest (in agreement with the last paragraph of Dr Kerzhner’s comment) that the Commission should rule that the name S. vernum Macquart is to be interpreted by reference to the specimens described and figured by Davies, 1966, 1968, under the misapplied name Simulium latipes Meigen. I therefore wish to replace my original requests by the following. I now ask the Commission: (1) under the plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genera Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 and Pseudonever- mannia Baranov, 1926 and to designate Simulium vernum Macquart, 1826 as the type species of both nominal genera; (2) (as Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 92, para 12(1)); (3) to rule that the specific name vernum Macquart, 1826, as published in the binomen Simulium vernum, be interpreted by reference to the specimens described and figured by Davies in 1966 and 1968; (4) to place Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Simulium vernum Macquartt, 1826, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) latipes Meigen, 1804, as published in the binomen Atractocera latipes, as interpreted by reference to the holotype identified by Crosskey & Davies, 1972; (b) vernum Macquart, 1826, as published in the binomen Simulium vernum, as interpreted by reference to the specimens described and figured by Davies in 1966 and 1968 (specific name of type species of Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 and Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926). (6) to place Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926 (a junior objective synonym of Caetha Enderlein 1921 through the action taken under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BARANOV, N. 1926. Eine neue Simuliiden-Art und einige Bemerkungen tiber das System der Simuliiden. Neue Beitr. syst. Insektenk. vol. 3, pp. 161-164. —1927. Guide for the identification of simuliid pupae [In Serbian]. Glasn. cent. hig. Zav., Beogr. vol. 2(4), pp. 91-93. 1935. K poznavanju golubactke muSsice II [Croatian = Contribution to know- ledge of the Golubatz fly II]. Vet. Arh. vol. 5 (2-3), pp. 58-140. 1936. K poznavanju golubatke muésice III [Croatian=Contribution to knowledge of the Golubatz fly III]. Vet. Arh. vol. 6 (3-4), pp. 137-220. CROSSKEY, R. W. 1969. A re-classification of the Simuliidae (Diptera) of Africa 122 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 and its islands. Bull. Br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) (Entomol.), Suppl. vol. 14, pp. 1-195. 1981. Geographical distribution of Simuliidae. Pp. 57-68 in Laird, M. (Ed.), Blackflies: the future for biological methods in integrated control. xii + 399 pp. Academic Press, London etc. ‘ — & DAVIES, L. 1972. The identities of Simulium lineatum (Meigen), S. latipes (Meigen) and S. vernum Macquart (Diptera: Simuliidae). Entomologist’s Gaz. vol. 23, pp. 249-258. CUPP, E. W. & GORDON, A. E. (eds.). 1983. Notes on the systematics, distribu- tion, and bionomics of black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in the northeastern United States. Search: Agriculture, No. 25, 75 pp. DAVIES, L. 1966. The taxonomy of British black-flies (Diptera: Simuliidae). Trans. r. entomol. Soc. Lond. vol. 118, pp. 413-511. 1968. A key to the British species of Simuliidae (Diptera) in the larval, pupal and adult stages. Freshwat. biol. Assoc. scient. Publ. No. 24, 126 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—II. The early stages; with correc- tions and additions to Part I. Bull. entomol. Res. vol. 11, pp. 211-246. 1931. Diptera of Patagonia and South Chile. Part II. Nematocera (excluding crane-flies and Mycetophilidae). 331 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. ENDERLEIN, G. 192la. Das System der Kriebelmiicken (Simuliidae). Dt. tierdrztl. Wochenschrift vol. 29, pp. 197-200. 1921b. Die systematische Gliederung der Simuliiden. Zool. Anz. vol. 53, pp. 43-46. 1925. Weitere Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Simuliiden und ihrer Verbreitung. Zool. Anz. vol. 62, pp. 201-211. 1930. Der heutige Stand der Klassifikation der Simuliiden. Arch. klassif.. phylogen. Entomol. vol. 1, pp. 77-97. ERPELDING, G. (in press). First record of Simulium (Helichiella) latipes (Meigen, 1804) in South-West Germany (Diptera: Simuliidae). Entomol. Generalis, vol. 10. RIVOSECCHI, L. & CARDINALI, R. 1975. Contributo alla conoscenza dei simulidi italiani. XXIII. Nuovi dati tassonomici. Riv. Parassitol. vol. 36, pp. 55-78. ROTHFELS, K. & GOLINI, V. I. 1983. The polytene chromosomes of species of Eusimulium (Hellichiella) (Diptera: Simuliidae). Can. J. Zool. vol. 61, pp. 1220-1231. RUBTSOV, I. A. 1940. Blackflies (fam. Simuliidae). Fauna SSSR vol. 6(6), 533 pp. (In Russian). 1962. Simuliidae (Melusinidae) [part]. Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. 14, pp. 257-304. (In German). 1963. Simuliidae (Melusinidae) [part]. Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. 14, pp. 529-560. (in German). 1974. On the evolution, phylogeny and classification of blackflies (Simuliidae: Diptera). Trudy zool. Inst. Leningr. vol. 53, pp. 230-282. (In Russian). — & YANKOVSKY, A. V. 1982. New genera and subgenera of blackflies (Diptera, Simuliidae). Entomol. Obozr. vol. 61, pp. 183—187. (In Russian: English transl. in Entomol. Rev., Washington. vol. 61, pp. 176-181). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 123 & 1984. Key to the genera of Palaearctic blackflies. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, vol. 142; pp. 1-175 (In Russian). SMART, J. 1945. The classification of the Simuliidae (Diptera). Trans. r. entomol. Soc. Lond. vol. 95, pp. 463-532. STONE, A. 1963. An annotated list of the genus-group names in the family Simuliidae (Diptera). U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. No. 1284, 28 pp. VARGAS, L., MARTINEZ PALACIOS, A. & DIAZ NAJERA, A. Similidos de Mexico. Datos sobre sistematica y morfologia. Descripcion de nuevos subgéneros y especies. Revta Inst. Salubr. Enferm. trop., Méx. vol. 7, pp. 101-192. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND ARTICLE 70 OF THE CODE Z.N.(S.)2477 (see vol. 41, p. 156) (1) By J. R. Vockeroth (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) I wish to support the amendment concerning misidentified type species proposed by Sabrosky. The Secretary has pointed out (p. 158) that the proposal conflicts with Articles 67e and 69a(i) of the third edition of the Code. I would suggest, therefore, that these articles be amended to remove this conflict. The wording could perhaps be as follows: Article 67e. Add at end ‘except in the case of misidentified type species, when the provisions of Article 70b will allow a species other than an orginally included nominal species to be fixed as the type species.’ Article 69a(i). Add after ‘[Art. 70c]’ ‘except in the case of misidentified type species, when the provisions of Article 70b will allow a species other than an originally included nominal species to be fixed as the type species.’ (2) By K. G. A. Hamilton (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OC6, Canada) This amendment is long overdue; it seeks to provide stability by adhering to the original author’s intent in describing a genus-group name. The Secretary’s comments at the end of the article do not invalidate Sabrosky’s provisions, because (a) the misidentified species is originally included, even though the nominal species may not be, and (b) subsequent naming of the type species should no more invalidate a genus-group name than the subsequent naming of a genus-group name would invalidate a species-group name (Article 17(3)). 124 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1298 TYROPHAGUS OUDEMANS, 1924 (ACARINA): CLARIFICATION OF NAME OF TYPE SPECIES AND CONSERVATION RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Acarus dimidiatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Acarus putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2236. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, as published in the binomen Acarus putrescentiae (specific name of type species of Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924) as interpreted by the neotype designated by Robertson, 1959 (Name Number 2929); (b) Jongior Gervais, 1844, as published in the binomen Tyroglyphus longior, and as interpreted by the neotype designated by Robertson, 1959 (Name Number 2930). (4) The family-group name TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924 (type genus Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 565. (5) The specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Acarus dimidiatus, 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 1139. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1450 An application for the specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Acarus dimidiatus, to be declared a nomen dubium was first received from Dr Phyllis L. Robertson (now of the Univer- sity of New South Wales) on 18 February 1960. For reasons that cannot now be known this was not then published. A revised application was eventually sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 125-129. 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 periodicals, eight entomological periodicals and one acarological periodical. No comment was received prior to the voting. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 15 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)23 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 128-129. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell (in part), Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — two (2): Holthuis, Heppell (in part). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. Heppell voted for all the proposals except the one to place the family-group name TYROPHAGIDAE on the Official List. He said: “There is no discussion of the family name in the application and there is no requirement for the Commission to consider its validity. In a case where there have been no comments from zoologists it seems to me wrong to take any action con- cerning a family name when there are no nomenclatural reasons for so doing.’ Holthuis commented: ‘My negative vote concerns the use of the plenary powers to suppress Acarus dimidiatus Hermann, 1804. If a neotype can be chosen for the dubious species A. putrescentiae, why not for A. dimidiatus? The choice of neotype could either make A. dimidiatus a junior synonym (when it can be eliminated) or link it to a specimen of the taxon for which it is not used. The applicant gives very little information on present usage of the name. In Hughes, 1961, The Mites of Stored Food, Tech. Bull. 9, Min. Ag. Fish. Food, London) both Tyrophagus dimidiatus (Hermann) and T. /ongior (Gervais) are recognised. One solution would be to choose as neotype a specimen of the species for which Hughes used the name. In any case it seems better to postpone any action in connexion with the name until acarologists decide which species would best bear the name. It is regrettable that no comments have been received from acarologists. Dr L. van der Hammen, the acarologist at the Leiden Museum, though not a specialist in this group, said that he could see no need to suppress the name so long as there are different opinions as to its identity.’ Dr Robertson replied as follows: ‘It is important to bear in mind not only that Oudemans erected the genus Tyrophagus, but also that he was the first to refer A. dimidiatus Hermann to it. Thus action to deal with dimidiatus should most reasonably be approached in terms of the concept held by Oudemans. ‘It is suggested that a neotype be designated for dimidiatus. But Oudemans used the name for the species that currently has worldwide acceptance as Tyrophagus longior (Gervais, 1844), one of the most wide- spread and best known of the stored-product Tyrophagus species. A neotype for dimidiatus from Oudemans’ material would thus lead to the 126 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 relegation of /ongior as a junior synonym and so regenerate, rather than resolve, the many years of nomenclatural confusion in Tyrophagus. ‘It is further suggested that a neotype be designated from Mrs Hughes’ 1961 material. But this would be to ignore the fact that that material is in strong disagreement with Hermann’s original description: it lacks chelicerae of a type “which are not articulated at all as in other mites”’; its hysterosoma is not spherical, it is not divided by a transverse suture, and it does not have yellowish-green and white coloration. Moreover, it has not been found, either by Mrs Hughes or apparently by other present-day acarologists, in Hermann’s original habitat — moss. ‘It may be added that Hermann’s description appears to be appli- cable more to one of the primitive moss mites than to a Tyrophagus. That is, it may have been an oribatid —a member, say, of Tragardh’s (1932) Palaeacariformes, currently Palaeacaroidea, a group not recognised at the time of Oudemans’ 1924 work. ‘It is suggested that designating a neotype for putrescentiae (the type species of Tyrophagus) itself furnishes grounds for doing the same for dimidiatus. But the situations regarding the two are completely different. Morphological features clearly defined by Hermann concerning the form of the chelicerae, and the shape, suturing and coloration of the hysterosoma, debar dimidiatus from being accepted as a species of Tyrophagus. But there are no such characters debarring putrescentiae from such acceptance. Further, Oudemans was unable to find a Tyrophagus in the habitat — moss— of Hermann’s species, while he did find his putrescentiae in Schrank’s original habitat. ‘It should be emphasised that the Tyrophagus problem concerning dimidiatus is not centred essentially on acarologists being unable to agree between themselves on which species should bear the name. Rather it is agreed that dimidiatus should not have been introduced into the genus in the first place (see Johnston & Bruce, 1965, Ohio Agric. R & D Center, Research Bull. 977). Hermann originally described characters that exclude it from recognition as any species of Tyrophagus at all. ‘Any uncertainty as to the Tyrophagus species to which the name dimidiatus might conceivably be applied has been a personal problem for each individual acarologist who attempted to use the name. For example, Oudemans himself demonstrated uncertainty when he first used dimidiatus for the species that he later called australasiae, and then by transferring it to the species now accepted as Jongior. In 1948 Mrs Hughes used tenuiclavus for the species she accepted as /ongior in 1961; in 1957 she used dimidiatus for this species, but transferred that name to a completely different species in 1961. None of these determinations appears to be related in any way to the characteristics of the species originally described by Hermann. ‘Such uncertainty and doubt in the views of individual acarologists lends support to the application to suppress dimidiatus as a threat to stability of nomenclature. This would formalise the results of the intensive basic research already done on Tyrophagus by a number of workers and Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 127 which is unlikely to be repeated. It would bring to Tyrophagus nomencla- ture a much-needed stability in the long term, facilitating the continuing build-up of knowledge of this worldwide but extremely difficult genus.’ Dr Holthuis later withdrew his objection. Dr Robertson’s application was then supported by Professor J. G. Rodriguez (University of Kentucky College of Agriculture). 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: dimidiatus, Acarus, Hermann, 1804, Mem. Apter., p. 85, pl. 6, fig. 4 longior, Tyroglyphus, Gervais, 1844, Hist. nat. Ins. (Apteéres), vol. 3, p. 262, pl. 35, fig. 5 putrescentiae, Acarus, Schrank, 1781, Enum. Ins. Austriae indig., p. 521 TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924, Entomol. Ber. Amsterdam, vol. 6, pp. 203, 207 Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924, Entomol. Ber. Amsterdam, vol. 6, p. 250. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)23 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1298. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 October 1984 128 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1299 ATHYREUS MACLEAY, 1819 AND GLYPTUS BRULLE, 1835 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818 and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Glyptus Brullé, 1835 are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Athyreus Macleay, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Howden & Martinez, 1963, Athyreus bifurcatus Macleay, 1819 (Name Number 2237); (b) Glyptus Brullé, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Glyptus sculptilis Brullé, 1835 (Name Number 2238). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) bifurcatus Macleay, 1819, as published in the binomen Athyreus bifurcatus (specific name of type species of Athyreus Macleay, 1819 (Name Number 2931); (b) sculptilis Brullé, 1835, as published in the binomen Glyptus sculptilis (specific name of type species of G/yptus Brullé, 1835 (Name Number 2932). (4) The generic name G/yptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818, 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 2152. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1583 An application from Professor H. F. Howden (now of Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada) for the suppression of Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818 was first received on 26 November 1962. As it was presented in terms of Article 23b then in force, no action was taken on it then. The case was reopened in 1979 and a revised application was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, 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 seven general periodicals and seven entomological periodicals. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)24 for or against Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 129 the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 192. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — none (0). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 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: Athyreus Macleay, 1819, Horae entomol., vol. 1 (1), p. 123 bifurcatus, Athyreus, Macleay, 1819, Horae entomol., vol. 1 (1), p. 124 Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818, Wiedemann’s Zool. Mag., vol. 1 (2), p. 85 Glyptus Brullé, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins., vol. 5, Coleoptera II, p. 83 sculptilis, Glyptus, Brullé, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins., vol. 5, Coleoptera II, p. 84. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)24 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1299. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 October 1984 130 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1300 TEIIDAE GRAY, 1827 GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER AMEIVIDAE FITZINGER, 1826 (REPTILIA, SAURIA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group name TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820) is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family-group name AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Ameiva Meyer, 1795) whenever the two names are applied to the same taxon. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Teius Merrem, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Burt & Burt, 1933, Teius viridis Merrem, 1820 (Name Number 2239); (b) Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species, by absolute tautonymy through Temapara tupinambis Ray, 1693, Tupinambis monitor Daudin, 1802 (Name Number 2240); (c) Ameiva Meyer, 1795 (gender: feminine) type species, by monotypy, Ameiva americana Meyer, 1795 (Name Number 2241). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) teyou Daudin, 1802, as published in the binomen Lacerta teyou (specific name of type species of Teius Merrem, 1820) (Name Number 2933); (b) teguixin Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lacerta teguixin (the valid specific name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 (Name Number 2934); (c) ameiva Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lacerta ameiva (the valid specific name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Ameiva Meyer, 1795 (Name Number 2935). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) TEMDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820) with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence Over AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Ameiva Meyer, 1795) whenever the two names are applied to the same taxon (Name Number 566); (b) AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Ameiva Meyer, 1795) with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820) whenever the two names are applied to the same taxon (Name Number 567). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 131 (5) The unavailable family-group name TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 502. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1920 An application for the conservation of the family-group name TEIDAE Gray, 1827 was first received from Dr William Presch (now of California State University, Fullerton, California) on 20 February 1970. In the circumstances of the time it was overlooked. In February 1980 a revised draft was prepared by the Secretariat and sent to Dr Presch for examina- tion. His amended draft was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 194-195. 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 herpetological serials. In a comment published on 30 September 1982 in vol. 39, pp. 157-158, Professor H. M. Smith, Mrs R. B. Smith and Dr David Chiszar showed that TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 was in fact an unavailable name and therefore did not threaten the stability of TEmDAE Gray, 1827 as Dr Presch had thought. On the other hand, they did show that the stability of TENDAE was threatened by AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 and accordingly asked that TEMDAE be given nomenclatural precedence over that name. Dr Presch fully accepted this comment. In a further comment published on 30 December 1983 in vol. 40, pp. 196-197, Mr Andrew Stimson corrected certain factual errors concerning the respective type species of Teius Merrem, 1820 and Tupinambis Daudin, 1802. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)25 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 157-158, taking into account the corrections of fact published in vol. 40, pp. 196-197. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss, Heppell Negative Votes — one (1): Dupuis. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. 132 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 On 13 July 1984 Monsieur Dupuis wrote to the Secretary in the following terms: ‘Je suis dans l’obligation morale, et sans doute juridique, de vous demander de suspendre le vote relatif 4 la conservation de TEMDAE.’ ‘Le dernier commentaire publié relatif a ce cas se trouve dans Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40(4) paru le 30 décembre 1983 et j’estime qu’ouvrir le vote le 13 juin 1984 ne respecte pas l’esprit de la régle des six mois.’ ‘De plus, Lescure et Cei ont soumis a la Commission une proposition — malheureusement encore inédite — pour la conservation de Ameiva oculata d’Orbigny & Bibron, 1837, qui, selon ces mémes auteurs, est le seul nom valide pour Teius teyou des auteurs, non Daudin. Dans ce méme manuscrit Lescure & Cei estiment nécessaire de désigner un néotype pour Lacerta teyou Daudin. Or, la proposition du Dr Presch suggérant de placer Teius teyou (Daudin) sur la Liste Officielle, il vaudrait mieux que ce nom y soit défini sans ambiguité. A mon avis il serait plus sage d’attendre les commentaires définitifs de nos collégues — et en particulier la publica- tion de leur requéte précitée — que de voter dans la précipitation. Si vous ne suivez pas mon point de vue, je vous demande de considérer que je vote contre la proposition du Dr Presch.’ On receipt of Monsieur Dupuis’ comment I consulted Mr Andrew Stimson (British Museum (Natural History) London). He was inclined to agree with Monsieur Dupuis, but pointed out (a) that the nominal type species of Teius Merrem, 1820 must be Lacerta teyou Daudin, irrespective of the biological species involved; (b) that that is the only originally included nominal species remaining in the genus; (c) that the two biological species remaining in the genus were for long considered conspecific, so that it is unlikely they will ever be placed in different genera. Having regard to the length of time that had elapsed since the first receipt of Dr Presch’s application, therefore, I judged it best to publish the decision of the Commission reached in the present case. In reply to Monsieur Dupuis I pointed out that the six months’ rule applied only to cases involving the use of the plenary powers. The most recent comment mentioned by him did not involve any unadvertised use of those powers, so that the six months’ rule was not relevant. I also pointed out that the publication of the application by MM. Lescure and Cei depended upon my receiving answers to questions that are still open. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ameiva Meyer, 1795, Syn. Rept. (Gottingen), p. 31 ameiva, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 202 AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept., p. 21 teguixin, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 208 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 133 TENDAE Gray, 1827, Phil. Mag. (2) vol. 1, p. 53 Teius Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph., pp. 13, 60 teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802, Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. Rept., vol. 3, p. 195 TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825, Ann. Philos. vol. 26 (N.S. vol. 10), p. 199 Tupinambis Daudin, 1802, Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. Rept., vol. 3, p. 5. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)25 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1300. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 October 1984 134 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1301 ARTEMIA LEACH, 1819 (CRUSTACEA, BRANCHIOPODA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Artemesia Latreille, 1816 is hereby suppres- sed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the generic name Artemisus Lamarck, 1818 is hereby suppres- sed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (c) the generic name Artemia Leach, 1819 is hereby given nomen- clatural precedence over Eulimene Latreille, 1816, 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 Name Numbers specified: (a) Artemia Leach, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species by subse- quent designation by Lucas, 1840, Cancer salinus Linnaeus, 1758, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Eulimene Latreille, 1816, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2242); (b) Eulimene Latreille, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Eulimene albida Latreille, 1816, with an endorse- ment that it is not to have priority over Artemia Leach, 1819, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2243). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) salinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer salinus (specific name of the type species of Artemia Leach, 1819) (Name Number 2936); (b) albida Latreille, 1816, as published in the binomen Eulimene albida (specific name of the type species of Eulimene Latreille, 1817) (Name Number 2937). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name Numbers specified: (a) Artemisia Latreille, 1816, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above (Name Number 2153); (b) Artemisus Lamarck, 1818, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above (Name Number 2154). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 133 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1984 An application by Professor J. H. Lochhead (Department of Zoology, University of Vermont, U.S.A.) for the resolution of certain nomenclatural problems relating to Artemia Leach was first received on 18 October 1971. After extensive correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 4 December 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 223-227. 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, to nine general periodicals and one crustacean periodical. The application was supported by Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rikjsmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) who also clarified two points. Mathews (1911, Novitates Zoologicae, vol. 18(1), p. 18) noted that the four volumes of the first edition of Cuvier’s Régne Animal were published on 7 December 1816, not in 1817 as mentioned on the title page. The date of Artemisia Latreille is thus 1816 (in Regne Anim. (ed. 1) vol. 3, p. 68). The first type designation for the genus Artemia Leach that is known is by Lucas, 1840 (Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Myriapodes, p. 289). Dr Lochhead accepted Dr Holthuis’s points. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)26 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 226. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — none (0). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. 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: albida Latreille, 1816 in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal (ed. 1) vol. 3, p. 68 Artemia Leach, 1819, Entomostraca in Dict. Sci. Nat. vol. 14, p. 543 Artemisia Latreille, 1816, in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal, (ed. 1) vol. 3, p. 68 Artemisus Lamarck, 1818, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 5, p. 135 Eulimene Latreille, 1816 in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal (ed. 1) vol. 3, p. 68 salinus Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, (ed. 10) vol. 1, p. 634. 136 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 The following is the original reference to a type species designation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Cancer salinus Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Artemia Leach, 1819, by Lucas, P. H., 1840, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Myriapodes, p. 289. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)26 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1301. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 October 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 137 OPINION 1302 NABIS CAPSIFORMIS GERMAR, [1838[ (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA, NABIDAE): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name angustus Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Nabis angusts, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The specific name capsiformis Germar, [1838], as published in the binomen Nabis capsiformis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2938. (3) The specific name angustus Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Nabis angustus, and as suppressed 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 1140. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2147 An application for the use of plenary powers to suppress the specific name angustus Spinola, 1837, was first received from Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad, USSR) on 8 September 1975. After much correspondence concerning the dating of the Germar work, a revised application was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 38, pp. 205-207. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to six general serials and nine specialist serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)29 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., col. 38, p. 206. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — one (1); Hahn. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. Dupuis commented: ‘Une étude de C. M. G. von Hayek (Arch. Nat. Hist., 11(2), 1983: 207-208) confirme bien que les livralsons 25-28 ne peuvent pas appartenir au tome IV (quatre) de la revue de Silberman et sont nécessairement postérieures a juin 1838. La date établie par Kerzhner pour Nabis capsiformis me parait dont correcte.’ 138 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 Hahn commented: ‘Nabis angustus should be suppressed only if competing with N. capsiformis, but not completely as wished by Dr Kerzhner.’ 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: capsiormis, Nabis, Germar, [1838], Silbermann’s Rev. entomol. t. 5, p. 132 angustus, Nabis, Spinola, 1837, Essai sur les genres d’insectes appartenants a l’ordre des Hémipteéres . .. Génes, p. 107. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)29 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1302. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 October 1984 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 139 OPINION 1303 COCCUS LINNAEUS, 1758 AND PARTHENOLECANIUM SULC, 1908 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, HOMOPTERA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name coryli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus coryli, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Coccus Linnaeus, 1758, are hereby set aside and Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby designated as type species of that genus; (c) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908, are hereby set aside and Lecanium corni Bouché, 1844, is hereby 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) Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2244); (b) Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893 (gender: neuter), type species, by original designation, Coccus tiliae Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2245); (c) Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 (gender: neuter), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Lecanium corni Bouché, 1844 (Name Number 2246). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus hesperidum (specific name of type species of Coccus Linnaeus, 1758) (Name Number 2939); (b) tiliae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus tiliae (specific name of type species of Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893) (Name Number 2940); (c) corni Bouché, 1844, as published in the binomen Lecanium corni (specific name of Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908) (Name Number 2941). (4) The generic name Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 (a junior objective synonym of Coccus Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2155). 140 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 (5) The specific name coryli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus coryli, 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 1141. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2125 An application for the designation of type species for the scale insect genera Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 and Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 was first received from Dr Evelyna Danzig and Dr I. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad) on 21 April 1975. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 147-152. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and eight entomological serials. On 9 December 1981 a comment was received from Dr Halina Komosinska and Dr M. Mroczkowski (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Warsaw). They objected to the rejection of Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 and asked that the plenary powers be used to designate Lecanium corni Bouche, 1844, as type species of that genus, thus rendering Partheno- lecanium Sulc, 1908, a junior objective synonym. Their arguments from usage were rebutted by Danzig & Kerzhner, who demonstrated the pro- gressive displacement of Lecanium by Eulecanium and Parthenolecanium. These comments were published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 147-152, on 30 April 1981. No other comments were received. - DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)27 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 150-151. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fourteen (14) received in the following order: Melville, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Sabrosky, Corliss, Heppell Negative Vote — one (1); Mroczkowski. Holthuis abstained from voting. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Brinck, Dupuis, Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. Holthuis and Mroczkowski complained that no choice had been offered between the Danzig/Kerzhner proposals and the Komosinska/ Mroczkowski proposals. The failure to offer this choice on the voting paper is regretted. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 141 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Coccus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 455 corni, Lecanium, Bouche, 1844, Entomol. Z. Stettin, Jahrg. 5(8), p. 298 coryli, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 456 Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893, Trans. amer. entomol. Soc., vol. 20, p. 54 Lecanium Burmeister, 1835, Handb. Entomol., vol. 2, p. 69 hesperidum, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 455 Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908, Entomol. mon. Mag., vol. 44, p. 36 tiliae, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 456 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)27 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1303. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 October 1984 142 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1304 MELITHAEA MILNE EDWARDS & HAIME, 1857 AND ISIS OCHRACEA LINNAEUS, 1758 (COELENTERATA, ANTHOZOA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) It is hereby ruled that Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, is an available name and is to be treated as an unjustified emendation of Melitea Lamouroux, 1812; (b) the spelling ochracea Linnaeus, 1767 in the binomen Isis ochracea is to be treated as a justified emendation of Isis ocracea Linnaeus, 1758. (2) The generic name Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 (gender: feminine), made available under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, type species, through Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, Isis ochracea Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2247. (3) The specific name ochracea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Jsis ochracea (ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above to be a justified emendation of ocracea Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2942. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, a junior homonym of Melitea Peron & Lesueur, 1810 (Name Number 2156); (b) Melitodes Verrill, 1864, a junior objective synonym of Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 (Name Number 2157). (5) The spelling ocracea Linnaeus, 1758, as ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Isis ochracea Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1142. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2150 An application concerning Melithaea ochracea (Linnaeus, 1758) was first received from Dr Katherine Muzik and Dr F. M. Bayer (then both of University of Miami) on 25 September 1975. After an exchange of cor- respondence it was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 8 December 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 228-232. 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 marine biological serials. No comment was received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 143 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)30 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 230. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Vote — one (1) Binder. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis and Lehtinen. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, Nouv. Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, vol. 3(63), 6, p. 188 Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, Histoire naturelle des coralliaires ou polypes proprement dits, p. 199 Melitodes Verrill, 1864, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., vol. 1, p. 38 ochracea, Isis, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1(2), p. 1287 ocracea, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 799. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)30 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1304. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 October 1984 144 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1305 BAPTA CANDIDARIA LEECH, 1897 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF LAM PROCABERA INOUE, 1958 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958, are hereby set aside and Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 is hereby designated as the type species. (2) The generic name Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2248. (3) The specific name candidaria Leech, 1897, as published in the binomen Bapta candidaria (specific name of type species of Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2943. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2160 An application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the orig- inally designated nominal type species of Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 was first received from Professor H. Inoue (Otsuma Women’s University, Tokyo) on 31 December 1975. An improved draft was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 163-164. 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 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)31 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 164. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes — none (0). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 145 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: candidaria, Bapta, Leech, 1897, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) vol. 19, p. 198 Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958, Tinea vol. 4, p. 253. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)31 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1305. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 October 1984 146 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1306 LEDELLA BUSHAE WAREN, 1978 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF LEDELLA VERRILL & BUSH, 1897 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 are hereby set aside and Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 is hereby designated as the 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) Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 (Name Number 2249); (b) Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Yoldia lucida Lovén, 1896 (Name Number 2250). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) bushae Warén, 1978, as published in the binomen Ledella bushae (specific name of type species of Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897) (Name Number 2944); (b) lucida Lovén, 1846, as published in the binomen Yoldia lucida (specific name of type species of Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897) (Name Number 2945). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2238 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for the nominal genus Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897, was first received from Dr Anders Warén (University of Goteborg, Sweden) on 17 November 1977. A revised version was submitted on 20 April 1980, sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 134-137. 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 malacological serials. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)32 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 136. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 147 Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss, Sabrosky, Heppell Negative Votes — none (0). Alvarado, Bernardi, Bayer, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bushae, Ledella, Warén, 1978, Sarsia, vol. 63, pp. 213-214 Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897, Amer. J. Sci. vol. 3, p. 54 lucida, Yoldia Loven, 1846, Ofvers. k. Vetenskaps Akad. Forh. vol. 3 (6), p. 188 Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897, Amer. J. Sci. vol. 3, p. 55. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)32 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1306. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 October 1984 148 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1307 PTINELLA MOTSCHULSKY, 1844 AND NEPHANES THOMSON, 1859 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 are hereby set aside and Ptilium apterum Guérin-Méneville, 1839 is hereby designated as type species of that genus; (b) the generic name Titan Matthews, 1858 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Prilium apterum Guérin-Meéneville, 1839 (Name Number 2251); (b) Nephanes Thomson, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Trichopteryx abbreviatella Heer, 1841 (Name Number 2252). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name Numbers specified: (a) apterum Guérin-Méneville, 1839, as published in the binomen Ptilium apterum (specific name of type species of Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844) (Name Number 2946); (b) titan Newman, 1834, as published in the binomen Trichopteryx titan (the valid name at the date of this ruling for the type species of Nephanes Thomson, 1859) (Name Number 2947). (4) The generic name Titan Matthews, 1858, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2158. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N. (S.)2258 An application for the conservation of the generic names Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 was first received from Dr Olof Bistr6ém (University Zoological Museum, Helsinki) on 28 March 1978. After an exchange of correspondence, a revised draft was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 169-172. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and seven entomological serials. No comments were received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 149 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)33 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 170. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Vote (in part): Mroczkowski. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. Mroczkowski voted for the proposals concerning Ptinella but against those concerning Nephanes. He commented: ‘Titan Matthews, 1858 is not a forgotten name. It was used as a valid name in 1978, Catalogus faunae Poloniae, part XXIII, Coleoptera, vol. 5, Histeroidea and Staphylinoidea except Staphylinidae, p. 79; and by Gerhardt, 1900, Z. Entomol (Breslau), vol. 25, p. 4. In reply, Dr Bistr6ém provided ten references to papers by ten different authors since 1960, all using Nephanes for this genus. 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: apterum, Ptilium, Guérin-Méneville, 1839, Dict. pitt. hist. nat. phén. nature, p. 621 Nephanes Thomson, 1859, Skand. Coleopt., vol. 1, p. 62 Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. 17, p. 819 Titan Matthews, 1858, Zoologist, vol. 16, p. 6108 titan, Trichopteryx, Newman, 1834, Entomol. Mag., vol. 2, p. 201. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)33 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1307. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 October 1984 150 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1308 APHIS CALLUNAE THEOBALD, 1915 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name callunae Theobald, 1915, as published in the binomen Aphis callunae, is to be given precedence over the specific name betulina Walker, 1852, as published in the binomen Aphis betulina, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) callunae Theobald, 1915, as published in the binomen Aphis callunae, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Aphis betulina Walker, 1852, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms (Name Number 2948); (b) betulina Walker, 1852, as published in the binomen Aphis betulina, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 whenever the two names are held to be synonyms (Name Number 2949). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N. (S.) 2283 An application for the conservation of Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 was first received from Dr H. L. G. Stroyan (MAFF Plant Pathology Laboratory, Hatching Green, Harpenden, U.K.) on 26 March 1976. It was held back pending the publication elsewhere of a paper on the rediscovery of Walker’s type material of Aphis betulina but was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 173-175. 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 comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)35 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 175. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 151 Negative Votes — none (0). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: betulina, Aphis, Walker, 1852, List Spec. homopt. Ins. Colls brit. Mus., vol. 4, p. 1039 callunae, Aphis, Theobald, 1915, Entomologist, vol. 48, pp. 260-261. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)35 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. 1308. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 October 1984 152 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1309 GEOEM YDA GRAY, 1834, AND RHINOCLEMM YS FITZINGER, 1835 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): CONSERVED RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Geoemyda Gray, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation, Testudo spengleri Gmelin, 1789 (Name Number 2253); (b) Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Lindholm, 1929, Testudo dorsata Schoepff, 1801, Name Number 752 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, (= Testudo punctularia Daudin, 1801. Name Number 1906 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology) both in Opinion 660 published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 20, pp. 187-190. Rhino- clemmys Fitzinger, 1835 is hereby given Name Number 2254. (3) the specific name spengleri Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Testudo spengleri (specific name of the type species of Geoemyda Gray, 1834) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2950. (4) the generic name Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832 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 2159. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N. (S.)2287 An application for the use of plenary powers to conserve the generic names Geomyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 was first received from Professor Hobart Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology (DEPOB), University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.) and Dr Carl H. Ernst (Department of Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, U.S.A.) and Dr Rozella B. Smith (DEPOB) on 2 October 1978. After some correspondence, a revised manuscript was sent to the printers on 15 April 1980 and published on 4 December 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 233-239. 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, to six general periodicals and three specialist periodicals. No comment was received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 153 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)36 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 236-237. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes—none (0). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832. Atl. J. and Friend of Knowl., vol. 1, p. 64 Geoemyda Gray, 1834, Proc. zool. Soc. London. 1834, p. 100 Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien., vol. 1, p. 115 spengleri Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. ed 13, vol. 1. p. 1043. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (84)36 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. 1309. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 October 1984 154 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1310 EUTERMES EXITIOSUS HILL, 1925 (INSECTA, ISOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name australis Walker, 1853, as published in the binomen Termes australis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The specific name exitiosus Hill, 1925, as published in the binomen Eutermes exitiosus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2951. (3) The specific name australis Walker, 1853, as published in the binomen Termes australis, 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 1143. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2290 An application for the conservation of Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 was first received from Dr J. A. L. Watson and Dr F. J. Gay (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia) on 7 November 1978. It was held back pending the publication of a paper on the lectotype of Termes australis Walker, 1853, but was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 142-146. 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 comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)37 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 144. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Vote — one (1) Hahn. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. Hahn commented: ‘Termes australis should be suppressed only if competing with E. exitiosus, not completely.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 155 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: australis, Termes, Walker, 1853, List specs neuropt. Ins. Coll. brit. Mus., part 3, p. 525 exitiosus, Eutermes, Hill, 1925, Proc. roy. Soc. Victoria N.S. vol. 37, p. 222. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)37 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. 1310. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 October 1984 156 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1311 CORISELLA LUNDBLAD, 1928 AND KRIZOUSACORIXA HUNGERFORD, 1930 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Corisella Lundblad, 1928 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Hungerford, 1948, Corixia mercenaria Say, 1832 (Name Number 2255); (b) Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Corixa femorata Guérin- Meneville, 1857 (Name Number 2256). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) mercenaria Say, 1832, as published in the binomen Corixia mercenaria (specific name of type species of Corisella Lundblad, 1928) (Name Number 2952); (b) femorata Guerin-Méneville, 1857, as published in the binomen Corixa femorata (specific name of type species of Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930) (Name Number 2953). (4) The generic name Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832, 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 2160. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2299 An application for the conservation of Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 was first received from Dr Antti Jansson (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland) on 3 April 1979. It was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 197-200. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was published in the same part of the Bulletin and was sent to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and seven entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)38 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 199. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: | Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 157 Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Negative Votes—none (0). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832, Registro trimestre No. 1 (3), p. 335 Corisella Lundblad, 1928, Zool. Anz., vol. 79, pp. 148, 158 femorata, Corixa, Guérin-Méneville, 1857, Moniteur univ., no. 330, p. 1298 Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930, Pan-pac. Entomol., vol. 7, p. 22 mercenaria, Corixia, Say, 1832, Descr. new spp. heteropt. Hemipt. N. America, p. 39. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (84)38 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. 1311. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 October 1984 158 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1312 HELIOTHIS OCHSENHEIMER, 1816 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): GENDER AND STEM DESIGNATED RULING. — (1) It is hereby ruled: (a) that the stem of the generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 for the purposes of Article 29 is HELIOTH-; (b) that the gender of the generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, is feminine. (2) The family-group name HELIOTHINAE (ex Heliothidi) Boisduval, 1828, type genus Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 568. (3) The generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Samouelle, 1819, Phalaena dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2257. (4) The specific name dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Phalaena dipsacea, (specific name of the type species of Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2954. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2306 An application for a ruling on the stem and gender of Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, was first received from Dr I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 15 May 1979. It was sent to the printer on 13 July 1979 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 186-189, with an additional comment by the Secretary published on p. 190. The application received support from Dr R. Feige (Caracas, Venezuela) and Dr W. Reed (Jnternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad, India). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)39 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 189. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss, Heppell Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 159 Negative Votes — none (0). Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, p. 856 HELIOTHINAE (ex Heliothidi) Boisduval, 1828, Europaeorum Lepidopterorum Index Methodicus, p. 94 Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Eur. vol. 4, p. 91. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)39 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 Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1312. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 October 1984 160 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1313 TESTUDO SCRIPTA SCHOEPFF, 1792 AND EMYS CATASPILA GUNTHER, 1885 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ventri- cosa Gray, 1855, as published in the binomen Emys ventricosa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) scripta Schoepff, 1792, as published in the binomen Testudo scripta (Name Number 2955); (b) cataspila Ginther, 1885, as published in the binomen Emys cataspila (Name Number 2956). (3) The specific name ventricosa Gray, 1855, as published in the binomen Emys ventricosa, 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 1144. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2315 An application for the conservation of Emys cataspila Gunther, 1885 was first received from Dr J. M. Legler (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, U.S.A.), Professor H. M. Smith and Dr R. B. Smith (University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.) on 26 June 1979. After some correspondence it was agreed that Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792 should also be included in the application for conservation. A revised manuscript was sent to the printers on 15 April 1980 and published on 4 December 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 240-246. 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, to six general and four specialist periodicals. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)40 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 244. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 161 Negative Votes — one (1): Holthuis. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. Holthuis commented: ‘It seems best to me, in this case of a sub- species, the nomenclatural status of which is far from settled, to adopt strict priority.’ Hahn commented: ‘The authors wish to suppress only the species- group name ventricosa Gray, 1855, but not mobilensis Holbrook, 1838. Are ventricosa and mobilensis not synonyms, as indicated in the first paragraph, and does mobilensis not compete with cataspila? Professor Hobart M. Smith replied on behalf of all the authors of the application: ‘Through the help of Dr John B. Iverson, I’ve learned that the latest revisionary work on this group of turtles (Joseph P. Ward, 1984, ‘‘Relationships of chrysemyd turtles of North America (Testudines: Emydidae),” Spec. Publs. Mus. Texas Tech. Univ., (21): 1-50) places Holbrook’s 1838 Emys mobilensis (p. 38) as a junior synonym of Emys hieroglyphica Holbrook, 1836, now Pseudemys (Pseudemys) concinna hieroglyphica. This same author places scripta, to which ventricosa and cataspila belong, in the genus Trachemys. ‘Hence there need be no concern that mobilensis of Holbrook enters into nomenclatural conflict with either ventricosa or cataspila. We never- theless much appreciate the Commission member’s concern.’ 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: cataspila Gunther, 1885, Biologia centrali-americana, Reptilia and Batrachia, p. 4, pl. 6, fig. B scripta Schoepff, 1792, Historia testudinum iconibus illustrata, p. 16, pl. 3, figs. 4.5 ventricosa, Gray, 1855, Catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of British Museum. Part I. Testudinata (tortoises), p. 28, pl. 14. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)40 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. 1313. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 October 1985 162 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1314 HYDROPHORUS NEBULOSUS FALLEN, 1823, Is THE TYPE SPECIES OF HYDROPHORUS FALLEN, 1823 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designation of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823, are hereby set aside and Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallen, 1823 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name AHydrophorus Fallen, 1823 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallén, 1823, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2258. (3) The specific name nebulosus Fallén, 1823, as published in the binomen Hydrophorus nebulosus (specific name of type species of Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2957. (4) The subfamily name HYDROPHORINAE Lioy, 1864 or Schiner, 1864 (type genus Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 569. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2036 An application for the use of the plenary powers to fix the type species of Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 was first received from Dr George Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) and others on 1 March 1973. The sub- sequent history of the case was told in the following report that was sent to the members of the Commission with Voting Paper (84)41: HYDROPHORUS FALLEN, 1823: REPORT ON A MAJORITY VOTE LESS THAN A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY The main point at issue in this case is the choice of type species for the nominal genus Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823. In this genus of aquatic Diptera the arista of the antennae is dorsal, whereas in the related genus Medetera Fischer, 1819, it is apical. 2. In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 118-120, Steyskal and others showed that Macquart, 1827, had designated H. jaculus Fallén, 1823, one of the originally included species, as type of Hydrophorus. They claimed that there was a misidentification in this designation, because in H. jaculus the arista is apical as it is in the type species of Medetera, M. carnivora Fischer, 1819, and its two senior synonyms, Musca rostrata Fabricius, 1775, and Musca diadema Linnaeus, 1787. Reference to the Commission was there- fore obligatory under Article 70a of the Code. Macquart had, in effect, synonymised Hydrophorus and Medetera. In consequence, the genus in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 163 which the arista is dorsal would have to be called Aphrozeta Perris, a name used only once (by Coquillett, 1910) since its publication. 3. [This paragraph showed that the date of Aphrozeta is to be cited as 1850 and is not relevant in the present context.] 4. To avert the consequences outlined in paragraph 2 of this report, Steyskal and others asked that the plenary powers be used to set aside all designations of type species for Hydrophorus and that H. nebulosus Fallén, 1823 be designated as type. This is one of the originally included species and its arista is dorsal. 5. In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 173-177 Hendrickson & Roback commented on the application by Steyskal and others. They agreed that Macquart’s designation of H. jaculus should be set aside, thus implicitly accepting the need to conserve Hydrophorus as the name of the genus in which the-arista is dorsal, and they agreed that, if this was not done, Hydrophorus would have to be replaced by the practically unused Aphrozeta. They opposed the choice of H. nebulosos as type species because they thought it was an aberrant species, and proposed H. binotatus Fallen, 1823 in its place. 6. In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 79-80 Steyskal replied that H. nebulosus, apart from its additional wing spots, was in fact entirely compat- ible with the traditional concept of Hydrophorus. He said that H. binotatus, on the other hand, not only showed some unusual features but was easily confused with another species. 7. Hendrickson & Roback had claimed that there was no misidenti- fication involved in Macquart’s designation of H. jaculus. Their request for the use of the plenary powers to designate H. binotatus was therefore based solely on the need to conserve Hydrophorus in its accepted sense. However, the arguments they adduce on this side of their case are not strong. They merely show that Macquart had accepted an earlier (1824) error of Meigen’s in dealing with Medeterus (sic) and Hydrophorus and do not seriously weaken the argument of Steyskal and others on this point. 8. On 24 February 1977 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on V.P.(77)9 either for the proposals of Steyskal and others (Alternative A) or for those of Hendrickson & Roback (Alternative B). At the close of the voting period on 23 May 1977 there were 13 votes for Alternative A and 9 for Alternative B— a majority less than a two-thirds majority for Alternative A. 9. The matter therefore comes down to a simple choice as to which of two species— H. nebulosus Fallén, 1823, or H. binotatus Fallen, 1823 — is to be the type species of Hydrophorus. This is a taxonomic choice, and I have therefore been seeking independent specialist advice to guide the Commission. Dr C. E. Dyte (Ministry of Agriculture Slough Laboratory, Slough, U.K.) had already supported Steyskal and others. Eventually, in August 1983, with the help of Mr R. W. Sims (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad), Professor O. P. Negrobov (Voronezh University, U.S.S.R.) wrote to say that 164 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 he too supported the choice of H. nebulosus as type species ‘as it does not differ greatly from other species of the genus, including the hypopygium (Negrobov, 1977, in Lindner, Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, Lief. 316, figs 1127-1130). The external difference in wing spots is not important.’ DECISION OF THE COMMISSION The above report was sent, with Voting Paper (1984)41, on 13 September 1984 to the members of the Commission for a vote under the Three-Month Rule. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes for H. nebulosus: twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder Affirmative Votes for H. binotatus: none (0) Negative Votes, Late Votes, Abstentions: none (0). No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Lehtinen and Savage. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: binotatus, Hydrophorus, Fallén, 1823, Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae, p. 3 HYDROPHORINAE Lioy, 1864, Atti r. Ist. Veneto Sci., Lett. Arti (3), vol. 9, p. 762 Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823, Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae, p. 3 nebulosus, Hydrophorus, Fallén, 1823, Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae, pes CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)41 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. 1314. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 January 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 165 OPINION 1315 EOLIS ALDERI COCKS, 1852 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF AEOLIDIELLA BERGH, 1867 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 are hereby set aside and Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852 is hereby designated as type species of that genus; (b) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (i) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen Eolida soemmerringii; (ii) soemmeringii Bergh, 1882, as published in the binomen Aeolidiella soemmeringii. (2) Entry No. 1720 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is hereby amended so as to read: Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (gender: feminine) type species, by designation under the plenary powers, Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852. (3) The specific name alderi Cocks, 1852, as published in the binomen Eolis alderi (specific name of type species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2958. (4) Entry No. 2152 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is hereby deleted. (5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (i) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen Eolida soemmerringii, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) (i) above (Name Number 1145); (ii) soemmeringii Bergh, 1882, as published in the binomen Aeolidiella soemmeringii, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) (ii) above (Name Number 1146). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1986 An application for the clarification of the type species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 was first received from the late Dr Henning Lemche on 28 October 1971. This was never published because of difficulties over Dr Lemche’s choice of a neotype for Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828. In November 1979 consultations were opened with Dr T. E. Thompson and Dr Gregory H. Brown. On 14 March 1980, revised proposals were received from Dr Brown. After some correspondence this was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 30 November 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. 166 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 vol. 38, pp. 294-296. 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. Support was received from Dr Jean Tardy (Institut Universitaire de Technologie, La Rochelle, France). Dr Holthuis objected to the proposed changes in the Official Lists and suggested that a neotype for the species that was before Bergh in 1867 could be designated as neotype of Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828. This, however, proved impracticable. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)44 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 295-296. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Lehtinen and Savage. 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: alderi, Eolida, Cocks, 1852, Naturalist, vol. 2, p. 1 soemmeringii, Aeolidiella, Bergh, 1882, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien for 1882, p.8 soemmerringii. Eolida, Leuckart, 1828, Breves Animalium, p. 16. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)44 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. 1315. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 January 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 167 OPINION 1316 GLOBIGERINA CERROAZULENSIS COLE, 1928 (FORAMINIFERA): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name applanata Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globigerina applanata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) cerroazulensis Cole, 1928, as published in the binomen Globi- gerina cerroazulensis (Name Number 2959); (b) tropicalis Blow & Banner, 1962, as published in the binomen Globigerina tropicalis (Name Number 2960). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) applanata Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globi- gerina applanata, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 1147); (b) globosa Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globi- gerina globosa (a junior primary homonym of Globigerina globosa von Hagenow, 1842) (Name Number 1148). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2248 An application for the conservation of Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928 was first received on 27 January 1978 from Dr R. M. Jeffords (then of Exxon Production Research Co., Houston, Texas) on behalf of him- self, Dr R. M. Stainforth (2910 Cook St, Victoria, B.C., Canada) and Dr K. Sztrakos (13 rue Gouveno, 77310 Ponthierry, France). After some cor- respondence it was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 11 March 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 45-49. 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 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)45 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 47. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 168 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Binder Negative Votes — none (0). No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Savage. Hahn commented: ‘In the case of applanata/cerroazulensis the facts are clear, but not so in the case of globosa/tropicalis. The type of G. globosa Hantken is “interpreted” as a juvenile specimen of tropicalis, but can it also be interpreted as an adult of some other species? Once again this is a situation where I should prefer to use 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: applanata, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883, Ertek. Termesz. Koérebél Tud. Akad., vol. 13, p. 11, pl. 2, fig. 3 cerroazulensis, Globigerina, Cole, 1928, Bull. amer. Paleontol., vol. 14, no. 53,p.17 globosa, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883, Ertek. Termesz. Kérebél Tud. Akad., vol. 13, p. 11, pl. 2, fig. 7 tropicalis, Globigerina, Blow & Banner, 1962, in Eames, F. E. et al, Fundamentals of mid-Tertiary stratigraphic correlation, p. 124. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)45 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. 1316. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 January 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 169 OPINION 1317 TUPUS SELLARDS, 1906 (INSECTA, PROTODONATA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) The generic name Tupus Sellards, 1906 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Tupus permianus Sellards, 1906, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2259. (2) The specific name permianus Sellards, 1906, as published in the binomen Tupus permianus (specific name of type species of Tupus Sellards, 1906) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2961. (3) The generic name Typus Sellards, 1909 (an unjustified emendation of Tupus Sellards, 1906) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2161. (4) The family-group name TyPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 503. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2359 An application for the conservation of the unjustified emendation Typus Sellards, 1909 was first received from Professor Frank M. Carpenter (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, Mass.) and Dr Paul Whalley (British Museum (Natural History) London) on 2 September 1980. It was accompanied by a counter-proposal by Mr D. L. F. Sealy (British Museum (Natural History), London) to the effect that the correct original spelling be retained. Both were sent simultaneously to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published side by side on 30 November 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 285-287. 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 nine entomological serials. No further comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)46 either A for the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 286, or B for those set out on p. 287. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: For Alternative A—four (4) received in the following order: Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder For Alternative B — seventeen (17) received in the following order: 170 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Lehtinen and Savage. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Hahn: ‘I fully agree with the objection raised by Mr Sealy in his paragraph 2.’ Starobogatov: ‘We must avoid using a nomenclatorial term as a generic name.’ Alvarado: ‘I do not agree with the spelling TUPIDAE.’ Ride: ‘In my opinion no case is made that to revert to the correct original spelling would “disturb stability or universality or cause con- fusion”’. In the absence of such a case the Commission is not entitled to use the plenary powers.’ Dupuis: ‘L’argumentation du point 2 de M. Sealy est excellente; elle souligne une lacune du Code.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: permianus, Tupus, Sellards, 1906, Amer. J. Sci. (4) vol. 22, p. 249 Tupus Sellards, 1906, Amer. J. Sci. (4) vol. 22, p. 249 TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. K1., vol. 96, p. 62 Typus Sellards, 1909, Amer. J. Sci. (4) vol. 27, p. 151. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)46 were cast as set out above, that the proposal in Alternative B of that voting paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1317. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 January 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 aa OPINION 1318 (OPINION CORRECTING THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 92) LACERTA VELOX PALLAS, 1771 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF EREMIAS WIEGMANN, 1834 (REPTILIA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 are hereby set aside and the nominal species Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 is hereby designated as the type species of that genus. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 (Name Number 432); (b) Ommateremias Lantz, 1928 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Lacerta arguta Pallas, 1773 (Name Number 2260). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) velox Pallas, 1771, as published in the binomen Lacerta velox (specific name of type species of Eremias Wiegmann, 1834) (Name Number 2962); (b) arguta Pallas, 1773, as published in the binomen Lacerta arguta (specific name of type species of Ommateremias Lantz, 1928) (Name Number 2963). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1172 In February 1957 the late Mr Francis Hemming (then Secretary to the Commission) discovered an error in the ruling given in Opinion 92. That ruling gave Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 as type species of Eremias Wiegmann, 1834; but Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept. p. 21, had validly designated Lacerta variabilis Pallas, 1811 as type species. He therefore sought advice from several sources but received no clear indication of a course to follow. Accordingly, when the first instalment of the Official Lists in book form was being compiled in 1958, the case of Eremias was deferred. In December 1980, Mr A. F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London) kindly examined an application prepared in the Secretariat. This was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 30 November 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 283—284. The possible use of the plenary powers in the case was announced in the same part of the 172 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 Bulletin and was sent to the statutory serials as well as to seven general and three herpetological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)47 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 283—284. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Savage. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: arguta, Lacerta, Pallas, 1773, Reise Russland, vol. 2, p. 718 Eremias Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetol. Mexic. (1), p. 9 Ommateremias Lantz, 1928, Bull. Mus. Géorgie (4) p. 2 velox, Lacerta, Pallas, 1771, Reise Russland, vol. 1, p. 457. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)47 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. 1318. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 January 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 173 OPINION 1319 NOMIOIDES SCHENCK, 1866 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species for the nominal genus Nomioides Schenck, 1866 hitherto made are hereby set aside and the nominal species Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Nomioides Schenck, 1866 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2261. (3) The specific name minutissima Rossi, 1790, as published in the binomen Apis minutissima (specific name of the type species of Nomioides Schenck, 1866) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2964. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2178 An application for the use of plenary powers to designate a type species for Nomioides Schenck, 1866 was first received from Dr Y. A. Pesenko and Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad) on 5 May 1976. After much correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 225-227. 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 nine entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)48 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 226. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Savage. Heppell commented: ‘I believe that the genus Nomioides could be accepted as of feminine gender if that is in accordance with universal usage (as stated by the applicants). There is at least one feminine -oides generic 174 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 name on the Official List (Cecilioides), which is universally treated as feminine by malacologists.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: minutissima, Apis, Rossi, 1790, Fauna Etrusca, vol. 2, p. 109. Liburni (Pisis) Nomioides Schenck, 1866, Berlin Entomol, Zeitschr., vol. 10, p. 333. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)48 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. 1319. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 January 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 175 OPINION 1320 HYDRODAMALIS RETZIUS, 1794 AND MANATUS INUNGUIS NATTERER IN PELZELN, 1883 (MAMMALIA, SIRENIA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Manati Steller, 1774 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the specific name exunguis Natterer in Diesing, 1839, as published in the binomen Manatus exunguis, is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The generic name AHydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Hydrodamalis stelleri Retzius, 1794, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2262. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) gigas Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the binomen Manati gigas (the valid name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794) (Name Number 2965); (b) inunguis Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883, as published in the binomen Manatus inunguis (rendered nomenclaturally valid under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name Number 2966). (4) The generic name Manati Steller, 1774, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2162. (5) The specific name exunguis Natterer in Diesing, 1839, as published in the binomen Manatus exunguis, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1149. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2338 An application for the conservation of Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 and Manatus inunguis Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883 was first received from Dr Daryl P. Domning (Howard University, Washington D.C.) on 12 March 1980. It was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 130-133. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was published in the same part of the Bulletin and sent to the statutory serials as well as to seven general serials and two mammalogical serials. No comment was received. 176 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)50 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 131-132. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Savage. 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: exunguis, Manatus, Natterer in Diesing, 1839, Ann. wiener Mus. Naturges., vol. 2(2), p. 230, footnote gigas, Manati, Zimmermann, 1780, Geographische Geschichte des Menschen und die vierftissigen Thiere, vol. 2, p. 426 Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794, K. svensk. Vetenskaps Akad. Hand. (2) vol. 15, p22 inunguis, Manatus, Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 33, Beiheft, pp. 89-94 Manati Steller, 1774, Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka, p. 97. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)50 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. 1320. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 January 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 ty / OPINION 1321 GRANT OF NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE TO EPHYDRIDAE ZETTERSTEDT, 1837 OVER HYDRELLIIDAE ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, 1830 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group name EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family-group name HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, whenever the two are subjectively considered to be synonyms. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Ephydra Fallen, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species, by sub- sequent designation by Curtis, 1832, Ephydra riparia Fallén, 1813 (Name Number 2263); (b) Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Coquillett, 1910, Hydrellia aurifacies Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Name Number 2264). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) riparia Fallén, 1813, as published in the binomen Ephydra riparia (specific name of type species of Ephydra Fallen, 1810) (Name Number 2967); (b) flaviceps Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Notiphila flaviceps (valid name, at the time of this ruling, of the type species of Aydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) (Name Number 2968). (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) EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (type genus Ephydra Fallen, 1810) with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (type genus Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) whenever the two are subjectively considered to be synonymous (Name Number 570); (b) HYDRELLIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (type genus Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 whenever the two names are subjectively considered to be synonymous (Name Number 571). 178 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2334 An application for the grant of nomenclatural precedence to EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 over HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 was first received from Dr Wayne N. Mathis (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C.) on 30 January 1980. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 201-204. 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 comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)49 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 202—203. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Hoithuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Corliss, Kraus, Bayer, Dupuis, Binder Negative Vote — one (1): Ride. Heppell abstained from voting. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Lehtinen, Savage. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commis- sion with their voting papers: Ride: “HYDRELLIIDAE has not so far been used at familial level. Its replacement at that level by EPHYDRIDAE is unambiguous and will cause no confusion. Both names will continue in use at subfamilial and tribal levels. I do not consider that the use of the plenary powers is warranted.” Heppell: ‘I abstain. I should prefer the Commission to reconsider the general problem of priority of family-group names rather than deal with individual cases separately. Many cases of this type are ignored or over- looked, and the date and authorship of family-group names are probably less important than the stability of their taxonomic significance.’ Dupuis: ‘Sur le fond, je vote pour les propositions de Mathis: (1) con- servation des deux noms; (2) inversion de la priorité de typification des taxa supergénériques. Toutefois, je vote contre la formulation, car deux taxa supergénériques qui n’ont pas le méme génre-type ne sont pas objective- ment “synonymes”. Je propose de dire, soit (a) “lorsque les deux genres-types sont inclus dans le méme taxon’’, soit (b) “to be subjectively synonyms’’.’ [This has been borne in mind in drafting the present ruling. The use of the word ‘considered’ had been thought a sufficient indication of a subjective synonymy. R.V.M.] Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 179 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ephydra Fallen, 1810, Specimen entomologicum novam Diptera disponendi methodum exhibens, p. 22 EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837, Jsis (Oken), col. 48 flaviceps, Notiphila, Meigen, 1830, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins., vol. 6, p. 72 Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Acad. roy. Sci., Mém. prés. divers savans, vol. 2, p. 790 HYDRELLIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Acad. roy. Sci., Mém. prés. divers savans, vol. 2, p. 783 riparia, Ephydra, Fallén, 1813, K. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl. for 1813, (2), p. 246. The following are the original references to designations of type species accepted in the present Opinion: of Ephydra riparia Fallén, 1813 as type species of Ephydra Fallen, 1810 by Curtis, 1832, British Entomology, vol. 9, p. 413; of Hydrellia aurifacies Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Acad. roy. Sci., Mém. prés. divers savans, vol. 2, p. 791; as type species of Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Coquillett, 1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. Be, p. 553. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)49 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. 1321. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 January 1985 180 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1322 BUPRESTIS NANA PAYKULL, 1799, NON GMELIN, 1790 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name nana Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Buprestis nana, and all other uses of that name prior to its use by Paykull, 1799, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The specific name nana Paykull, 1799, as published in the binomen Buprestis nana, and as conserved under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2969. (3) The specific name nana Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Buprestis nana, 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 1150. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2346 An application for the conservation of Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799 was first received from Dr Maciej} Mroczkowski (Jnstytut Zoologiczny, Warsaw) on 29 May 1980. After some exchanges of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 11 March 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 59-60. 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. The application was supported by Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum of the University, Helsinki). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)51 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 60. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Binder Negative Votes — none (0). No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Savage. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 181 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: nana, Buprestis, Gmelin, 1790, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 1940 nana, Buprestis, Paykull, 1799, Fauna suecica, vol. 2, p. 233. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)51 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. 1322. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 January 1985 182 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1323 BYRRHUS SEMISTRIATUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Byrrhus semistriatus, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific names picipes Olivier, 1790, as published in the binomen Byrrhus picipes, and rufipes Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus rufipes, by anyone who considers that these three names, or any two of them, denote the same taxon. (2) The generic name Simplocaria Stephens, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Jacquelin du Val, 1859, Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2265. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Byrrhus semistriatus (specific name of type species of Simplo- caria Stephens, 1829) with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Byrrhus picipes Olivier, 1790 and Byrrhus rufipes Kugelann, 1792 by anyone who considers that all three names or any two of them denote the same taxon (Name Number 2970); (b) picipes Olivier, 1790, as published in the binomen Byrrhus picipes, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, by anyone who considers that both names denote the same taxon (Name Number 2971); (c) rufipes Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus rufipes, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, by anyone who con- siders that both names denote the same taxon (Name Number 2972). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N. (s.)2317 An application for the grant of nomenclatural precedence to Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 over Byrrhus picipes Olivier, 1790 and Byrrhus rufipes Kugelann, 1792 was first received from Dr M. Mroczkowski (Zoological Institute, Warsaw) on 31 August 1979. It was sent to the printer Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 183 on 24 February 1981 and printed on 30 November 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 292-293. 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 eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)52 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18, pp. 292-293. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Binder Negative Vote — one (1): Ride Abstention — Ueno. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Savage. Uéno commented: ‘I cannot vote on this application at present, though I am inclined to vote against it. Dr Mroczkowski does not clarify whether Olivier’s type of B. picipes is in existence or not. If it does exist and is in good condition and is identical with that of Fabricius’s B. semistriatus, I believe the name picipes should be revived, even if doing so may cause some confusion among byrrhid taxonomists. Since the beetle seems to have no other importance than in pure taxonomy, I feel it unnecessary to use plenary powers in this case.’ This comment was passed on to Dr Mroczkowski who said in reply that, so far as he knew, Olivier’s type of B. picipes did not exist. He added that Kugelann’s collection had been completely destroyed. Ride commented: ‘While it is clearly desirable to conserve semis- triata, 1 am not convinced that there is a good reason for preserving B. picipes and B. rufipes. Neither name has been used in the last 50 years (picipes has not been used in systematic works since 1847 and since then has been listed up to 1911, but not as a senior synonym; rufipes has not been used since its original description except in listings up to 1911 as a junior synonym). On the other hand, semistriata has been in continuous use since 1847. Although no details are presented, it seems that a prima facie case is established that the stability of semistriata is threatened (Art. 79b). No case is presented that warrants the preservation of the others. I-consider that the Commission should only use the relative precedence procedure when a case is made that justifies the preservation of the names concerned. We should be asked to suppress picipes and rufipes.’ 184 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: picipes, Byrrhus, Olivier, 1790, Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des Insectes, no. 13, p. 9. rufipes, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792, Neuestes Mag. Liebhaber Entomol., vol. 1 (2-4), p. 485 semistriata, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica, vol. 4, p. 437 Simplocaria Stephens, 1829, Nomenclature of British Insects, Mandibulata, val, 35;p.,9. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (84)52 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. 1323. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London. 4 February 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 185 OPINION 1324 DIADEMODON SEELEY, 1894 AND DIADEMODON TETRAGONUS SEELEY, 1894 CONSERVED BY THE SUPPRESSION OF CYNOCHAMPSA OWEN, 1859 AND CYNOCHAMPSA LANIARIA OWEN, 1859 (REPTILIA, THERAPSIDA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Cynochampsa Owen, 1859; (b) the specific name /aniaria Owen, 1859, as published in the binomen Cynochampsa laniaria. (2) The generic name Diademodon Seeley, 1894 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Diademodon tetragonus Seeley, 1894, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2266. (3) The specific name tetragonus Seeley, 1894, as published in the binomen Diademodon tetragonus (specific name of type species of Diademodon Seeley, 1984) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2973. (4) The generic name Cynochampsa Owen, 1859, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2163. (5) The specific name /aniaria Owen, 1859, as published in the binomen Cynochampsa laniaria, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1151. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2249 An application for the conservation of the generic name Diademodon Seeley, 1894 and the specific name tetragonus Seeley, 1894 as published in combination with Diademodon, was first received from Dr Fred Grine (University of Witwatersrand, South Africa) on 23 June 1980. After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 11 March 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 50-53. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials, three herpetological serials and two palaeontological serials. Support was received from Dr C. E. Gow (University of the Witwatersrand) and Dr M. A. Cluver (South African Museum, Cape Town). No adverse comment was received. 186 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)54 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 52-53. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Willink, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Binder Negative Votes — five (5) received in the following order: Cocks, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Dupuis. Lehtinen returned a late affirmative vote. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their votes: Cocks: ‘The issues do not seem to me to be sufficiently important to invoke plenary powers and I would sink Diademodon in the normal way.’ Hahn: ‘The synonymy between Cynochampsa laniaria and Diademodon tetragonus has not been, and cannot be, proved because Cynochampsa is founded on an isolated snout that lacks all important diagnostic features. Thus Cynochampsa and Diademodon may be synonyms but are not necessarily so. The Commission should therefore not suppress Cynochampsa laniaria completely, but only so far as it competes with Diademodon tetragonus.’ Mroczkowski: ‘I think that the “relative precedence” procedure should have been adopted in this case.’ Ride: Although, strictly speaking, the replacement of Diademodon by Cynochampsa would not cause any ambiguity (Cynochampsa has never been used for anything else), the uncertain stratigraphic position of C. laniaria would undoubtedly introduce instability and uncertainty into the application of the names of this important group. I consider that the use of the plenary powers is justified on that ground.’ Heppell: ‘This seems too subjective for me to give my vote in favour of the proposal. The author does not establish that the usage of Diademodon by the authors cited was notwithstanding their acceptance of Cynochampsa as a senior synonym, even at the generic level. From the evidence presented, most, if not all, of these authors could have regarded C. laniaria as a Diademodontid incertae sedis. It is also not clear why the author states ““Owen’s 1859 paper was published unaltered in 1860” yet dates C. Janiaria from the later paper. Were the names nomina nuda in 1859?’ [On receiving Mr Heppell’s comment I made further enquiries into the circumstances surrounding Cynochampsa laniaria. The name was published twice by Owen in the publications of the Geological Society of London. The first occasion was in the Abstracts of Proceedings no. 31, p. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 187 116. This is part of the proceedings for the Session 1858-59 and deals with the meeting of 20 April 1859. The Librarian of the Society tells me that these Abstracts would certainly have been published in 1859. The binomen is there accompanied by a full description and is available. The second occasion was in the Society’s Quarterly Journal, vol. 16, pt. 1, Proceedings, p. 61, pl. 3, figs. 1-4, dated 1860. Both components of the binomen there- fore date from 1859 and this has been taken as their date in drafting the present Ruling. R.V.M.] ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Cynochampsa Owen, 1859, Q. J. geol. Soc. London (1) Proc. geol. Soc. London, vol. 16, p. 61 Diademodon Seeley, 1894, Phil. Trans. roy. Soc. London (B) vol. 185, p. 1030 laniaria, Cynochampsa Owen, 1859, Q. J. geol. Soc. London (1) Proc. geol. Soc. London, vol. 16, p. 61 tetragonus, Diademodon, Seeley, 1894, Phil. Trans. roy. Soc. London, (B) vol. 185, p. 1030. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)54 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. 1324. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 February 1985 188 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1325 CAPSUS ATER JAKOVLEV, 1889 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, HETEROPTERA): NOT REJECTED AS A JUNIOR HOMONYM OF CIMEX ATER LINNAEUS, 1758 RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled that the specific name ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the binomen Capsus ater, is not to be rejected as a junior homonym of the specific name ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex ater, by any zoologist who places those species in different genera. (2) The specific name ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the binomen Capsus ater, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be rejected as a junior secondary homonym of ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex ater by any zoologist who places those species in different genera (Name Number 2974). (3) The specific name ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex ater, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be interpreted as a senior secondary homonym of ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the binomen Capsus ater by any zoologist who places those species in different genera (Name Number 2975). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.((S.)2148 An application for the use of plenary powers to make the specific name ater Jakovlev, 1889, nomenclaturally valid, was first received from Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad) on 18 September 1975. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 March 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pp. 288-291. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and nine entomological serials. Comment was received from Professor L. B. Holthuis which was published, together with a reply from Dr Kerzhner containing modified proposals, in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 162-163. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)55 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, p. 163. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Willink, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 189 Starobogatov, Alvarado, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Sabrosky Negative Votes — four (4) received in the following order: Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Kraus, Binder. Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger and Savage. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ater, Capsus, Jakovlev, 1889, Horae Soc. entomol. Rossicae, vol. 24, p. 344 ater, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, p. 447. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)55 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. 1325. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 February 1985 190 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1326 CIMEX QUADRIPUNCTATUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, HETEROPTERA): CONSERVED RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Cimex quadripunctatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The specific name quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Lygaeus quadripunctatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2976. (3) The specific name quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Cimex quadripunctatus, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1152. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2148 An application for the use of plenary powers to make the specific name quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, nomenclaturally valid, was_ first received from Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad) on 18 September 1975. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 March 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pp. 288-291. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and nine entomological serials. Comment was received from Professor L. B. Holthuis which was published, together with a reply from Dr Kerzhner containing modified proposals for the suppression of quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 163-163. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)56 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 163. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Hahn, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Sabrosky Negative Votes — two (2) received in the following order: Kraus, Binder. Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 191 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: quadripunctatus, Cimex, Villers, 1789, Linn. Entomol, p. 535 quadripunctatus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1794, Entomol. Syst., vol. 4, p. 172. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)56 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1326. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 February 1985 192 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 OPINION 1327 HOLOCENTROPUS McLACHLAN, 1878 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the generic name Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 is to be given nomen- clatural precedence over the generic name Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Philopotamus dubius Rambur, 1842, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2267); (b) Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Phryganeolitha vetusta Germar, 1813, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Holo- centropus McLachlan, 1878, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2268). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) dubius Rambur, 1842, as published in the binomen Philopotamus dubius (specific name of the type species of Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878) (Name Number 2977); (b) vetusta Germar, 1813, as published in the binomen Phry- ganeolitha vetusta (specific name of the type species of Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813) (Name Number 2978). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1591 An application for the conservation of Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 was first received from D. E. Kimmins (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) on 16 January 1963. The appli- cation was rewritten and resubmitted by Dr P. C. Barnard (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) on 5 April 1982. After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 25 August 1982 and published on 7 December 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 293-296. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, six general and nine entomological serials. No comment was received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 193 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)58 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 294-295. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Bayer, Binder Negative Votes — one (1): Heppell. Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Halvorsen and Savage. Heppell commented: ‘I sympathize with the intention of the appli- cant to conserve the name Holocentropus but from the evidence presented I can find no justification for the use of the relative precedence procedure in this case. The applicant has presented the strongest possible case for the suppression of the name Phryganeolitha (based on a species of uncertain identity, the type material of which is lost, and virtually unused since its original proposal), which he admits was the original purpose of the appli- cation. Although it is stated in the introduction that the ‘original intentions’ of the application have been retained, the Commission has now in fact been offered the option of adding Phryganeolitha to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names. ‘I accept that if the Commission were offered the choice of either rejection or conditional suppression then the votes might provide no clear majority for either alternative. I believe, however, that the Commission should be asked to lay down clear guidelines to applicants as to when the relative precedence procedure should be requested. This should not be left to the whim of the author or the discretion of the Secretary and, I believe, should be reserved for those few cases where there is a genuine possibility of both names involved being required to denote separate taxa. In the present case I would have readily voted for the rejection of the unused and super- fluous name, but in the absence of such a proposal doubt if the conservation of Holocentropus is threatened because its synonymy with the senior Phryganeolitha is not susceptible to proof.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: dubius, Philopotamus, Rambur, 1842, Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Névropteres, p. 503 Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878, A monographic revision and synopsis of the Trichoptera of the European fauna. Part 7, p. 400 194 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813, Magazin Entomol. (Germar ), vol. 1, p. 17 vetusta, Phryganeolitha, Germar, 1813, Magazin Entomol. (Germar ), vol. 1, p. 17, CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985)58 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. 1327. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 February 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 195 DIRECTION 118 CORRECTIONS TO THREE ENTRIES IN THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY: ARGYNNIDAE, APATURIDAE, LIMENITIDINAE (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) RULING. — (1) The following corrections are hereby made to the entries in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology under the Name Numbers stated: (a) Name Number 228. ARGYNNIDAE. For ‘Duponchel, 1844, Cat. méth. Lépid. Europ.: 2’ read ‘Duponchel, [1835] (in Godart, J.B.) Hist. nat. Lép. pap. France, Suppl., vol. 1, livr. 23, pp. 394, B95’; (b) Name Number 229. APATURIDAE. For ‘Boisduval, 1840, Gen. Index meth. europ. Lepid.: 24 read ‘Genera et Index methodicus europaeorum Lepidopterorum, p. 24’; (c) Name Number 231. LIMENITIDINAE. For ‘Butler, 1869, Cat. diurn. Lep. Fabricius: 57 read ‘Butler, [12 February 1870], Cat. diurn, Lep. Fabricius, p. 57. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2187 A request for the correction of a number of entries in the official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology was first received from Lt-Col. C. F. : Cowan (Grange—over—Sands, England) on 24 June 1976. His request was _ divided into a number of instalments; that containing the three names here dealt with was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 228. No use of the plenary powers was involved. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited _ to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)53 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. Vol. 38, p. 228. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes —twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder Negative Votes — none (0). Lehtinen returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. Heppell commented: ‘The proposed corrections are matters of fact, not opinion. Why would the Commission wish to perpetuate inadvertent 196 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 errors? I suggest that the Secretary seek permission to publish such correc- tions without requiring a Commission vote, subject only to a prior check on the accuracy of the information. Or perhaps a notification of a proposed change could be published, if there is any uncertainty about the information supplied, and the correction made, if no contrary evidence is received before an agreed time has elapsed. Such an arrangement could prove particularly useful for correcting date and authorship of family-group names, which are often incorrectly cited in the zoological literature.’ REPLY TO MR HEPPELL Mr Heppell’s concern for the swift and smooth dispatch of business is appreciated. However, the Official Lists and Indexes are the property and responsibility of the Commission. No name should be added or removed, or any entry altered, without the Commission’s consent; and that consent should be seen to have been attained openly after the proposed alteration has been published. To seek permission from the Commission to make an alteration is surely equivalent to calling for a vote. The idea of a “‘notification-and-challenge” procedure was intro- duced at the Copenhagen (1953) Congress in relation to a number of points in the old Rules. It is in fact of little practical use due to the lack of challengers and was not retained in the 1961 Code. It would provide an uncertain way to accuracy and completeness of List and Index entries. The present procedure is indeed cumbersome and uses resources of time, effort and Bulletin space that might be put to better use. The Commission might like to consider delegating authority to make alterations of fact to the Lists and Indexes to a standing committee or to the Council; such changes to be simply announced in the Bulletin. The introduction of such a policy would, I believe, require no more than a change in the By—Laws. [R.V.M.] CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)53 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 Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Direction No. 118. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 February 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 197 RHABDITIS DUJARDIN, [NOV. 1844] (NEMATODA): PROPOSED COMPLETION OF OFFICIAL LIST ENTRY. Z.N.(S.)937 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (CIOMS Case no. 4) Opinion 104 (Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 73 (5), pp. 25-28, 1928) pur- ported to place the generic name Rhabditis Dujardin, 1845a (sic) on the Official List. When the first instalments of the Lists were prepared for publication in book form in 1958, entry no. 483 for Rhabditis was not com- pleted because of doubts about the identity of the nominal type species of Rhabditis, R. terricola Dujardin. However, since Dougherty’s action in 1953 (Thapar commemorative volume, pp. 69-76) and its general acceptance, the taxonomic situation has stabilised. As the nomenclatural facts are clear and call for no intervention by the Commission, the way is clear for completion of the entry in the Official List. 2. The date of publication of Rhabditis Dujardin, Hist. nat. Helminth., pp. 239-243 is [Nov. 1844], as stated by Sherborn, Index Animalium, p. 5492. The evidence for this is in Bibliographie de la France, 33e année (47e de la collection), No. 44, samedi 2 nov. 1844, p. 574, entry no. 5460. 3. Rhabditis was established with four included nominal species: R. terricola Dujardin [Nov. 1844], Vibrio acetis O. F. Miller, 1783, V. triticis Steinbuch, 1799 and V. glutinis O. F. Miller, 1783. 4. Stiles & Hassall, 1905, Bull. Bur. anim. Ind., no. 79, pp. 45—46, 134, thought that Bastian, 1865, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 25 (2), p. 129, had designated R. terricola as type species. In fact, Bastian merely referred to ‘the typical R. terricola’, and from the context, he may have meant ‘typi- cal specimens of the species’ rather than ‘the typical species of the genus’. Even the latter would still not have constituted a designation of a type species. However, the fact that Stiles & Hassall clearly stated their belief and clearly accepted that R. terricola was the type species means that they themselves made the designation under Article 69a(iv). 5. At that time the identity of R. terricola was in doubt. It remained so until Dougherty, 1953, Thapar commem. vol., pp. 69-76, synonymised the clearly identifiable R. aspera Bitschli, 1873 with it. Biitschli described his species in N. Acta (Verh.) k. leop.-carolin. deutsch. Akad. Naturf., vol. 36 (5), pp. 100, 113. This has been accepted by Goodey, T., 1963, Soil freshw. Nematodes (London, Methuen), p. 208; by Tarjan, A. C., 1960, Checklist plant soil nematodes (Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville), p. 140; and by Tarjan & Hopper, B. E., 1974, Nomenclatorial compilation plant and soil Nematodes (Soc. Nematol.), p. 293. In this little-studied group, usage is thus constituted. 6. Various species of Rhabditis have been found in human faeces and the female genital tract and in cutaneous lesions. Their pathogenic role is uncertain. 198 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to complete entry no. 483 in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as follows: Rhabditis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Stiles & Hassall, 1905, Rhabditis terricola Dujardin, [Nov. 1844]; (2) to place the specific name terricola Dujardin, [Nov. 1844], as published in the binomen Rhabditis terricola (specific name of type species of Rhabditis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 199 TORNATELLINA PFEIFFER, 1842 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): PROPOSED DIRECTION TO COMPLETE A RULING IN OPINION 119. Z.N.(S.)1147 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In Opinion 119 (Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 23-28, 1931), six generic names of gastropods were placed on the Official List. Among these was Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842, with the type species stated as ‘clausa Pfeiffer’. When, in 1958, the first instalment of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in book form was being prepared, Tornatellina was given the Name Number 550; but the entry on the Official List was not completed because of doubts as to the correctness of the ruling in Opinion 119. The facts are simple and allow a ruling to be reached without the use of the plenary powers. 2. The name Tornatellina was first proposed by H. H. Beck, 1838 [see Kadolsky, 1971, Arch. Molluskenk., vol. 101, p. 193 for this date], Index Moll. Mus. Chris. Fred., p. 80 and four specific names were cited with it — clausa, trochiformis, trochlearis and archimedes, all new. All the names are nomina nuda. 3. Tornatellina was made available by L. Pfeiffer, 1842, Symb. hist. helic. (2). The genus is described on p. 5 and four species on p. 55. Three of these—clausa, trochiformis and trochlearis — were attributed to Beck. No type species was designated. J. E. Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. London, p. 125 first validly designated Tornatellina clausa Pfeiffer, 1842 as type species of Tornatellina. This name has for long been regarded as a junior synonym of Strobilus bilamellatus Anton, 1839. Verzeichniss Conch. Sammi. Anton, p. 46. This is still accepted as the valid name for the species. Tornatellina (ACHATINIDAE, TORNATELLININAE) and Strobilus (ACHATINELL- IDAE, PITYSINAE) are now both recognised as valid genera (see Pilsbry & Cooke, 1933, Nautilus, vol. 47, pp. 59-62). The type species of Strobilus is S. turritus Anton, 1839, p. 46, by subsequent designation by Gray, 1847, p. 175 (misspelled as ‘Strombilus Alton’). Opinion 119 purported to reject Strobilus Anton because of homonymy with Strobila Sars, 1829, a coelenterate, but the names are not homonyms under the present Code. 5. The Commission is accordingly requested: (1) to place the generic name Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Gray, 1847, Tornatellina clausa Pfeiffer, 1842, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Name Number 550); (2) to place the specific name bilamellatus Anton, as published in the binomen Clausilia (Strobilus) bilamellatus) (the valid name at the time of this request for the type species of Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 200 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 SOUTHERNIA ALLGEN, 1929: PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF SOUTHERNIA FILIPJEV, 1927 (NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.)940 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In 1959 the late Dr Carl Allgén presented a number of problems of nematode nomenclature for resolution by the Commission (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 17, pp. 86-88). The discovery of a mistake in the presentation of one of these problems led to the voting paper eventually issued on the case being cancelled. Among those problems, the one here presented afresh is the only one now calling for the attention of the Commission. 2. Demania Southern, 1914 (Nematoda) was found to be a junior homonym of Demania Laurie, 1906 (Crustacea) and was replaced by Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney, 1926. Filipjev, 1927, Arch. Naturges., vol. 91, p. 14, proposed Southernia also as a new replacement name for Demania Southern non Laurie. Southernia Filipjev, 1927 is thus a junior objective synonym of Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney and has not been used. 3. Allgén, 1929, Zool. Jb. (Syst.) vol. 57, p. 436, proposed Southernia for the single new species S. zosterae (pp. 437-438), a free-living marine nematode from off the west coast of Sweden. In spite of the fact that Southernia Allgén is a junior homonym of Southernia Filipjev, it has been regularly used and no new replacement name has been proposed for it. Gerlach, S. A. & Riemann, F., 1973, The Bremerhaven Checklist of Marine Nematodes, Veréff. Inst. Meeresforsch. in Bremerhaven, Suppl. 4, pts 1 and 2, lists nine uses of the name as a valid name between 1929 and 1973; later references can readily be supplied. 4. In the light of this evidence, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Southernia Filipjev, 1927 and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Southernia Allgén, 1929, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Southernia Allgén, 1929 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Southernia zosterae Allgén, 1929, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name zosterae Allgén, 1929, as published in the binomen Southernia zosterae (specific name of type species of Southernia Allgén, 1929) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Southernia Filipjev, 1927, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 201 FOLSOMIA CANDIDA WILLEM, 1902 (INSECTA, COLLEMBOLA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF ENTOMOBRYA CAVICOLA BANKS, 1897. Z.N.(S.)2210 By Peter F. Bellinger (Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge, California 91330, U.S.A.) Banks, 1897, p. 380, described the new species Entomobrya cavicola from Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. The figure accompanying his description makes it clear that the species is not an Entomobrya but a Folsomia (ISOTOMIDAE). This was first recognised in print by Christiansen, 1960, p. 42, where cavicola Banks is transferred to Folsomia on the basis of this figure. Salmon, 1964, p. 334, placed cavicola as a synonym of Folsomia fimetaria (Linnaeus, 1758). There are ten other references to the name cavicola Banks in the literature; nine of these are merely references to the original descrip- tion or type locality (e.g. Wolf, 1934-1938, vol. 3, p. 123; Barr, 1968, pp. 166-167). 2. Type specimens of E. cavicola Banks are in the United States National Museum. The label on one slide reads ‘Entomobrya cavicola Banks = Folsomia fimetaria (L.), det. J. T. Salmon, 1958’ and ‘Mammoth Cave, Ky. Coll. R. E. Call. Cotype no. 4321’; the label bears a red stripe, presumably applied by Salmon. The specimen is in fair condition and obviously belongs to Fo/somia. Unfortunately, it is not F. fimetaria (L.) as currently recognised, but F. candida Willem, 1902. Two other slides marked ‘cotype’ carry specimens that are also identifiable as F. candida. According to the Law of Priority, the name candida should now be replaced by the senior name cavicola Banks. 3. The various white, blind species of Folsomia (including fimetaria and candida) were not distinguished clearly until recent years. The descrip- tion of Podura fimetaria by Linnaeus, 1758, p. 609, could apply to any of these (or, in fact, to members of several other genera of ISOTOMIDAE or ENTOMOBRYIDAE). In 1767, Linnaeus changed the description of the species; Podura fimetaria of the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae (p. 1014), and of later authors for more than a century, is a species that does not jump, generally considered to be an Onychiurus (the name Onychiurus fimetarius is still in use, though illegally, for a widespread European species). Modern interpretations of P. fimetaria Linnaeus, 1758, are based on its assignment by Tullberg, 1872, p. 78, to Isotoma, and by Borner, 1903, p. 142, to Folsomia; and on the interpretation of the name by Stach, 1947, p. 154. 4. Willem, 1902, p. 280, described ‘Folsomia candida nov. gen., nov. sp.’ from the Rochefort cave, Belgium. The genus is monotypic. In the years following, Folsomia was generally accepted as the valid generic name for species formerly placed in Jsotoma that have the last three abdominal seg- | ments fused; but candida was regarded, following Borner, 1903, p. 142, asa | 202 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 synonym of fimetaria. The two species were first distinguished by Stach, 1947, p. 178, who applied the name candida to a common European cave species (though without examining material from the type locality of can- dida), and the name fimetaria, as noted above, to a different species that is also widespread. Following Stach’s redescriptions, F. candida was generally recognised by other authors as a very common species that appears to be more generally distributed than fimetaria sensu Stach; the latter, for example, is rare in the Nearctic region, where F. candida is widespread and abundant in many localities. 5. F. candida is facultatively parthenogenetic, and quite variable; in North America there are two distinct phenotype clusters, A and B, which are usually distinguishable, but extensive intergradation between them makes their taxonomic separation impractical. Stach’s description applies to form B, and this is apparently the only form found in Europe generally (according to Gisin in a letter to Christiansen); the type specimens of cavicola Banks clearly belong to form A. 6. Nomenclature in this group is further complicated by the name Folsomia cavicola Cassagnau & Delamare, 1955, p. 381, proposed for a species from a cave in Lebanon, which has also been applied to some British material (Goto, 1956, p. 12). The original description is generally similar to that by Stach of F. candida, with some characters like those of form A and some like those of form B; the name is placed as a synonym of candida by Gisin, 1960, p. 184 and Palissa, 1964, p. 156. On the other hand, Salmon, 1964, pp. 332-333, lists it as a separate species; this is the only entry for F. cavicola to be found in this fundamental reference. 7. Since its recognition following Stach’s redescription, F. candida has become a favourite experimental animal. More than twenty authors have published papers dealing with this species as a test animal in experi- ments on litter breakdown, population growth, competition, and insecticide and herbicide assays. In addition, there are many references in the literature to its systematic position, morphology, distribution, habitats and biology; in all, F. candida is mentioned in over 400 papers published since 1947 (a list has been deposited with the Commission’s Secretariat). 8. The substitution of cavicola Banks for candida Willem as required by strict application of the Law of Priority would result in the disappear- ance of a well-known name, that of the nominal type species of Folsomia; would cause confusion because of the homonymous, and possibly synony- mous, cavicola Cassagnau & Delamare; and would lead to permanent uncertainty because of the possible restriction of the name candida to form B, if that is regarded as specifically distinct. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name cavicola Banks, 1897, as published in the binomen Entomobrya cavi- cola, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Folsomia Willem, 1902 (gender: Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 203 feminine), type species, by monotypy, Folsomia candida Willem, 1902, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name candida Willem, 1902, as published in the binomen Folsomia candida (specific name of type species of Folsomia Willem, 1902) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BANKS, N. 1897. Thysanura. In CALL, R. E., Some notes on the flora and fauna of Mammoth Cave, Ky. Am. Nat., vol. 31, pp. 380-382. Barr, T. C., Jr. 1968. Ecological studies on the Mammoth Cave system of Kentucky. I. The biota. Int. J. Speleol., vol. 3, pp. 147-204. BORNER, C. 1903. Neue altweltliche Collembolen, nebst Bemerkungen zur Systematik der Isotominen und Entomobryinen. Sitzungsber. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berlin for 1903, pp. 129-182. CASSAGNAU, P. & DELAMARE, C. 1955. Biospeleologica XXV. Mission Henri Coiffait au Liban (1951). 3. Collemboles. Archs. Zool. exp. gén., vol. 91, pp. 365-395. CHRISTIANSEN, K. 1960. A preliminary survey of the knowledge of North American cave Collembola. Am. midl. Nat., vol. 64, pp. 39-44. & BELLINGER, P. 1980-81. The Collembola of North America north of the Rio Grande. iii + 1322 pp. Grinnell College. Gisin, H. 1960. Collembolenfauna Europas. 312 pp. Geneva, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle. Goto, H. E. 1956. Folsomia cavicola Delamare Deboutteville, 1954 (Collembola, Isotomidae, new to Britain. Entomol. mon. Mag., vol. 92, pp. 12-13. Linnaeus, C. Systema Naturae ed. 10, vol. 1, 824 pp. Holmiae, Laur. Salvii. 1767. Systema Naturae ed. 12, vol. 1, 1327 pp. Stockholm, L. Salvi. Pauissa, A. 1964. Insekten 1 Teil. Apterygota. Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. IV (1a), 407 pp. Leipzig, Quelle & Meyer. SALMON, J. T. 1964-65. An index to the Collembola. Bull. Roy. Soc. New Zealand, vol. 7, pp. 1-651. STacu, J. 1947. The apterygotan fauna of Poland in relation to the world fauna of this group of insects. Family Isotomidae. 488 pp. Acta monogr. Mus. hist. nat. polon. TULLBERG, T. 1872. Sveriges podurider. K. svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., vol. 10 (10), pp. 1-70. WitteM, V. 1902. Note préliminaire sur les collemboles des grottes de Han et de Rochefort. Ann. Soc. entomol. Belgique, vol. 46, pp. 275-283. WoLr, B. 1934-38. Animalium cavernorum catalogus, vol. Ill. 918 pp. ’s Gravenhage, Junk. 204 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 APPENDIX Characteristics of forms A and B of F. candida (Christiansen & Bellinger, 1980, p. 633) Characteristic Form A Form B Ventral manubrial setae 23-30 16—22 Third abdominal segment: ia ae 64-80 -50—-63 segment length Two basal manubrial setae Ist>2nd I1st~2nd Manubrium/dens ‘60-66 -66—-75 Of 75 populations from various parts of the United States, 31 belonged to form A, 29 to form B and 14 were intermediate in character. Neither form was geographically localised. 5 4 be - pinion 1316. Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928 (Foraminifera) . Op nion 1317. Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Insecta, Protodonata) . , Opinion 1318. Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 and Eremias baci 1834 (Reptilia) (correction of ruling eee in Opinion 92) ion 1320. Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 and Manatus Ca Miah Nat- i in Pelzeln, 1883 (Mammalia, ae xs Sci. mieouda ; pint on 1325. Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 (Insecta, ‘Hemiptera, Heterop- By tera) . F pinion 1326. Cimex quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemip- Fe ee Heteroptera) i di on 118. ARGYNNIDAE, APATURIDAE and LIMENITIDINAE (Insecta, “ Lepidoptera) (corrections to entries in Official List) i New and revived cases tis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] (Nematoda). The Secretary ellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). The Secretary rnia Allgen, 1929 and Southernia Filipjev, 1927. The Secretary lsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola): proposed con- ‘servation by suppression of Entomobrya cavicola Banks, 1897. Be Bellinger . aes bie le ee ty Dene 167 169 171 173 175 aT 180 182 185 188 190 192 195 197 199 200 201 In ernational Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express AD] eciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British seum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. CONTENTS Officers ai Members of the Commission ; Members of the International. Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International vlan ae of Zoology Special Announcements eee sa P tena ae . Comments — Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). G.C.D. Griffiths: R. Wharton; C. van Achterberg . Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (winainiilia), 'R. oe Cifelli; M. F. : Soria. . Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera, Simuliidae). I. M. ; Kerzhner; H. Zwick; J. E. Raastad; R. W. Crosskey : ; Proposal to amend Article 70 of the Code. J. R. Vockeroth; K. '& x, _ Hamilton 2 ; . Opinions Opinion 1298. T ‘yrophagus Oudemans, 1924(Acarina) . . Opinion 1299. Athyreus Macleay, 1819 and Glyptus Brulle, 1835 Insecta, Coleoptera) . . : Opinion 1300. TENDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria) Opinion 1301. Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda) Opinion 1302. Nabis ene Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nabidae) Opinion 1303. Coccus Linnaeus, “1758 and Parthenolecanium Sule, 1908 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Homoptera) . . Opinion 1304. Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 and sis ipa cea Linnaeus, 1758 (Coelenterata, Anthozoa) ‘ Opinion 1305. Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 and Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) 3 go 14. Opinion 1306. Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 and Ledella Verrill & Bush, 5.) Rae 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . . Opinion 1307. Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 . (Insecta, Coleoptera) . p Opinion 1308. Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Opinion 1309. Geoemyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys ee 1835") (Reptilia, Testudines) : Opinion 1310. Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera) . Opinion 1311. Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and Krizousacorixa Hunger ford, 1930 (Insecta, Heteroptera) . % Opinion 1312. Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . ante Opinion 1313. Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792 and Emys cataspila,Gun- _ ther, 1885 (Reptilia, Testudines). . Aes Opinion 1314. Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1315. Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852 and Aeolidiella re 1867 ae lusca, Gastropoda) . : ; Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Do 30 September, 1985 Volume 42 Part 3 pp. v—vi, 205-310 ISSN 0007-5167 ‘The Bulletin of Zoological a Nomenclature The Official Organ of the International | Commission on Zoological Nomenclature BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY) 29 OCT 1985 PURCHASED 1 ZOOLOGY LIBRARY ) 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. CENTRAL SALES FARNHAM ROYAL SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K. COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAU? © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclatur All rights reserved. No part of this publication may b duced in any form or by any means, electronically aa ne ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, wi a prior permission a 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). Executive Secretary: Dr. P.K. TUBBS (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 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 (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. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) Reptilia: E D P Methods Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Jnstitute 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 Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 7LL, U.K.) (23 August 1979) 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 Vi Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda Mr. David HEPPELL, (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1 JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor ) Mollusca Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpetology 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 Dr. G. C. GRUCHY (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0M8) (15 April 1985) Icthyology 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 Dr. P.F.S. Cornelius Prof. C.B. Cox The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S. Mr. D. Curry 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 Dr. M.K. Howarth Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. M. Luc Dr. R.B. Manning Mr. R.V. Melville Dr. I.W.B. Nye Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) Dr. G.B. White Prof. J.M. Dodd, F.R.S. (Observer for the Royal Society ) B. The Officers of the Trust Dr. P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller) Mr. M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) Mr. J.D.D. Smith (Administrator) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 205 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 42, part 3 (pp. v—vi, 205-310 30 September 1985 NOTICES (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. This period is nor- mally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his con- tribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve months of the date of publication of the application. (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 23b and 79b): (1) Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Berytidae): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2464. W.R. Dolling. (2) Thylacites Germar, 1817; Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823; Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823; and Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposal to maintain current usage. Z.N.(S.) 2490. A.T. Howden. (3) Neodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2467. L.B. Holthuis & R.B. Manning. *(4) Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria): pro- posed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2363. R.W. Seaton. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for vol. 42 (2) (published on 27 June 1985) (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23b and 79c): (1) Dates and authorship of the text volumes of the Histoire Naturelle section of Savigny’s ‘Description de l’Egypte.’ Z.N.AS.) 2515. M.E. Tollitt. (2) Chromis ternatensis (Bleeker, 1856) (Pisces, Pomacentridae): proposed conservation by suppression of Chromis caerulea (Cuvier, 1830). Z.N.(S.) 2516. J.E. Randall, M.L. Bauchot & M. Desoutter. *(3) Siphamia Weber, 1909 (Pisces, Apogonidae): proposed con- servation by suppression of Beanea Steindachner, 1902. Z.N.(S.) 2517. J.E. Randall, E.A. Lachner & T.H. Fraser. 206 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 (4) Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2519. A. Jansson. (5) Corixa albifrons Motschulsky, 1863 (Insecta, Heteroptera): designation of neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2520. A. Jansson & I.M. Kerzhner. (6) Non-marine mollusca of Madeira. Z.N.(S.) 2521. H.W. Walden. (7) What’s in a (sub-specific) name? Z.N.(S.) 2522. R. Fortuner. (8) Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2523. V. Suihla. *(9) Phaulacridium vittatum (Sjostedt, 1920) (Insecta, Orthop- tera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2524. K.H.L. Key. (d) Guidelines for applications to the Commission. Intending appli- cants should draw up their applications in line with the Guidelines published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, volume 42, part 1. pages 3-5. Copies of the Guidelines can be obtained from the Executive Secretary. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS CHANGES IN TRUST MEMBERSHIP The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature announces with regret that Sir Eric Smith, CBE, FRS has relinquished his membership of the Trust. The Trust expresses its warm thanks to Sir Eric for much help and encouragement during his seven years of membership. The Trust has pleasure in announcing the election of the following new members: Dr P.F.S. Cornelius (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) Dr M.K. Howarth (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) Dr R.B. Manning (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) RETIREMENT OF MR. R.V. MELVILLE AS SECRETARY Mr Richard V. Melville retired from the Secretaryship of the Interna- tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the conclusion of the XXII General Assembly of I U B S at Budapest on 7 September 1985. Mr Melville, who had been successively Chief Palaeontologist and Assistant Director to the Institute of Geological Sciences (now the British Geological Survey), was Secretary of the Commission for more than 17 years. His association with the Commission began more than 30 years ago. He played a prominent part in the 1953 Copenhagen Colloquium and the International Congress of Zoology Section on Nomenclature, assisting Secretary Hemming to prepare the daily summaries of the proceedings. In addition, he verified and saw through to publication the “Copenhagen — Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 207 Decisions’ — described by Secretary Hemming as “that indispensible work of reference to all systematists”’. In May 1958, Mr Melville was seconded from the Geological Survey and Museum for 18 months as Assistant Secretary of the Commission in order to be Secretary of the London Colloquium and Congress Section on Nomenclature and of the Editorial Committee of the Ist Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. In 1968, Mr Melville was elected a member of the Commission and appointed its Secretary. Outstanding amongst his many achievements as Secretary and Editor of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature have been the preparation of some 500 Opinions, the handling of the Appeal for Funds to ensure the Commission’s survival, and his secretaryship of the Editorial Committee culminating in the publication, earlier this year, of the 3rd Edition of the Code. The zoological community as a whole owes a great debt to Richard Melville for his dedication to zoological nomenclature and the wisdom and skill which he has shown in administering the Commission’s affairs. His experience and scholarship will be greatly missed within the Secretariat and by the Council but will continue to be available within the Commission through his continuing membership as a Commissioner. Richard Melville’s many friends in zoology will wish him health in a long and well-earned retirement. As a result of changing requirements in the management of the Commission’s affairs, and with the agreement of the Management Com- mittee of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, the duties of the Secretary of the Commission and of the Scientific Controller of the International Trust are being rearranged. : Dr Philip Kingsley Tubbs, MA, PhD (Cambridge), has been appoin- _ ted Executive Secretary of the Commission and will be responsible for the management of its affairs. An Honorary Secretary of the Commission will be appointed from the Commission to fulfil statutory requirements. Dr Tubbs is a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and a former University Lecturer in Biochemistry in the University of Cambridge. Dr Tubbs brings to the Secretariat the experience of long associ- ation with the Commission of Enzyme Nomenclature of the International Union of Biochemistry and membership of the Editorial Board of the Bio- chemical Journal and of the Biochemical Society’s Publications Advisory Committee. He has a long-standing interest in Lepidoptera. W.D.L. RIDE President International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature September 1985 208 mits. CLOSURE OF CERTAIN FILES The backlog of several hundred files is being reviewed as time per- 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.) 104 Eunice Cuvier, 1817 for Official List Anidanthus Whitehouse, 1926, type species for Nyctalemon Dalman, 1825, for Official List Brisson, 1760, Ornithologia, status of names in, see Direction 21 Thirty-two generic names in Polyzoa for the Official List Terado senegalensis Blainville, 1824 and T. petiti Récluz, 1849, status of Martini & Chemnitz, Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, availability of generic names in, see Opinion 182 Rhynchonella Fischer de Waldheim, 1809, for Official List, see Opinion 190 ‘-ites’ names, validation of certain ‘-crinus’ and ‘-crinites’ names, validation of Dipoeneura Lioy, 1864 and Aneurina Lioy, 1864, validation of Holoplagia Enderlein, 1912, alleged misidentified type species Astrea Lamarck, 1801, spelling of Song birds, family-group names of Corbicula Megerle, 1811, family-group name for Aonyx Lesson, 1827, for Official List Cynictis Ogilby, 1833, for Official List Potos Geoffroy & Cuvier, 1795, correct names for type species Hemiptera, Heteroptera family-group names in, see Opinions 244, 245, 281 Subjective synonyms, declaration on Rafinesque’s family-group names in Mollusca, for Official List Kurtzia Rybowski & Grockowski, 1898, proposed conservation Hinnites Defrance, 1821, spelling of Benthodesmus Goode & Bear, 1882, proposed designation of type species Martyn, 1784, The Universal Conchologist, status of names in, see Opinion 456 Siphonaptera, family-group names in Linnaeus’s Coleoptera Lamellicornia names, for Official List Fabricius’s Coleoptera Lamellicornia names, for Official List Atylenchus decalineatus Cobb, 1913, neotype designation Porifera, proposed conservation of certain specific names Sciurus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, for Official List Bryozoa specific names, for Official List Mallophaga specific names, for Official List Eurete Semper, 1868, gender of Foraminifera, family-group names in Erebia cassioides (Reiner & Hohenworth, 1792), identity of Nematode names, for Official Lists and Indexes Tinocallis zelkovae Dshibladze, 1957 and T. zelkowae Takahashi, 1919, declaration on secondary homonymy Lithocolletis Hubner, 1825, proposed validation Hippurites flabellifer Cragin, 1893, proposed suppression ARENARIIDAE Stejneger, 1885, proposed validation Ectopistes migratoria (Linnaeus, 1766), proposed conservation Nessiteras rhombopteryx Scott & Rines, 1975, a scientific name for the Loch Ness Monster R.V. MELVILLE August 1985 eee Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 209 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5lc OF THE CODE. Z.N.(S.)2474 (see vol. 41, pp. 149-150; vol. 42, pp. 10-12) (1) By Brett C. Ratcliffe (University of Nebraska State Museum; Past President, the Coleopterists Society) I am very much opposed to the idea of no longer using parentheses as pro- vided for in Article 5lc. Parentheses serve a utilitarian purpose by indicating the changed generic status of a name originally proposed in another genus. This is a valuable tool in tracing the nomenclature of a beast as well as the historical usage of its name by others. In some groups, such as many vertebrates, where the taxonomy and nomenclature are well established, this may not be so important. With insects and other invertebrates, however, alpha level taxonomy is on the cutting edge of our knowledge about these animals, and tools such as parentheses are helpful in our understanding of their taxonomy. I strongly urge the retention of parentheses. (2) By J. R. Vockeroth (Biosystematics Research Institute. Canada) I agree wholeheartedly with the proposal by Gagné, Thompson & Knutson that the requirement that parentheses be used with the name of an author of a species-group name in any generic combination other than the original, be deleted from the Code. The information conveyed by the use of parentheses is very limited and of value only to those (primarily taxonomists) who may wish to determine the original combination or examine the original description; I feel, therefore, that the time spent in ensuring that parentheses are used in accordance with the requirement of previous codes of nomenclature is unjustified. Since 1965 the publication of several regional catalogues of Diptera (and by 1990 it is probable that all species will have been catalogued) has made the infor- mation mentioned above readily available for most species of the order; for this group, the use of parentheses is, or soon will be, nearly superfluous. I do not know whether other groups are as well served, but think many are or soon will be. Of far more value to those who wish to determine original combinations or examine original descriptions is the date of publication of a species-group name — X-us albus Smith, 1850 gives much more useful information than X-us albus (Smith). I approve of the wording of Article 22 of the Code: ‘Citation of the date of publi- cation of a name is optional . . .’ but would suggest that a third Recommendation be added: ‘Recommendation 22e. In works of significance in taxonomy the date of publication of each included species-group name should be given.’ (3) By R. W. Crosskey and others (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), Londen) [Signatories are at the end of this comment] Gagné et al. (1984) have formally proposed to the Commission that the parenthesising of authors’ names for species removed from their original genera should no longer be mandatorily required by the Code. Only opinions opposed to this have been published (BZN, 42, pp. 10-11). We wish to give the fullest possible 210 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 support to Gagné ef al. in their cause, and to note our disappointment that the new edition of the Code still enshrines this outmoded mandatory requirement. The parenthesising of authors’ names is simply taxonomic ritual, sanctified by time, without sufficiently sensible purpose to justify perpetuation in modern taxonomy. It tells us that a named species no longer remains where its describer first placed it, that is all; it does not tell us whence it came, who translocated it or when, or how we can discover these things. We agree with all that Gagné et al. have said about the practical incon- veniences imposed by Article 51c; anyone who has had routinely to search out whether ‘the author’s name should be in brackets’ for long lists of names to be issued in documentation of a non-taxonomic kind (e.g. in economic literature) will be fully acquainted with the futility of this particular form of time-wasting. There are, however, other aspects not yet raised. We wish to call attention to these. (1) Lumped and split classification. Whether an author’s name is to be paren- thesised rests on generic transfer, without regard to the existence of subgeneric names, even though generic and subgeneric names are coordinate. Name combi- nation is the guiding principle, not transfer of actual animal taxa from one grouping to another. The effect of this is unfortunate, as it means that parentheses must come and go like a tennis-ball across the bracketing net when one school of taxonomists recognises many small genera in a refined classification and another school treats these as subgenera in a broad-genus classification. The literature then presents a baffling picture to the non-taxonomist, faced with seemingly haphazard and inconsistent treatment of authors’ names. (2) Non-taxonomic zoologists. Names and their attributes (authorship. dating, etc.) are part of the service industry provided by taxonomists for zoologists at large. The ‘audience’ for such names is wider today than it ever was, and taxonomy itself is moving far from its morphological roots into realms of chemo- taxonomy, cytology, ethology, etc. where its practitioners function far removed from the mysteries of the Code — even if they know the Code exists. Taxonomists need good reason if they are to thrust mandatorily upon all zoologists such arcane requirements as that of Article Slc. Conclusion. Most provisions of the Code have a role to play in ensuring the stability and universality of nomenclature that justifies their existence. Article Slc does not. It is impossible to show that it is essential in taxonomic practice. It says next to nothing of value either to taxonomist or non-taxonomist; it is an empty provision already widely disregarded. We urge the abolition of this misbegotten mandatory requirement. REFERENCE GAGNE, R. J., THOMPSON, F. C. & KNUTSON, L. V. 1984. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: amendment proposed to Third Edition: pro- posal concerning Article 5lc. Z.N.(S.)2474. Bull. zool. Nomen., vol. 41, pp. 149-150. The signatories to this comment are: R. W. Crosskey (Diptera) and P. C. Barnard (Trichoptera), B. Bolton (Hymen- optera), D. J. Carter (Lepidoptera), M. C. Day (Hymenoptera), W. R. Dolling (Hemiptera), M. G. Fitton (Hymenoptera), I. D. Gauld (Hymenoptera), P. M. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 211 Hammond (Coleoptera), K. M. Harris (Diptera), C. M. F. von Hayek (Coleoptera), D. Hollis (Hemiptera), J. D. Holloway (Lepidoptera), I. J. Kitching (Lepidoptera), R. B. Madge (Coleoptera), L. A. Mound (Thysanoptera), A. C. Pont (Diptera), R. D. Pope (Coleoptera), G. S. Robinson (Lepidoptera), K. Sattler (Lepidoptera), A. J. Shelley (Diptera), K. G. V. Smith (Diptera), R. T. Thompson (Coleoptera), A Watson (Lepidoptera), R. I. Vane-Wright (Lepidoptera). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF TIBICINA AMYOT, 1847 AND LYRISTES HORVATH, 1926. Z.N.(S.)239 (see vol. 41, pp. 163-184) (1) By K. G. A. Hamilton (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA OC6, Canada) This is actually a compound amendment, and must be treated in two parts, 2 and 3 below. 2. Suppression of TIBICENIDAE Van Duzee, 1916: it is abundantly clear that this name is causing confusion with TIBICININAE Distant, 1905, and some action must be taken to clear up this situation. Traditionally, fixation of at least a one letter spelling difference has been used to clear up cases of family-group homonymy, but in this case (probably unique) the names both appear in the same family, and there- fore the confusion would still exist. Therefore alternative B of the proposal cannot be accepted under any circumstances. This does not signify approval of alternative A, which (for reasons cited under 3, below) must be accepted only as a last resort to alternative B. Three other alternatives must be considered first: 2a. Fixation of the stem of TIBICEN as TIBICIN-, and rejection of TIBICINIDAE Van Duzee, 1916 non Distant, 1905, under Article 53. Since this would suppress the name by homonymy rather than by declaring it unavailable, the status of Tibicen as a valid genus would not be affected. 2b. Rejection under the plenary powers of TIBICINIDAE Van Duzee, 1916, by declaration that that part of Van Duzee’s work is suppressed for nomenclatural purposes. Again this would not affect the status of Tibicen. 2c. Suppression of TIBICININAE Distant, 1905, and of Tibicina Amyot, 1847 in favour of CICADETTINAE Buckton, 1890 and a new genus for the 5 species formerly placed in Tibicina. 3. Suppression of Tibicen Berthold, 1827: despite harrowing stories of the misuse of this name in the 1800’s modern usage has fixed a consistent sense for Tibicen. To change it now, even for such a lovely name as Lyristes, would involve world-wide confusion, and would change the name of at least one well known species, the Dog—day cicada, Tibicen pruinosa (Say). Contrast this with Tibicina, which is applied to only 5 species, none of which are widely represented in the literature. 4. If none of the above proposals meet the approval of the ICZN, then I would reluctantly accept suppression of Tibicen (alternative A) in preference to fixation of the misspelled Van Duzee family-group name (alternative B). 212 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 (2) By Michel Boulard (Ecole pratique des hautes Etudes et Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France) La Commission internationale de Nomenclature zoologique aura bient6t a se prononcer sur les statuts respectifs des noms de genre Lyristes, Tibicen et Tibicina ainsi que sur leurs dérivés du groupe-famille. Le Secrétaire de la Commission a fait paraitre une étude deétaillée a ce propos en concluant par la mise en présence de deux solutions dites “‘alternative A” et ‘alternative B” (Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41 (3), pp. 180 et 181). Parmi les interventions écrites qu’a suscitées l’exposé du probléme et son traitement éventuel, le manuscrit du commentaire, que Monsieur K. G. A. Hamilton a envoyé au Bulletin m’a été transmis. I] a retenu mon attention et j’en remercie son auteur. Ce commentaire contient des propositions qui appellent de ma part certaines remarques et appréciations, que je donne ci—aprés a la suite de chacune des dites propositions retranscrites en italiques. 2) L’alternative B n'est, en aucun cas, acceptable. Je partage entiérement cette opinion: l’existence, pour des taxa du groupe- famille différents, de deux noms ayant méme radical est a bannir. 2a + 2b) Rejeter TIBIC()NIDAE Van Duzee 1916 (sic) mais conserver Tibicen Sauf a respecter la question du radical, cette proposition n’est autre que celle avancée par China (1964). C’est une ‘solution’ en apparence seulement: elle est illégitime et ne résout rien en profondeur; j’ai déja expliqué pourquoi (cf. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41 (3), pp. 176-177). 2c) Supprimer TIBICININAE Distant, 1916 (sic) et Tibicina Amyot, 1847, en faveur de CICADETTINAE Buckton, 1890 (sic) et d’un nouveau genre a créer. Outre que la, on se trompe de cible au risque d’accroitre l’imbroglio, cette double proposition n’est pas soutenable: d’une part Tibicina est un nom valide et correctement établi avec C. haematodes Scopoli, 1763 (espéce des plus anciennes et des mieux connues) pour espéce-type (cf. Amyot, 1847, Ann. Soc. entomol. France (2), vol. 5, p. 154; cf. Kolénati, 1857, Bull. Soc. imp. Naturalistes Moscou, Sec. Biol., vol. 30, p. 415; cf. Melville & Sims, 1984, Bull. zool. Nom., 41 (3), p. 165 et, d’autre part, le taxon ainsi nommé est le genre—type, fixé et par tous reconnu, d’un taxon du groupe-famille qu’il définit — Articles 29 et 35b — depuis l’origine formelle de celui-ci: TIBICININAE Distant, 1905 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 15, p. 304; ibid., vol. 16, p. 22), ainsi que des taxa subordonnés. I] semble nécessaire de rappeler que ce taxon du groupe—famille a été implicitement fondé en 1847 (Amyot, op. cit., pp. 153-154) selon des critéres de groupe, reconduits par Distant et toujours en vigueur, avec Tibicina comme premier taxon cité, suivi, entre autres, de Cicadetta (op. cit., p. 156). La Sous—famille des TIBICININAE — dont en toute logique et en vertu de article 23 d(i), on devrait attribuer la paterniteé a Amyot —englobe la tribu des CICADETTINI, Buckton, 1889 (The Entomol., vol. 22, p. 270: “CICADINAE’). Je profite de l’occasion offerte pour signaler que la référence ‘Buckton, 1890’ pour le groupe des Cicadettes, que l’intervenant reprend de Metcalf, Z.P., 1963 (Gen. Cat. Homopt., fasc. VIII, part 2, p. 270), est une bévue de catalogue; laquelle apparait moins grave toutefois que celle remarquée dans la citation: “TIBICINNAE, Buckton, 1889” (op. cit., p. 1). Buckton, en 1889 (op. cit., loc. cit.), puis en 1890 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 213 (Monograph of the British Cicadae or Tettigidae, p. xxxiv) mentionne le genre Cicadetta comme exemple de sa tribu des “CICADINAE’ qui se trouve ainsi parfaite- ment définie dés 1889: son tableau est clair a ce sujet. Il est clair aussi que Buckton y oppose les ‘CICADINAE’ a un second ensemble de Cigales nommé, dualité sympto- matique: tout d’abord ‘TIBICINAE’ (1889), loc. cit.), puis ““TIBICENINAE” (1890, loc. cit.) mais, chaque fois, sans aucune diagnose ni support générique. Ces deux derniers termes, en vertu de I’article 11 alinea (e) du Code, sont des nomina nuda et comme tels inutilisables avec la référence Buckton. 3, avec implication du 2c) Jmposer Tibicen pour cause ‘d’usage moderne’ et de la faiblesse numérique en espéces de Tibicina. Se rendre a cette proposition serait dresser des tabous, dont la Science n’a nul besoin, et choisir l’action inquisitoriale. Ce serait oublier que le progrés scientifique repose, en partie, sur la rectification des erreurs, 4 partir du moment ou celles-ci sont débusquées; le progrés n’a guére a meénager l’usage, surtout quand ce dernier est ‘moderne’ et donc d’installation relativement récente. Le rétablissement de Cicada dans son concept originel, aprés plus de 100 années de fourvoiement est, de ce point de vue, exemplaire. J’ai montré (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41 (3), pp. 170-178) que maintenir Tibicen serait s’acharner a ne pas traiter le mal a la base, perpétuer la confusion, jeter un discrédit sur la taxonomie que ce terme se trouve galvauder: soit par méconnaissance des textes de Latreille, soit par application bornée d’un postulat d’écriture, toutes choses qui ont conduit (Kirkaldy, 1906; Van Duzee, 1914) a l’affubler d’une acception opposée a celle de sa conception! Nous avons vu ou cela a mené... Imposer Tibicen ne peut étre que nuisible a la stabilite de la Nomen- clature. A l’inverse, Lyristes jouit de toute garantie taxonomique. La denomination scientifique révisée: Lyristes pruinosus (Say) pour l’espéce populairement appelee ‘the Dog—day Cicada’ peut, certes, procurer quelque géne, mais celle-ci sera momentanée et chez de rares spécialistes routiniers. La rigueur est a ce prix, elle ne prend pas en compte le confort personnel et temporaire. Quoi qu’il en soit, l’usage du mot Tibicen et de ses dérivés ne bénéficie pas de l’acceptation générale et se trouve en dehors des dispositions de l’article 40 (a) relatif a la conservation des noms. Enfin, je suis contraint de souligner qu’une rectification nominative n’a rien a voir, non plus, avec le nombre d’espéces du taxon visé, c’est évident. A ce propos, je signale a notre collégue que, pour le genre Tibicina (sensu stricto, a type C. haematodes Scop.), l'on connait actuellement non pas 5, mais 14 espéces, révisées (11) ou décrites (3) par mes soins (1972, 1977, 1981, 1983); la méprise de l’estimé morphologiste tient, en partie, dans le méli-mélo di a la conservation de Tibicen, sensu Van Duzee, par Metcalf! (cf. Boulard, 1972, p. 168, notamment). 4) Accepter la suppression de Tibicen (alternative A). Ce serait, pour Mr Hamilton, le recours. Prenons-en acte: en fin d’analyse, supprimer Tibicen est la bonne solution. Appendice: Addenda et Corrigenda Dans ma contribution (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41 (3), pp. 166-179 et 181-184) quelques coquilles, erreurs ou omissions n’ont pu étre corrigées avant la parution. Je le fais ci—aprés: 214 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Errata p. 167, alin. 6, ligne 2, lire:... entrepris des recherches. . . p. 168, note 2 en bas de page, ligne 2, lire:. .. mononymique’, qui parut. . . ibid., note 3 en bas de page, ligne 1, lire:. .. plus ou moins les cymbales; p. 171, alin. 15, derniére ligne, lire: divagatoire. p. 173, alin. 20, ligne 12:. . . affirmations non fondées. p. 174, note 7 en bas de page: supprimer la derniére phrase. p. 176, alin. 28, ligne 2, lire:... un an plus tot... References omises: DISTANT, W. L., 1905, Rhynchotal Notes —X XXIII. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 16, pp. 22-35. KIRKALDY, G. W., 1906. Current notes. The Entomol., vol. 39, pp. 283-287. KOLENATI, F., 1857. Homoptera Latreille, Leach. in: Meletemeta entomologica, Bull. Soc. imp. Naturalistes Moscou, Sec. Biol., vol. 30, pp. 399-429. LATREILLE, P. A., 1802. Cicadaires; Cicadariae. in: Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes (Suite a Buffon, vol. 3, pp. 256-263. 1804. Ibid., vol. 12, pp. 293-337. OSHANIN, V., 1908. Verzeichnis der palaearktischen Hemipteren mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung ihrer Verteilung im Russischen Reiche. II. Homoptera. III. Lieferung. Annuaire Mus. Acad. Zool. imp. Sci., vol. 13, pp. 385-492. (3) By P. Lauterer (Jilova 33, CS—639 00 Brno, Czechoslovakia) In the Cicadoidea the nomenclature of the best-known genera and of the higher categories based on them has for long presented a problem. The existence of the generic names Tibicen Berthold, 1827 (type species Cicada plebeja Scopoli, 1763) and Tibicina Amyot, 1847 (type species Cicada haematodes Scopoli, 1763) caused misunderstandings because the subfamily name TIBICININAE can be derived from each of them. Monsieur Boulard has carefully analysed the various possible | solutions to this problem with ample citations from the literature. | I prefer the solution offered in Alternative A because: (1) it is not hostile to | stability of nomenclature because many specialists currently use the names in this | sense; (2) it removes the misunderstandings that arise from the co-existence of Tibicen and Tibicina and the homonymous family-group names based on them. I believe most specialists in Homoptera will prefer Alternative A. PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF APHELINUS MYTILASPIDIS LE BARON, 1870: REPLY TO AUSTIN ET AL. Z.N.(S)2320 (see vol. 39, pp. 73-76; vol. 40, pp. 70-71) By David Rosen (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Levi Eshkol School of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot 76-100, P.O. Box 12, Israel) I am not convinced by the arguments of Austin et al. I am afraid that their lack of appreciation of the problems of field biologists, typical of many museum Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 215 scientists, would result, if adopted by the Commission, in far more than ‘a slight amount of inconvenience’, or even ‘some initial inconvenience’. The name mytilaspidis has been used in hundreds of biological, ecological and applied biological control papers. Systematists, myself included, would of course not find it difficult to adapt to its replacement by an obsolete name such as albidus. However, numerous field biologists all over the world, who do not read taxonomic papers unless they are forced to do so, would be confused. It would take them years to realise that the enormous amount of practical information on mytilaspidis should now be referred to a/bidus. How on earth would this ‘undoubt- edly stabilise the nomenclature’? What would be gained, except for the upholding of the Principle of Priority? So, it is not out of sentimentality that I favor the junior (100-year-old) synonym in this case. It is only out of my concern for the users of systematic information, and for the respect that they may or may not have for the science and practice of systematics, that I recommend the suppression of albidus in favor of mytilaspidis. In my opinion the careless replacement of well-established names by long-forgotten senior synonyms would only serve to deepen the unfortunate rift between field biologists and some systematists. For the sake of systematics, let us not alienate those who depend on us for a stable nomenclature. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE GENERIC NAME CHROMIS CUVIER, 1814 (OSTEICHTHYES) SHOULD BE MASCULINE. Z.N.(S.)2329 (see vol. 37, pp. 247-255) (1) By Sven O. Kullander (Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm S—104 05, Sweden) I object to the proposal by Bailey and others because I consider it directed against stability of nomenclature and totally unwarranted. The case is of interest to me as a specialist working on South American CICHLIDAE. Most of the genera with names ending in —chromis are in this family. My opinion is based on the following considerations: (1) Emery, 1975, has shown that (a) the gender of the Greek noun chromis is variable, at least in usage; (b) Cuvier treated the generic name Chromis as feminine when he established it, and (c) the gender of generic names ending in —chromis is to be determined from authors’ statements or indications. He pointed out that almost uniform treatment of this name as masculine in the ichthyological literature does not make it necessary to refer the name to the Commission; Chromis is a major genus of the POMACENTRIDAE, where the nomenclature is already confused. I agree with (a), (b) and (c) above and consequently feel that the problem has already been solved by Emery’s 1975 paper, which has guided usage in the matter of the gender of Chromis for nearly ten years. Acceptance of the proposal by Bailey er al. would have a negative effect on stability and cast doubt on the ability of active working taxonomists to take nomenclatural decisions in accordance with the Code. (2) Bailey et al. ask that Chromis be ruled to be masculine in line with preva- lent usage, and that names ending in —chromis be ruled to be masculine because most such names are so treated. They say that unless unity is imposed, authors and 216 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 editors, and such users as ethologists and aquarists will experience difficulty. I do not find these arguments either logical or strong. I agree that it is convenient that all generic names ending in —ops should be masculine, but such names are found throughout the animal kingdom. Chromis and names ending in —chromis are found only in a relatively small number of perciform fishes. The two cases are not comparable and the comparison of them by Bailey et al. is not valid. It would be more straightforward to rule that all generic names must be masculine. (3) Bailey et al. make much of the fact that Papiliochromis Kullander, the only generic name ending in —chromis originally stated to be feminine, is invalid. I cannot accept this, because the alleged senior synonym cited by Bailey et al. is an unavailable name. Furthermore, Papiliochromis contains a species with a feminine adjectival name, P. altispinosa (see Kullander, 1981). (4) Bailey et al. list six valid pomacentrid generic names ending in —chromis. These genera contain nine species between them. Since, according to their list, Chromis has over 50 species, it would be more logical to ask that all these names be feminine, rather than the reverse. The 38 valid genera of cichlids listed by Bailey et a/. with names ending in —chromis are mostly small. Only five of them have more then five species. One hundred and twenty-nine species are involved, but many have patronymic names or nouns in apposition. Moreover, as indicated by Bailey et a/., there is much nomen- clatural shifting in the CICHLIDAE following recent revisions. I find no case for a change in the gender of Chromis. On the other hand, the secondary reports on these revisions offer an excellent opportunity for the publication of a manual of genders of cichlid names, which would be useful to those people that Bailey et a/. think would find difficulties. There are other gender problems in the CICHLIDAE that would make such a manual desirable, apart from the —chromis problem. Examples are: names ending in —acara from Amerindian Acara (masculine), usually treated as feminine; names ending in —cara from Greek cara (neuter), usually treated as feminine; names ending in —odon (masculine), occasionally treated as feminine or neuter. To sum up: (a) Chromis Cuvier, 1814 is feminine under Article 30a(i) (2); (b) Emery’s 1975 paper gives guidance in this matter. It was published in a widely distributed journal (Copeia) and no facts have emerged to show that his conclusions are incorrect; (c) it has not been shown that problems would arise from treating Chromis as feminine and names ending in —chromis as masculine where appropriate. I therefore recommend that the Commission reject proposal 6(1) of Bailey et al. and the relevant part of 6(2). ADDITIONAL REFERENCE KULLANDER, S. O. 1981. The Bolvian (sic) ram; a zoogeographical problem and its taxonomic solution. DCG—Jnf., vol. 12, pp. 61-79. (2) By Alan R. Emery (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada) Bailey et al. have asked the Commission to rule that the gender of Chromis be masculine in spite of their admission that the correct gender under the Code is feminine, as pointed out by Emery, 1975. They also accept that only the name Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 217 Chromis is affected by Emery’s conclusion; the gender of generic names ending in —chromis is determined by the original author’s indications. They also agree that this is so because chromis is of variable gender and thus the gender of any name ending in that word is subject to the arbitrary decision of the author of the name. Only in cases where there is no indication of gender from any included specific name could there be confusion. But that case too is nicely governed by the Code, which provides that such names must be automatically masculine. This happens to be the gender Bailey et al. desire. They also established, with the help of a classical scholar, Dr H. D. Cameron, of the University of Michigan, that chromis may be either masculine or feminine. 2. Emery, 1975, pointed out that others, while accepting the correctness of his conclusions, did not agree with his course of action. 3. The essence of the request by Bailey et al. seems to be pragmatism. Thus, they say ‘... we may anticipate varied use in the future and needless difficulty for authors and editors alike’ and ‘. .. the adjectival accorded to each new species in a genus ending in —chromis will vary with each author’s view’. 4. They defend the view that there will be a dichotomy of gender used by noting the recent description of a cichlid genus, Papiliochromis Kullander, 1977, which the author chose to be feminine; a choice which, under the Code, was his to make. They also point to the fact that Chromis has been variously considered masculine or feminine through the years. Only two of the works they cite post-date Emery, 1975, and both use the masculine gender, as was usual before Emery’s paper. 5. Bailey er al. defend their pragmatic stance by noting the numerous species (probably of the order of 500 or more) that have —chromis in their generic names, and whose endings could thus be affected. They imply that such instability will be an inevitable result of the strict application of the Code. 6. I disagree with that conclusion and believe that the rules of the Code are clear and do not promote instability for the following reasons: (a) The Code states that, for names derived from words of variable gender, the original describer should state or indicate the gender to be used. Thenceforth the gender of that particular name is stable. If the gender is not stated or indicated by the author it is masculine by default. This rule also applies to compound words; thus any —chromis name for which the author did not fix the gender is masculine by default (Article 30a(i) (2)). This is not the case for Chromis: the decision was made by the original describer. (b) It is not necessary to conclude that Kullander, 1977, was influenced by Emery, 1975, in choosing feminine for his new name Papiliochromis. He gives no reason for his choice and may just as easily have been influenced by the gender of the name of its closest relative, Apistogramma [correctly neuter, Ed.] as by Emery’s paper, which he did not cite. Emery specifically stated: ‘Several have worried that if Chromis is changed to feminine it could affect the nomenclature of other groups, such as the cichlids, particularly Hemichromis and Haplochromis, but these fears are unfounded because the gender of each generic name must be considered independently, based on the author’s use. It happens that Hemichromis and Haplochromis remain masculine’. (c) The fact that a generic name has fixed the ending of a specific name in no way makes that ending sacrosanct. If the species is found to belong more properly in another genus, it takes the ending appropriate to the gender of the new generic name. This may be inconvenient for non-taxonomists familiar with the old spelling, but it does not detract from the long-term stability of nomenclature. Bailey et al. chose a particularly unfortunate example in citing Haplochromis ‘with approxi- 218 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 mately 300 species’. This genus has recently been restricted to only five species by Greenwood (1979, p. 317), one of the authors of Bailey. et al. He suggested that the remaining species be transferred to other genera. He recommended transferring one particularly large assemblage from Lake Malawi to Cyrtocara, a genus with a non-masculine name. Thus the genus with the most contentious name (for Bailey et al.) is no longer relevant and all the species they hoped would not have the endings changed are liable to be changed anyway, and perhaps only temporarily. 7. Several criticisms of Emery (1975) by Bailey et a/. can be rebutted: (a) They wrongly claim that Emery regarded Desmarest, 1814, to be non-binominal. He specifically dated Chromis from that work, which he could not have done if he had regarded it as non-binominal. He cited non-binominal uses of Chromis by Browne, 1756 and of Chromis by Lacepéde, 1802. (b) They claim that Cuvier was inconsistent in his treatment of Chromis as feminine. I find no such inconsistencies. In 1814, in Desmarest, he referred seven species to the genus, but only two of their names (both new, and both feminine) are combined with Chromis; the others are combined with the names of the genera (Labrus, Sparus) from which they were transferred. Many species now placed in Chromis were described in Heliases, which is masculine. (c) Emery did indeed note the use of feminine endings in the 1960 and masculine endings in the 1970 editions of Bailey er a/. He refrained from pointing out the inconsistencies in gender endings in the 1960 edition. (d) The spelling ‘Desmarets’ for ‘Desmarest’ was taken from a French work (Hureau & Monod, 1973, p. 424) because I had no access to the original work. ‘Desmarest’ is, of course, correct. 8. The proposal by Bailey er a/., 1980,dealing with an issue where the Code gives a clearly defined answer, can only lead to confusion and to further requests to except nomenclaturally impeccable names from the application of the Code. I there- fore ask the Commission not to use the plenary powers to rule that Chromis and names ending in —chromis are masculine but to let the rules of the Code apply. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It is a pleasure to acknowledge the diligent help of Dr R. Winterbottom in criticizing this manuscript. Part of this study was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Grant to the author. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES BROWNE, P. 1756 (2nd edit. 1759). Civil and natural history of Jamaica. London. DEAN, B. 1916. A bibliography of fishes. Vol. 1, publications by authors A-K. New York, Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. HUREAU, J. C. & MONOD, T., Eds. 1973. CLOFNAM I, vol. 1. Checklist of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Paris (Unesco), 683 pp. LACEPEDE, G. B. 1802. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3. Paris, Plassan. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 219 COMMENT ON THE REVISED PROPOSALS FOR STABILISATION OF THE NAMES OF CERTAIN GENERA AND SPECIES OF HOLOTHUROIDEA Z.N.(S.)1782 (see vol. 39, pp. 29-35) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, RA 2300 Leiden, Netherlands) Parts (1), (2) and (3): In the cases Acolpos Brandt, 1835 vs. Thymoscia Pearson, 1914; Trepang Jaeger, 1833 vs. Halodeima Pearson, 1914; and Gymnochirota Brandt, 1835 vs. Semperothuria Deichmann, 1958, one wonders if it is really worth while using the plenary powers to save the junior of these pairs, all of which, if I understand the application correctly, are only in use as subgenera. Also the advantage of being able to use names as old as 1835 instead of those published in 1914 and 1958 seems quite great to me. If, however, usage is such that the strict adherence to the Principle of Priority would make chaos, I would favour the course by which the junior name is given precedence over the senior, rather than suppress the senior name outright. Part (4) Oncinolabes: | am not greatly impressed by the arguments in favour of suppressing the specific name mollis Brandt, 1835. In the last 52 years its junior synonym has only been used 6 times (and 3 of these by the same author). Would it not be much simpler to follow the Rules and adopt the name mollis for the species, and not to go to all the rigmarole of having the (evidently) rather insignificant name glabra Semper, 1868, conserved? Part (5) Holothuria aethiops: The same situation as in the previous case exists here, except that there are 10 publications (4 by the same author) in the last 50 years using the junior synonym. Part (6) Holothuria glaberrima: If glaberrima Risso, 1827, is suppressed, then all usages of the name Holothuria glaberrima prior to the establishment of Holothuria glaberrima Selenka, 1867 should also be suppressed. The date of Risso’s name is September 1827 (see Sherborn, Index Anim. 1800-1850, vol. 1, p. cviii; and Monod & Hureau, 1977, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Nice, vol. 5, p. 161). I am not convinced, in any of these 6 cases, that a consistent application of the Principle of Priority is not the simplest, shortest and best way out of the problems. COMMENTS ON THE REPORT ON GLYPHIPTERIX HUBNER, [1825] Z.N(S.)2115 (see vol. 41, pp. 250-253) By J. D. Bradley (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London, U.K.) and K. Sattler (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) In his recent report on Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825], the Secretary of the Commission submitted a revised proposal for consideration by the Commission. His proposal hinges on the assumption that Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827, is an emendation of Glyphipterix Hibner, [1825]; this assumption is demonstrably false. The Secretary’s report asserts that in 1827 Curtis knew Hiibner’s works when establishing the name Glyphipteryx, but this is not entirely correct. Curtis was 220 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 certainly aware of Hiibner’s Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge, making fre- quent reference throughout his text to plates and figures in that work. However, in none of Curtis’s folios published before 1835 is there a direct or indirect reference to the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, which is the only work of Hubner relevant to this case. In 1835, that is eight years after the publication of Glyphipteryx, and subsequently, Curtis includes-genera from Hiibner’s Verzeichniss in his synonymies. Moreover, in folio 563, published 1 September 1835, Curtis stated with reference to Cynaeda Hibner, [1825], Verzeichniss, p. 346, ‘I indicated this peculiar insect as a Genus in my Guide, unconscious at that time of Hubner having done so before me...’. The Guide referred to was published in 1829—{1831], and the part relevant to this case appeared in [1831], four years after the publication of Glyphipteryx. In this Guide there is further indirect evidence to show that as late as 1831 Curtis was unaware of the existence of Hubner’s Verzeichniss. Curtis used the term ‘Nobis’ to indicate new taxa as well as emendations; however, in the latter case he invariably cites the emended name as well; for example ‘Argyromiges Nob. — Argyromis Ste.’ (1829, folio 284) or ‘Radiellus Nobis. — radiella Hiib. Schmet.’ (1826, folio 109). No such reference is made under Glyphipteryx. In folio 535 (published 1 February 1835) Curtis accepted the name Harpi- pterix Hubner, [1825], Verzeichniss, p. 407, citing it exclusively (four times) in this spelling. Moreover, he specifically stated ‘I have therefore adopted Hibner’s name of Harpipterix (Scythe—winged)’. The contention that Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825], and Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827, were confused in the past, or are likely to be confused in the future, seems almost irrelevant as these taxa are widely separated in the classification of the Lepidoptera. Similar cases of close orthography exist in generic names elsewhere, and as there is no evidence of confusion in the current literature there is no justification to suppress Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827. In view of these facts we believe that this case is best resolved without recourse to the plenary powers, as outlined in our previous proposal in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, p. 72, which we re-submit in full for reconsideration by the Commission. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY BETWEEN CAECILIIDAE IN AMPHIBIA AND INSECTA (PSOCOPTERA) Z.N.(S.)2333 (see vol. 40, pp. 124-128) By Marvalee H. Wake (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A.) I support the initial proposal offered by R. A. Nussbaum and E. Mockford as published in vol. 40, pp. 124-128. The family names proposed by Nussbaum and Mockford have the utility of simplicity and discrete association with the members they represent. I see Smith & Polhemus’ point about the absence of a nominal genus with the spelling implied by the family name CAECILIONIDAE, but find the arguments about potential problems less than compelling. The arguments for both the formal and vernacular names suggested by Smith & Polhemus pose spelling and pronunci- ation problems, and lack the clarity of association and discrete separation of the Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 221 names proposed by Nussbaum & Mockford. While utility might not be the most impressive argument to nomenclatural purists, I can assure you that it has great appeal to those of us, who, as in this case, are the primary ‘users’ of such a classification. 909) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1328 BELEMNITES MUCRONATUS SCHLOTHEIM, 1813 (COLEOIDEA): CONSERVED AND NEOTYPE DESIGNATED RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name mucronatus Link, 1807, as published in the binomen Belemnites mucronatus, and all other uses prior to its use by Schlotheim, 1813, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) all designations of type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813, are hereby set aside and specimen number kca 5/2 in the collec- tions of the Niedersachsisches Landesamt fiir Bodenforschung, Hanover, BRD, is designated as neotype of that species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Herrmannsen, 1846, Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Name Number 2269); (b) Belemnella Nowak, 1913 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by von Bilow-Trummer, 1920, Belemnites lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Name Number 2270); (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813, as published in the binomen Belemnites mucronatus, and as defined by the neotype desig- nated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (specific name of the type species of Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840) (Name Number 2979) (b) lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813, as published in the binomen Belemnites lanceolatus (specific name of the type species of Belemnella Nowak, 1913) (Name Number 2980). (4) The family name BELEMNITELLIDAE Pavlow, 1914 (type genus Belemitella d’Orbigny, 1840) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 572. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1160 An application for the use of plenary powers to attribute Belemnites mucronatus to Schlotheim, 1813 and to designate a neotype in conformity Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 223 with current usage was first received from Dr J. A. Jeletzky, then of the Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, on 8 September 1956. After a long period of correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 17 December 1963 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 21, pp. 268-302. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin and to the statutory serials, six general and two palaeon- tological serials. The application was supported in general terms by Dr C. W. Wright (London), Mr R. V. Melville (British Embassy, Paris), Professor D. T. Donovan (Hull University, U.K.) and Dr C. L. Forbes (University of Cambridge, U.K.). Alternative proposals concerning the neotype selection were received from Mr N. B. Peake (Norwich, U.K.) & Dr. J. M. Hancock (Kings College, London) and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 22, pp. 343-345. Support for these proposals was received from Mr R. V. Melville and Mr C. J. Wood (Geological Survey and Museum, London, U.K.) and published in Bul. zool. Nom., vol. 23, pp. 70-71. A further comment concerning the proposed neotype was received from Dr D. P. Naidin (Lomonosov University of Moscow, USSR) and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 28, pp. 131-138. A comment by Dr W. K. Christensen (Mineralogisk-Geologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark), Prof. Dr G. Ernst (/nstitut fiir Paldontologie der Freien Universitat Berlin), Prof. Dr F. Schmid (Niedersdchsisches Landesamt fiir Bodenforschung, Hannover, BRD), Dr M. G. Schulz (Geol.-Paldont. Institut der Universitat Kiel, BRD) and Mr C. J. Wood (Institute of Geological Sciences, London, U.K.) offering alter- native proposals to those of Jeletzky and Naidin for the designation of a neotype was published in Geol. Jahrb., vol. A9, pp. 41-45. These were eventually drafted into a revised and updated application by the Secretary and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 141-145. Reasons for the rejection of the two previous proposals by Jeletzky and Naidin are given in the abstract preceding the application on p. 141. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-month rule on Voing Paper (1984)59 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 144-145. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell (in part), Binder Negative Votes — one (1) Dupuis. Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. 224 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: “A much more sensible solution would have been to make the neotype for Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807, as; (1) then Link’s name had not to be suppressed under the plenary powers; (2) the valid specific name for the species would have been 6 years older, and thus less likely to have senior synonyms or senior homonyms; (3) the specific name remains the same; (4) Link’s species is so vaguely described that any neotype material fits it, and as no type material of it is known to exist, the neotype selection could have been done without recourse to the plenary powers. Of Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, on the other hand, we know that it is (at least partly) based on a species different from the one for which the name is used at present and which is represented by the neotype. ‘The procedure adopted now is unnecessarily complicated. How- ever, as it produces the desired solution I vote for it.’ Heppell: ‘I vote for the proposals in this case but believe there should be a small emendation to the wording of paragraph 8(1)b. That used is appropriate only for cases where an existing holotype or lectotype designa- tion is set aside by the Commission in favour of a new lectotype designation from the original type series. In cases of neotype designation it is usually necessary to show that all original material (including in this case the specimen(s) figured by Breynius and Faujas) has been lost or destroyed, and that the neotype is consistent with the original type material (whereas in this case the applicants state that the Breynius figures illustrate a species not even congeneric with Belemnitella mucronata auct.) In this case, therefore, it is obviously necessary not only to set aside the earlier designations of neotype by Jeletzky and by Naidin, but also to set aside all original type material extant or illustrated. For that reason I believe paragraph 8(1)b of the application should have read; ‘to set aside all original type material and all designation of type material hitherto made...’ and that this should be indicated in the published Opinion.’ [This has been done. RVM] ‘As the nominal species B. mucronata is now to be defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers it would seem immaterial whether the name is attributed to Link, 1807, or to Schlotheim, 1813, except to indicate the date of its priority. I would have thought in those circum- stances that the earlier attribution would have been preferable, but if the applicants are content that no other name published between 1807 and 1813 is likely to complicate the issue I am happy to acquiese in what seems to have become general usage.’ Dupuis; ‘Jai pris a la lettre argument selon lequel “stratigraphic nomenclature would be violently disturbed by the transfer of the term ‘“Mucronata zone’ from a Campanian to a Maestrichtian zone’. Pour Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 225 oeuvrer conformément a ce souci, il convenait, me semble-t-il, de se référer a un “topotype” provenant de la localité stratotypique de la zone a mucronata. Barrois, 1876 est cite comme l’auteur de cette “zone”. La requéte, telle qu’elle figure au Bull. 39: 141-145 ne permet cependant pas de juger s'il existe un rapport objectif entre le stratotype (if any) de Barrois et les stratotypes implicites d’Angleterre, de Russie ou d’Allemagne que l’on nous propose, avec autant de candidats néotypes pour mucronata que de nations. Il ne semble pas, au demeurant, que l’on ait recherché des matériaux de Barrois. Aussi longtemps qu’un candidat néotype ne provien- dra pas de la localité stratotypique (vraisemblablement située dans le Bassin anglo-parisien) je resterai sourd a l’argument de “current usage’, mis en avant pour la forme et aussitdt éclipsé par des considérations plus ou moins nationalistes.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Belemnella Nowak, 1913, Bull. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, Ser. B, 1913, pp. 393, 403-405 Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840, Paléontologie francaise, Terr. Crét., vol. 1 (Ceph), p. 59 BELEMNITELLIDAE Pavlow, 1914, Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersbourg, vol. 21(4), p.7 lanceolatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 1813, Leonhard’s Tasch. Min., vol. 7, peek mucronatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 1813, Leonhard’s Tasch. Min., vol. 7, pe 1it. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)59 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1328. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 February 1985 226 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1329 GALAGO CRASSICAUDATUS E. GEOFFROY, 1812 (PRIMATES, GALIGIDAE): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 are hereby set aside and the specimen described by Olson, 1980, is hereby designated as neotype of that species. (2) The specific name crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812, as published in the binomen Galago crassicaudatus. and as defined by reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2981. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2285 An application for the designation of a neotype for Galago crassi- caudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 was first received from Dr T. R. Olsen (now of City University of New York, U.S.A.) on 29 September 1978. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 9 October 1979 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 176-185. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to six general and two specialist serials. The application was supported by W. F. H. Ansell (St. Ives, Cornwall, U.K.). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1984)60 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 181 At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell Negative Votes — two (2) Dupuis, Binder. Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were received from Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their voting papers: Dupuis: La requéte mise aux voix concerne essentiellement des ques- tions taxinomiques. Elle n’apporte que des informations nomenclatoriales insuffisantes (quelles sont les autres espéces et sous-espéces en cause? Quelle est l’espéce-type d’ Otolemur? Quels sont le statut, l’auteur et la date de Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 227 garnettii?). Elle ne donne aucune certitude taxinomique (Pourquoi, en 1951 encore, le specimen de Londres était-il déterminé garnettii? Pourquoi, en 1963 encore, y avait-il des divergences quant a l’identité spécifique du crane de Paris?). Des requérants, fussent-ils docteurs de 1979, peuvent certes estimer leurs avis taxinomiques plus déterminants que ceux de leurs devanciers. Ils doivent cependant, a l’instar de ceux-ci, avant de porter atteinte au statut des types, soumettre leurs éléments d’appréciation aux jugements de la collectivité zoologique sous une forme autre que celle d’une thése plus ou moins microfilmable. En ces conditions, j’estime qu'il n’y a pas matiére a un vote de nomenclature et, a tout le moins, qu’on ne peut pas voter objectivement. Je vote toutefois contre, en considération de deux postulats de méthode et d’éthique: 1) un néotype constitue toujours un faux historique; 2) le BM (NH) posséde assez de types et n’a nul besoin de s’enrichir d’un néotype contestable! Binder: ‘The holotype of Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy is not lost and has been usable since it was established. We cannot start replacing old types just because somebody has a better specimen.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference to a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: crassicaudatus, Galago, E. Geoffroy, 1812, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 19, p. 166. The following is the original reference to the proposition of a neotype for Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812: Olsen, T. R. 1980. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 182-183. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)60 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. 1329. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 February 1985 228 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1330 PRODORYLAIMUS ANDRASSY, 1959 (NEMATODA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED RULING — Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides Altherr, 1968 is designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides Altherr, 1968, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name Number 2271. (3) The specific name Jongicaudatoides Altherr, 1968, as published in the binomen Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides (specific name of the type species of Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name Number 2982. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2129 An application for the use of plenary powers to designate a type species for Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 was first received from Dr P. A. A. Loof (Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen, The Netherlands) on 18 June 1975. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 9 October 1979 and published on 8 May 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 34-36. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and six specialist serials. Comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (in litt.) and together with a reply from Dr Loof was incorporated in V.P. (1984) 7 as an alternative proposal. On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three- month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)7 for either Dr Loof’s or Dr Holthuis’s proposals. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 there were fourteen (14) affirmative votes for Dr Loof’s proposals and nine (9) affirm- ative votes for Dr Holthuis’s proposals. Two (2) Commissioners did not return their voting papers. Thus while Dr Holthuis’s proposals received a minority affirmative vote and may be considered to have been rejected, Dr Loof’s proposals received a majority smaller than two-thirds. A revote was therefore taken on Dr Loof’s proposals alone. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1984)61 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 36. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 229 Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Binder Negative Votes — four (4) received in the following order: Brinck, Mroczkowski, Willink, Kraus. Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis and Savage. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: longicaudatoides, Prodorylaimus, Altherr, 1968, Limnol., vol. 6(2), p. 270 Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959, Acta. zool. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae, vol. 5, p. 196. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)61 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. 1330. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 February 1985 230 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1331 SPHAERIIDAE JEFFREYS, 1862 (1820) (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) AND MICROSPORIDAE REICHARDT, 1976 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 and all subsequent uses of that name are hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Microsporus Kolenati, 1846 (gender: mascu- line), type species, by monotypy, Microsporus obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2272. (3) The specific name obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, as published in the binomen Microsporus obsidianus (specific name of type species of Microsporus Kolenati, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2983. (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) SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (type genus Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777) (Name Number 573); (b) MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (type genus Microsporus Waltl, 1838) (Name Number 574). (5) The generic name Sphaerius Waltl, 1838, 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 2164. (6) The family-group name SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845 (invalid because the name of its type genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 504. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1892 An application for the removal of the homonymy of the family name SPHAERIIDAE in Mollusca and Insecta was first received from Dr Arthur H. Clarke (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa) on 20 June 1969. It was sent to the printer on 26 August 1969 and published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, pp. 235-237. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to seven entomological serials. The application was supported by Mr D. H. Heppell (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, p. 130). On 9 June 1971 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1971)15 for or against the Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 231 proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, pp. 235—236. At the close of the voting period there were fifteen affirmative votes and two negative votes. The latter were accompanied respectively by a comment (from Professor Tortonese) and a set of alternative proposals (from Dr Starobogatov) that caused me to re-examine the case and present a revised version of it in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 60-62 (published on 27 March 1975). Comments were published in vol. 32, pp. 201—204 and vol. 38, pp. 157-161. On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)19 in two parts, one dealing with the Molluscan names and the other with the Coleopteran names. In Part | they were invited to vote either for the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 62, paragraphs (2)(a), (3), (7) and (8), or for those set out in paragraphs (1), (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b) and (5). At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 there were nineteen votes in favour of the first alternative and three in favour of the second. In Part 2 of V.P. (84)19 the members were asked to vote either for the proposals set out in vol. 32, p. 61, paragraphs (1), (2)(b), (4) and (5), or for those in vol. 38, p. 158, paragraphs (a) to (d). At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 there were ten votes in favour of each alternative. The result of this vote was to decide the issue of the generic names involved, on which the Secretary and Dr Starobogatov had differing views, but not to resolve Dr Clarke’s original problems of the homonymous family names. The decision so taken was published as Direction 117 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 42, pp. 43-45). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)63 either for the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 203 and on p. 62, para- graphs (2)(a), (2)(b), (4) and (5) or for those set out in vol. 38, p. 158, paras (a)(d). At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: For the first alternative; — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Binder For the second alternative—four (4) received in the following order: Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin. Lehtinen returned a late vote for the second alternative. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Dupuis and Savage. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 204 232 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Microsporus Kolenati, 1846, Melet. entomol. vol. 5, p. 64 obsidianus, Microsporus, Kolenati, 1846, Melet. entomol. vol. 5, p. 64 SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845, Naturges. Ins. Deutschland, Abth. 1, vol. 3, p. 38 SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820), British Conchology vol. 1, p. 1 (Under Article 40b this name takes the date in parentheses of Cycladia Rafinesque, 1820, Ann. gén. Sci. phys. vol. 5, p. 318) Sphaerius Waltl, 1838, Isis (Oken), 1838, column 272. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)63 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 Iaternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1331. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 Februay 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 233 OPINION 1332 CALAMOECIA AUSTRALICA SARS, 1908 AND CALAMOECIA AUSTRALIS (SEARLE, 1911) (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA): PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE CONFUSION REJECTED RULING. — (1) The request to use the plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy is hereby refused: (a) australis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella australis; (b) viridis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella viridis. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) australica Sars, 1908 as published in the binomen Calamoecia australica (Name Number 2984); (b) australis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella australis (Name Number 2985). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2242 An application for the use of plenary powers to remove potential confusion between Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and Calamoecia australis (Searle, 1911) was first received from Dr I. A. E. Bayly (then of Department of Zoology, Westfield College, London, now of Monash Univer- sity, Victoria, Australia) on 21 December 1977. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 165-166. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin, to the statutory journals, to seven general and two specialist serials. No comment was received. On 12 March 1984 the Commissioners were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)5 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, p. 166. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 there were 15 affirmative and 8 negative votes and a less than two-thirds majority resulted. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Willink: ‘I don’t see any reason to change one of the names as it seems to me that the two are different enough to keep them’. Mroczkowski: ‘I vote against because the names “australian” (latin: australica) and “southern” (latin: australis) are of different origin and meaning. Moreover, as the specific names australica and australis are not of the same origin and meaning, and are not variable spellings (Art. 58), the danger of confusion is minimal and the whole petition is groundless.’ Hahn: ‘The words australis and australica differ in more than one letter and are easily distinguishable—I cannot see a confusion. If the 234 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Commission would follow the application of Dr Bayly, hundreds of names would have to be suppressed, differing only in -is and -ica, and confusion would certainly follow. Therefore, I strictly vote no.’ Kraus: ‘There is, apparently, sufficient difference between the two congeneric specific names australica and australis. Confusion may be easily prevented by a minimum of attention. Concrete cases of confusion are not mentioned in the application, and it is only referred to in the aspect of “obvious potential for confusion’”’.’ Heppell: ‘No case has been made that the “obvious potential for confusion” would be sufficient for the ICZN to lose any sleep over it. If we can cope with the abundant literature on both Littorina littorea and L. littoralis we can surely cope with Calamoecia australica and C. australis.’ A report on the case was prepared by the Secretary and circulated to the Commissioners at the time of the subsequent revote. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1984)62 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 166. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — one (1) Alvarado Negative Votes—twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder. Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger and Savage. Binder commented: ‘The potential for confusion is not very great. Since the proposition was not accepted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Commission, it shows that the case is not convincing enough to justify an exemption of the rules and it should clearly be rejected.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: australica, Calamoecia, Sars,1908, Arch, math, Naturvidensk., vol. 29(7), p.12 australis, Brunella, Searle, 1911, Victorian Nat., vol. 27, p. 176 NOTE ON THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN THIS CASE Although the proposals to place australica, Calamoecia and expansa, Brunella on the Official List and australis, Brunella and viridis, Brunella on the Official Index were rejected, an entry in the Official List is Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 235 the only way in which the fact can be recorded that the specific names australica Sars, 1908 and australis Searle, 1911 have been considered by the Commission. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)62 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been rejected, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1332. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 February 1985 236 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1333 IPNOPS MURRAYI GUNTHER, 1878 (OSTIECHTHYES): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Lychnoculus Murray, 1877 and the associated specific name mirabilis Murray, 1877, as published in the binomen Lychnoculus mirabilis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Jpnops Giinther, 1878 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, /pnops murrayi Giinther, 1878, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2273: (3) The specific name murrayi Ginther, 1878, as published in the binomen Jpnops murrayi (specific name of the type species of Jpnops Ginther, 1878) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2986. (4) The family-group name IPNOPIDAE Jordan, 1923 (type genus Ipnops Giinther, 1878) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 575. (5) The generic name Lychnoculus Murray, 1877, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2165. (6) The specific name mirabilis, Murray, 1877 as published in the binomen Lychnoculus mirabilis, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1153. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1393 An application for the conservation of both the generic and specific names Jpnops murrayi Giinther, 1878 was first received from Dr G. W. Mead (then of U.S. Department of Interior, Washington D.C.) on 21 October 1958. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 31 January 1962 and published on 10 September 1962 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 19, pp. 295-296. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin, to the statutory serials, to seven general and one specialist serial. No comments were received. Due to the problematical interpretation of Article 23b at that time, the case was never voted upon. In 1981 the case was rewritten and published on 11 March 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 27-28. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin, to the statutory serials, to seven general and four specialist serials. No comments were received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 237 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (84)42 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 28. At the close of the voting period on 13 December the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder Negative Votes — none (0). Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger and Savage. Ride commented: ‘Although no evidence of usage of Jpnops murrayi is given beyond a general statement (Art. 79c), I accept that the Secretary has confirmed the statement and assume that a prima facia case is established’. 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: IPNOPIDAE Jordan, 1923, Stanford Univ. Publ. Biol. Sci., vol. 3, p. 155 Ipnops Gunther, 1878, Ann. mag. Nat. hist., ser. 5, no. 8, 1878, p. 187 Lychnoculus Murray, 1877, Science Lectures for the People, ser. 9, vol. 4, Pp) ia2 mirabilis, Lychnoculus, Murray, 1877, Science Lectures for the People, ser. 9, vol. 4, p. 132 murrayi, Ipnops, Gunther, 1878, Ann. mag. Nat. hist., ser. 5, no. 8, 1878, p. 187. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)42 were cast as set out above, that the proposal 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. 1333. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 February 1985 238 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1334 HARMINIUS FAIRMAIRE, 1851 (COLEOPTERA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genera Harminius Fairmaire, 1851, and Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Athous spiniger Candéze, 1860, is designated as type species of both genera. (2) The generic name Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 (gender: mascu- line), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Athous spiniger Candéze, 1860, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2274. (3) The specific name spiniger Candéze, 1860, as published in the binomen Athous spiniger (specific name of the type species of Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 and Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2987. (4) The generic name Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898 (a junior objec- tive synonym of Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 by reason of the ruling given 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 2166. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2264 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Harminius Fairmaire, 1851, was first received from Dr E. C. Becker (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) on 2 May 1978. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 9 October 1979 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 49-50. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and seven specialist serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1984)34 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 50. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 239 Negative Vote — none (0) Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis; “Would the indication of a neotype for H. castaneus not be simpler? What happens to that species anyway? Or is H. castaneus auct. considered a synonym of H. spiniger?’ This comment was passed on to Dr Becker who pointed out that he was reluctant to select a specimen of spiniger (=castaneus auct.) because this species does not fit Fairmaire’s description which described H. castaneus as an eucnemid, although sub- sequent authors classified it as an elaterid. Dr Becker further explained that he considered H. castaneus Fairmaire a species dubia and that H. castaneus auct. and H. spiniger would be impossible to synonymise due to the omission by most authors using ‘castaneus’ to specify from where their specimens originated. Dr Holthuis replied to these comments by pointing out the limi- tations in making H. spiniger the type of Harminius, as Fairmaire’s descrip- tion of this genus is also unlikely to fit that for the genus Athous for which Dr Becker wants to use it. It was further suggested that the Code should be followed and Harminius and castaneus used for the genus and species for which they were intended or else both considered taxa dubia. Dr Holthuis also noted that by placing H. castaneus as a species dubia it remains a threat to later established names. Finally, it was sug- gested by Dr Holthuis that, as the type locality of H. castaneus Fairmaire is Sicily, authors who recognise two species of Italian Harminius auct. would use H. castaneum auct. for the Southern species (H. spiniger). Dr Becker replied by stating that he did not know of any species from Sicily that would match Fairmaire’s description of H. castaneus. However he was willing to designate a specimen of H. spiniger as neotype if the Commission demanded it, although he felt this would be inconsistent with Article 75d(4). Dr Holthuis intimated that he did not want to force his ideas on Dr Becker and they were only meant as an easier solution to the problem. The present Opinion has therefore been prepared around the original proposals. Mroczkowski: ‘The generic name Harminius was described by Fairmaire one year earlier in November 1851 in Rev. mag. zool. Paris, (2), vol. 3, p. 527-528.’ This has been incorporated into the present Opinion. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 Rev. mag. zool. Paris, (2), vol. 3, p. 527-528. 240 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898, Atti. Soc. Nat. Modena, (3), vol. 16, p. 162 spiniger, Athous, Candéze, 1860, Mem. Soc. r. Sci. Liége, vol. 15, p. 460-461. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)34 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1334. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28 February 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 241 OPINION 1335 NEPA CINEREA LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the first reviser action of Esaki, 1926 is hereby set aside; (b) it is hereby ruled that the specific name cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name rubra Linnaeus, 1758, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) cinerea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa cinerea, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over rubra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa rubra, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2988); (b) rubra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa rubra, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2989). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2144 An application for the use of the plenary powers to conserve the name Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 was first received from Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad) on 4 September 1975. It was sent to the printers on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 38, pp. 138-141. 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 nine entomological serials. No comment was received. On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984) 28 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 140. At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 there were fifteen (15) affirmative votes and (2) negative. During the voting Professor L. B. Holthuis questioned the total suppression of Nepa rubra and recommended the use of the relative precedence procedure. This proposition was put to Dr Kerzhner and he agreed. Accordingly V.P. (1984)28 was re-issued offering the choice of either republishing the case and giving public notice of the revised pro- posals suggested by Professor Holthuis or the more parsimonious alterna- tive of voting directly on the relative precedence procedure, details of which were included in a paper circulated to all Commissioners. This voting paper was despatched on 13 September 1984 but at the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 some Commissioners had voted for both 242 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 alternatives although they were mutually exclusive. This fact was brought to the attention of the Commissioners concerned and their votes adjusted accordingly. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)28 for or against the alternatives described above. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Bayer, Dupuis, Binder Negative Votes — one (1) Heppel. Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Savage, Schuster and Uéno. Heppell commented: ‘If a majority of the Commission has already voted for paragraphs 9(1—3) of the application, the specific name rubra is rejected whatever action any second or subsequent ‘reviser’ may have taken. Paragraph 9(1) is merely stating what is implied in the action requested in paragraph 9(3) and a vote for 9(1) is an automatic consequence of voting for 9(3). It would be impossible to vote against 9(1) but for 9(3). Therefore Holthuis’s objection seems quite groundless and this second vote totally unnecessary. The applicant has shown that rubra is either a synonym of cinerea or a nomen dubium. What possible reason can there be for preserving this name, for its use in the future in any sense can only be contrary to the stability of zoological nomenclature? Let us reserve the use of conditional suppression for those few cases where there is a genuine reason for caution owing to taxonomic uncertainty.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: cinerea, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 440 rubra, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 440. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)28 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 243 taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1335. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 April 1985 244 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1336 FIVE SPECIFIC NAMES PROPOSED AS NEW FOR THE GENUS HETERODERA A. SCHMIDT, 1871 (ASCHELMINTHES, NEMATODA) BY B. A. COOPER, 1955 RULED TO BE AVAILABLE RULING. — (1) The request for the use of plenary powers to conserve Heterodera urticae Mathews, 1970, through the suppression of Heterodera urticae Pogosyan, 1962, is hereby refused. (2) The specific names bifenestra, limonii, methwoldensis, polygoni and urticae as published in the binomina Heterodera bifenestra, Heterodera limonii, Heterodera methwoldensis, Heterodera polygoni and Heterodera urticae in the paper by B. A. Cooper, 1955, ‘A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examination’, pages 269-280, in D. K. McE. Kevan (Ed.) Soil Zoology, Proceedings of the University of Nottingham Second Easter School in Agricultural Science, Butterworth, are hereby ruled available for use in zoological nomenclature and placed on the Official List of Specific Names with the Name Numbers specified: (a) bifenestra Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen Heterodera bifenestra (Name Number 2990); (b) limonii Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen Heterodera limonii (Name Number 2991); (c) methwoldensis Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen Heterodera methwoldensis (Name Number 2992); (d) polygoni Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen Heterodera polygoni (Name Number 2993); (e) urticae Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen Heterodera urticae (Name Number 2994). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2066 An enquiry into the status of five new nematode names was first received from Dr A. R. Stone (Rothamsted Experimental Station, U.K.) on 20 February 1974. The need for a ruling on the availability of these names was identified and a draft application was prepared and subsequently revised, at the request of Dr Stone, to incorporate a request for the use of plenary powers to suppress Heterodera urticae Pogosyan, 1962. The result- ing draft was sent to the printers on 27 August 1974 and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31, pp. 225-227. 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, seven general and one nematological serial. Critical comments questioning the basis on which the names should be ruled unavailable were received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands), Dr W. M. Watts and Dr S. Andersson (DSIR, Auckland, New Zealand and National Swedish Institute Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 245 for Plant Protection, Akarp, Sweden) and Dr R. M. Jeffords (Houston, Texas, U.S.A.) and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 32, p. 100, vol. 32, pp. 207-208 and vol. 33, pp. 69-70 respectively. Support for the proposals was received from Dr J. F. Southey (MAFF, Harpenden, U.K.), Dr H. J. P. Mathews (Ministry of Agriculture, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland, U.K.), Dr R. H. Mulvey (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) and Dr A. M. Golden (USDA, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1978)25 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 226-227. At the close of the voting period on 27 December 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—three (3) received in the following order: Tortonese, Welch, Kraus Negative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Brinck, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Willink, Habe, Binder, Corliss, Heppell, Bayer, Cogger, Nye, Dupuis, Bernardi. Ride was on leave of absence, Sabrosky abstained. No votes were returned by Starobogatov. The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Eisenmann: ‘With some regret, I must agree with those objecting to the application that Cooper’s 1955 names are available under the Code. This view would not preclude rejection of such names by exercising the plenary powers, if an application showed reasons such as maintenance of predominant usage, avoidance of confusion etc.’ Alvarado: ‘I think that the names fulfil the requirements of Article 13a. The comments by L. B. Holthuis seem strong enough to me. In the Code there is a well established point: ‘rules for nomenclatural purposes’. Taxonomy is another question.’ Bayer: ‘I concur fully with the arguments against this proposal raised by Holthuis, Watts & Andersson, and Jeffords.’ Cogger: ‘I agree with the comments made by the application’s opponents, notably those of Jeffords. Recognition of Cooper’s names does not raise a nomenclatural problem but rather a taxonomic one which can be solved by taxonomic specialists using the conventional methods of systematic zoology.’ Heppell: ‘The comments against the proposals demonstrate that Cooper’s specific names are available nomenclaturally, even if they are 246 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 species inquirendae taxonomically. It seems farcical to me that if the Commission rejects this application it is obliged to enter such names on the Official List of Specific Names which is thereby reduced to a mere index of its decisions.’ Kraus: ‘A decision by the Commission is necessary as the question of the availability of Cooper’s names evidently is a source of controversy. I feel that the original author (Cooper) as well as the editor (Kevan) expressly did not have the intention to introduce new names in 1955. There is no necessity to place doubtful names (for species inquirendae) on the Official List,’ Nye: ‘These names published by Cooper in 1955 fulfilled the require- ments of the Code and were thereby established.’ Bernardi: ‘Les noms de Cooper me semblent utilisables au sens du Code.’ Depuis: ‘Ce.vote est conforme a l’avis recueilli auprés de M. Michel Luc, spécialiste en phytonématodes.’ Sabrosky: ‘It seems to me that many of the comments do not cor- rectly consider the real point of the application, indeed the application itself does not do justice to the problem. It is not a question of the importance of the names, of usage, of Pogosyan’s apparent misidentification, of the editor’s note, nor the obvious undesirability of the method. The real point lies in a question of principle. Are such names as those of Cooper to be recognized as available? ‘I concede that if the Cooper (1955) names are considered to be conditional names in the sense of the Code (Art. 17(8) 2nd ed., Art. 15 3rd ed.), then they are available. The fundamental question is whether they are truly conditional names or whether they are merely names used ‘as tempor- ary means of reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature’. This was the fundamental question addressed in my application (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 29, pp. 131-134, 1972) regarding the interpretation of the Code provision ‘names proposed for other than taxonomic use’. (Art. 1 2nd ed.). ‘If Cooper’s names were to be voted available, I maintain that that action would be inconsistent with Art. 1b(6) the provision of which now appears to be consistent with a decision of the International Congress of Zoology. ‘The Bradley Draft, to review the background, gave expression to a Copenhagen Decision (p. 63, para. 114) as Art. 1, Sec. 2; ‘A Latin or latinized designation of an animal shall be assumed to be a name for use in zoological nomenclature unless its author, in publishing it, made it clear that such was not his intention.’ This was further stated in the Bradley Draft Art. 6, Sec. 6a: ‘Extra-nomenclatural names. — If it is clear that a given name was not intended for use in zoological nomenclature, it shall not be available and shall lack status for any nomenclatural purpose.’ The 2nd edition of the Code expressed this concisely — in retrospect too concisely — as ‘names proposed for other than taxonomic use, are excluded’ [from Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 247 zoological nomenclature, Art. 1]. The 3rd edition of the Code has somewhat expanded the expression in an attempt to be more meaningful: ‘as temporary means of reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature’. ‘In all these expressions and in the cases that are involved, obviously there are names involved. Obviously there is some kind of taxonomic use, since names must be intended to separate | from 2, or a from b, etc, but they may not be for ‘formal taxonomic use’. Even vernacular names can have taxonomic use of a sort. Obviously the real question must be the clarity of the author’s statement of his usage of ‘names’. ‘In the case of Cooper’s names, I am convinced that he made it abundantly clear that he was not proposing the names for formal use. (See quotations from Cooper in Sabrosky, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 29, p. 131; unfortunately Stone did not quote Cooper’s most significant sentences). Cooper himself made clear his use of inverted commas; it was not an editorial insertion as Jeffords thought possible (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 33, p. 69). ‘The argument on “conditional names” apparently stems from Secretary Melville’s use of that expression, as quoted by Stone (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31, p. 226.). I consider that incorrect (Cooper said “provisional” and not “conditional”’) and particularly unfortunate because it immediately focused attention (Holthuis and others) on the ‘“‘conditional proposal rule” for names proposed before 1961, Code Article 17(8) 2nd ed.; 15 3rd ed. For example Jeffords (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 33, p. 69), who specifically stated that he had not read Cooper (1955), accepted the argument of Watts & Andersson, who accepted Melville’s statement that Cooper’s names were conditionally proposed. I consider it significant that Jeffords went on to say “it [the Code provision, Art 1 2nd ed., Art. 1b(6) 3rd ed.] should be applied only where an author clearly and explicitly states or demonstrates within a publication that the names are not intended for taxonomic use ...’’. That is exactly what Cooper made clear (cf. quotations in Sabrosky, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 29, p. 131), and I consider that his publication is a typical example of the problem before us. ‘Truly conditional names, on the other hand, even though “pro- visional” in the sense that they are not adopted at the time of first publi- cation, are nevertheless proposed for formal taxonomic use, if and when the taxon for which they are proposed should come to be regarded as distinct. They are not proposed as temporary means of reference. They are intended to be a permanent name, if and when needed, which is quite different from the Cooper and other names cited in my application’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 248 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 bifenestra, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examination in Soil Zoology, Pro- ceedings of the University of Nottingham Second Easter School in Agricultural Science, D. K. McE. Kevan (ed.), Butterworth, London, pp. 275, 278 limonii, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, ibid., pp. 273, 274, 275, 276, 278 methwoldensis, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, ibid., pp. 277, 279 polygoni, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, ibid., pp. 273, 276, 277, 279 urticae, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, ibid., p. 279. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)25 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly rejected 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. 1336. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 249 OPINION 1337 SELKIRKIA COLUMBIA CONWAY MORRIS, 1977 DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF SELKIRKIA WALCOTT, 1911 (PRIAPULIDA) RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 are hereby set aside and Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2275. (3) The specific name columbia Conway Morris, 1977 as published in the binomen Selkirkia columbia (the valid name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Selkirkia Walcott, 1911) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2995. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2171 An enquiry concerning the nomenclature of certain Cambrian fossils was first received from Dr Simon Conway Morris (Department of Geology, University of Cambridge) on 8 March 1976. After a period of correspon- dence a formal application was received on 19 May 1976. After further correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 July 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, pp. 49-50. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to six general and two palaeontological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1985)1 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 50. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen and Binder. Holthuis commented: ‘The taxonomy of the three species is still very unsettled and uncertain. Furthermore none of the three seem to be of great importance in general, applied or popular science, and are not frequently used. Therefore it seems to me that there is no good reason not to apply the 250 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 rules strictly. From the application it is not clear to what genus Orthotheca major Walcot, 1908 (and its synonym Selkirkia gracilis Walcot, 1911) are to be assigned, otherwise than that it is different from the genus containing S. columbia. Mr Melville (in litt.) informs me that this genus is the true Orthotheca Novak, 1877. In that case Selkirkia would disappear in synonymy and cause no harm. A new generic name then has to be coined for S. columbia. As that species received its specific name columbia very recently (1977), evidently without causing any confusion, why should a new generic name cause so much confusion that the plenary powers of the Commission are needed to avoid that? [This comment resulted in prolonged correspondence, via the Secretary, between Dr Holthuis and the applicant. This eventually resulted in Dr Holthuis changing his vote to ‘for’. RVM]. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: columbia, Selkirkia, Conway Morris, 1977, Special Pap. Palaeontology, No. 20, p33 Selkirkia Walcott, 1911, Smithson. misc. Collns., vol. 57(5), p. 120. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)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. 1337. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 251 OPINION 1338 THRIPS RUFUS HALIDAY, 1836 (INSECTA, THYSANOPTERA); CONSERVED FOR THE TYPE SPECIES OF APTINOTHRIPS HALIDAY, 1836 RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) The specific name rufus Haliday, 1836, as published in the binomen Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa [sic] is hereby exempted from the application of the Principle of Homonymy and of Article 49: (b) All type designations hitherto made for the nominal species Thrips ( Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836, are hereby set aside and a specimen in the Haliday Collection, National Museum of Ireland, Dublin with the slide data, ‘Haliday/Haliday Collection/N.M.I. 20.2.82’, is hereby designated as neotype of that species; (c) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal taxon Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836, is hereby designated as type species of that taxon; (2) The genus-group name Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in l(c) above, Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2276. (3) The specific name rufus Haliday, 1836, as published in the binomen Thrips ( Aptinothrips) rufa, as conserved under the plenary powers in l(a) above, and as defined by the neotype designation in 1(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2996. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2067 An application for the suppression of Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790 so as to validate 7. rufa Haliday, 1836 was first received from Dr L. A. Mound and Mrs J. M. Palmer (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) on 2 April 1974. A revised draft was sent to the printers on 5 April 1974 and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31, pp. 228-229. 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 six general and seven entomological serials. Support was received from Dr K. O’Neill (USDA, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.). On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1978)26, for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom, vol. 31, pp. 288-289. At the close of the voting period on 27 December 1978 the state of the voting 252 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 was eighteen affirmative and two negative notes with one abstention. No Opinion was issued because of the comments of two members of the Com- mission. The comments were passed to the applicants who responded by drafting a new application which took into account the points raised in the comments. This revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 36-39. 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, six general and nine entomological serials. Comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) questioning the use of the term ‘nomenclaturally valid’. The Secretary (in /itt.) explained that a ‘nomenclaturally valid’ name is an available name that is neither a junior homonym nor a junior objective synonym. Dr Holthuis agreed with the definition but objected to its use until formally adopted by the Commission. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1985)2 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 38-39. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Savage, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride, Schuster Negative — four (4) received in the following order: Holthuis, Lehtinen, Kraus, Cogger. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘I still have to protest about the use of the term ““nomen- claturally valid” of which I still do not know the meaning, and which is neither used in the Code and certainly not in the Glossary.’ Cogger: ‘While sympathetic to the basic proposal to conserve cur- rent usage of the long-standing Thrips rufa (sic) Gmelin, 1790, the solution proposed is both cumbersome and illogical, failing in its stated objective by associating the name with Haliday, 1836 rather than Gmelin, 1790. If “all subsequent [to 1836] authors have used the name rufa in the sense of Haliday but have referred to it as ‘rufa’ Gmelin, 1790”, I fail to see why its proposed association with Haliday, 1836 is less likely to “cause confusion among the many applied workers who use the name” than associating the name with Goeze, 1778! To suggest that the use of Gmelin’s rufa is inap- propriate (despite Article 18) while Haliday’s rufa is not, defies logic. Few modern workers, especially applied ones, are likely to refer to the original Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 253 descriptions. Further, the setting aside of the Principle of Homonymy, implicit in the proposal, is unwarranted and itself likely to lead to unnecess- ary confusion. Consequently I could support only the proposers’ first suggestion, viz. designate a neotype for Thrips rufus Goeze, 1778, utilizing Haliday material.’ Heppell: ‘I object to the terminology used in sections 1a and 3 of the proposals. Why is the expression “nomenclaturally valid” introduced? If this is intended to mean “enabled to be used as a valid name by removal of the known obstacles to the use of the name as a valid name’”’, then we have the term “‘conserved name” (see Code Glossary). A name cannot be ruled to be “‘nomenclaturally” valid without altering the sense of the term “‘valid”’ as defined in the Code, where it is made explicit that a taxon may have only one valid name. I would also point out that “the specific name rufa” cannot in any case be a valid name for a species without contravening Article 5. Furthermore it seems unnecessary to use ‘““combination”’ when binomen is clearly the term intended. The name of the subgenus is not part of the binomen and could be omitted here without loss. ‘I also object to the stipulation “when corrected to rufus’’: this would seem to preclude the possibility of applying Article 34b if the species were for any reason transferred to a genus of feminine gender, as the proposal specifically excludes conservation of the feminine form. The specific name rufa should be placed on the Official List as in the original binomen, despite the incorrect gender assumed for the generic name: this would be in con- formity with the Commission’s precedents, e.g. the specific name vulgare (not vulgaris) was placed on the Official List as published in the binomen Octopus vulgare, even though Octopus is a genus of masculine gender. ‘To avoid this misleading and periphrastic terminology, may I suggest that the Commission, if it accepts the proposals, should rule “that the specific name rufa Haliday, 1836, as published in the binomen Thrips rufa, is conserved for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy”’. From this it surely follows that the name is not preoccupied by Thrips rufa Goeze, 1778, nor threatened by the provisions of Article 49.’ The Secretary replied: ‘The fact seems to have escaped general notice that we use the term “valid” with two distinct meanings: there is the sense of “conserved”, which may, and usually does, involve a factor of subjective synonymy, i.e. a conserved name is deemed to be taxonomically valid, and there is another sense (reflected in Hemming’s use of “validated’’) of “nomenclaturally sound”. I have been discussing this subject with Holthuis and the latest definition we have of a nomenclaturally valid name is that it is an available name that is neither (1) a junior homonym in the family group or the genus group, nor (2) a junior primary homonym in the species group, nor (3) a junior secondary homonym in the species group rejected before 1961, nor (4) a junior objective synonym, nor (5) a name that has been suppressed by the Commission. The great majority of available names fall into this category, and yet there is no place for it in the family tree in the Glossary to the Code. 254 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 ‘A name that fails any of the above tests is nomenclaturally (but not necessarily taxonomically) invalid — “‘objectively invalid” of the family tree — and cannot in any circumstances be used (plenary powers excepted). But a junior subjective synonym may well be nomenclaturally valid and can be used by anyone who does not accept the synonymy. “You propose the term “conserved for the Principle of Homonymy” in your voting paper. I should prefer to retain “‘conserved”’ for cases with a subjective element and say “nomenclaturally validated” here. Until the name has been nomenclaturally validated it cannot be treated as a taxonomically valid name.’ Ride: ‘I see no value in retaining a senior homonym of doubtful application merely on the grounds that it may one day be useful.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present opinion: Aptinothrips, Thrips, Haliday, 1836, Entomol. Mag., vol. 3, p. 445 rufus, Thrips ( Aptinothrips), Haliday, 1836, Entomol. Mag., vol. 3, p. 445. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)2 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1338. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 255 OPINION 1339 PAPILIO FATIMA FABRICIUS, 1793 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): RULED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF HOMONYMY RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name fatima Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Papilio fatima, is hereby ruled to be exempt from the application of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The specific name fatima Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Papilio fatima and as ruled to be exempt from the application of the Principle of Homonymy in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2997. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2351 An application for the conservation of the name Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 was first received from Dr G. Lamas (Museo de Historia Natural, Lima, Peru), Dr A. Aiello (Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama) and the late Dr R. E. Silberglied on 18 June 1980. After considerable correspondence a revised manuscript was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 11 March 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 61-63. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and nine entomological serials. A comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) enquiring into the usage of the senior homonym Papilio fatima Cramer, 1780. This information was duly supplied by the applicants. Dr Holthuis also objected (in Jitt.) to the term ‘nomen- claturally valid’ on the grounds that the Commission had not yet formally adopted it. The Secretary pointed out that the term was meant as a simple expression for what the Commission does when it removes the nomen- clatural (as distinct from taxonomic) obstacles to the use of a name as a valid name. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)4 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 62. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride, Schuster Negative Votes — none (0). 256 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Halvorsen and Binder returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Holthuis: “The nomenclatural obstacle to the validity of Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 is the presence of the available Papilio fatima Cramer, 1780. If the claim that making Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 nomenclaturally valid is removing the obstacles for this validity, then Papilio fatima Cramer, 1780 should be removed.’ Heppell: ‘I agree with Commissioner Holthuis that the expression “nomenclaturally valid” is otiose, especially as in the new Code ‘“‘conser- vation” has replaced “validation” in the statement of the Commission’s plenary powers [Article 79a]. On the other hand I agree with the Secretary that Papilio fatima Cramer should not be suppressed. Conservation of P. fatima Fabricius for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy suffi- ciently describes the action taken by the Commission. In my comments on the published draft of the new Code I argued for inclusion of “‘suppression for the Principle of Homonymy alone” among the Guiding Principles noted in Article 79b, for use in cases such as the present where stability of usage requires conservation of both primary homonyms. A precedent may be found in Opinion 685 where two specific names originally published as Ammonites laevigatus were both placed on the Official List. I believe both homonyms should be placed on the Official List so the status of each can be made clear. A parallel case is that of Thrips rufus (Opinion 1338)’. Bernardi: ‘Je vote pour, étant donné l’importance de Anartia fatima en systématique évolutive (biosystématique). Je veux noter que cette “tactique” portant sur la suspension du Principe d’ Homonymie ne devrait Etre appliquée qu’ a titre trés exceptionnel: chez les Lépidopteéres il existe de nombreux homonymes primaires décrits dans le genre Papilio désormais placés dans des genres ou des familles différents et leur “‘récupération” par suspension du Principe d’ Homonymie serait une source d’instabilité, méme si application stricte du Principe n’est pas générale ou seulement récente.’ Ride: ‘I support Holthuis in wishing to avoid the term ‘‘nomen- claturally valid”. ““Valid”’ is defined in the Glossary of the Code in such a way as would extend the Opinion to cover matters that the application does not seek — namely that fatima would become valid in all circumstances, including taxonomic. I consider that we should be specific in a decision and suggest we “declare that Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 and Papilio fatima Cramer, 1780 are exempt from the operation of the Principle of c)- 1m Homonymy, i.e. they are not homonyms”. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fatima, Papilio, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst., vol. 3(1), p. 81. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 251) CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)4 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1339. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 May 1985 258 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1340 ATTUS OTIOSUS HENTZ, 1846 (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name pulcher Walckenaer, 1837, as published in the binomen Attus pulcher, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the species-group names pulcher pallida Walckenaer, 1837, and peregrinus Walckenaer, 1837, as published in the trinomen Attus pulcher pallida and the binomen Attus peregrinus, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The specific name otiosus Hentz, 1846, as published in the binomen Aftus otiosus is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names with the Name Number 2998. (3) the specific and subspecific names pulcher Walckenaer, 1837, pulcher pallida Walckenaer, 1837, and peregrinus Walckenaer, 1837 as published in the combinations Attus pulcher, Attus pulcher pallida and Attus peregrinus and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) and (1)(b) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 1154, 1155 and 1156 respectively. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2355 An application for the conservation of Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 was first received from Dr G. B. Edwards (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, U.S.A.) on 17 July 1980. After some correspon- dence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 64-66. Public notice of the poss- ible use of the plenary powers in the case were given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and three arachnological serials. Support for the case was received from Dr Bruce Cutler (Minnesota, U.S.A.) and was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, p. 19. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)5 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 65. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: el Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 259 Affirmative Votes— twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Heppell, Bernardi, Ride Negative Votes — two (2) received in the following order: Cogger, Dupuis. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘On p. 65 of the application, in para. 4(1)(b) line 1 the words “specific names”’ should be read either as “specific and subspecific names” (as in para. 4(3), line 1) or as “‘species-group names’. Under the present wording pallida will not be suppressed.’ [This point was acknowledged by the Secretary and corrected in the present ruling]. Cogger: ‘Neither the original proposal nor Dr Cutler’s supportive comments convince me that the application of the Principle of Priority would cause such inconvenience as to justify the use of the plenary powers to suppress three species-group names.’ Ride: ‘Relative frequency of usage alone is not sufficient to justify the use of the plenary powers. However, despite the fact that the action of Chamberlin & Ivie (1944) occurred before Art. 23b was introduced, the case is so obviously one for which Art. 23(b) was legislated to cover, that I consider the Commission is justified in treating it in that manner.’ Dupuis: ‘L’indubitable filiation des travaux de Abbot (étude pionniére), de Walckenaer (classique de l’arachnologie) et de Chamberlin & Ivie (révision importante) me parait devoir l’emporter sur la considération 99)9 d’usages récents dans des “‘popular books”. 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: otiosus, Attus, Hentz, 1846, Boston J. nat. Hist., vol. 5, p. 356 pallida, pulcher, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837, Histoire naturelle des insectes apteres, Paris, vol. 1, p. 439 peregrinus, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837, ibid., p. 445 pulcher, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837, ibid., p. 439 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)5 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 260 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1340. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 261 OPINION 1341 SIMULIUM AMAZONICUM GOELDI, 1905 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all the original syntypes of Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, whether deposited in the British Museum (Natural History), Naturhistorisches Museum, Bern or elsewhere, and all subse- quent designations of lectotypes from among those syntypes, are hereby set aside; (b) the reared female specimen of Simulium amazonicum, deposited in the British Museum (Natural History) and whose data follows, is hereby designated as neotype. (S. amazonicum Goeldi, female, with associated pulpal pelt. BRAZIL: Amazonas, Bom Lugar, R. Purus. 8°42’S 67°22’W. 22.xi.1977 (A. J. Shelley)). (2) The specific name amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, as published in the binomen Simulium amazonicum, and as defined by the neotype designated in 1(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2999. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2364 An application requesting the designation of a neotype for Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, was first received from Dr A. J. Shelley (Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) on 31 October 1980. A slightly revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 67—70. 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 nine entomological serials. Support for the case was received from Dr R. W. Crosskey (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) and was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 164-165. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)6 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 69. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 262 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride Negative Vote —two (2) received in the following order: Cocks, Starobogatov. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘The request by the applicant “to suppress all the original syntypes” does not sound very nice. The Code, Art. 75, Rec. 75E, talks about to “‘set aside the existing type material’”’; this in my opinion, is much better and does not give the association of poor smashed blackfly types.’ [This point was acknowledged by the Secretary and incorporated into the present ruling]. Cocks: ‘Since syntypes are available, they should not be rejected. Surely nothing would be lost if the filarid-bearing vector species was arbitrarily assumed to be conspecific or otherwise.’ Bernardi: ‘Excellent exemple de l’intérét de la Recommandation 75E. Désormais depuis la nouvelle édition du Code, la “tactique”’ proposée pour cette Simulie en matiére de matériel typique est a encourager’. Dupuis: ‘Dans le cas particulier, je surmonte ma réprobation pour la routine des néotypes car, (1) le choix d’un néotype plus complet — donc meilleur — que d’ordinaire illustre exemplairement l’importance des stades ontogénétiques dans l’identification des Insectes Holométaboles, et (2) la légalisation des types les plus complets me parait aussi utile dans le cas des Simulies que dans celui des Chironomides (ou l’Opinion 1147 —cf. Bull. zool. Nom., 37, 1980, pp. 11-26 —a tranché en faveur de types complets). Je vote donc POUR, mais a condition qu’afin d’étre clairement explicite l’on désigne comme néotype “the complete individual comprising the pupal exuvium together with the emerging female imago’’. Je voterais CONTRE, si lon désignait seulement “the reared female specimen’’, accréditant ainsi, dans la forme, la pratique routiniére de types réduits 4 un stade onto- génétique preféréntiel.’ This comment was passed to the applicant who replied: ‘The proposed neotype in the BM(NH) consists of a pinned female with its pupal pelt in glycerine. It is important to relate the pupal and adult stages in species of the amazonicum group because in some cases, e.g. sanguineum, oyapockense, roraimense, females can only be positively identified when associated with their pupal pelts.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling in the present Opinion: amazonicum, Simulium, Goeldi, 1905, Mems. Mus. paraense Hist. nat. Ethnogr., vol. 4, p. 138. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 263 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion. No. 1341. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 May 1985 264 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1342 DAMALIS PLANICEPS FABRICIUS, 1805 DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF DAMALIS FABRICIUS, 1805 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Damalis Fabricius, 1805 are hereby set aside and Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Damalis Fabricius, 1805 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2277. (3) The specific name planiceps Fabricius, 1805 as published in the binomen Damalis planiceps (specific name of the type species of Damalis Fabricius, 1805) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3000. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2369 An application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of Damalis Fabricius, 1805 was first received from Mr K. G. V. Smith (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr M. Chvala (Charles University, Prague, Czechoslovakia) on 9 January 1981. It was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 71-72. 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, seven general and nine entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)7 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 72. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Ueno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by members of the Com- mission with their voting papers: Brinck: ‘The addition of an abstract of the application is—I think — very much appreciated by the public. Why not have abstracts constantly?’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 265 Heppell: ‘The details of the proposals are not consistent with the abstract. From the latter it is evident that the Commission is requested to validate the type designation of Damalis planiceps by Hull, 1962. It is all designations of type species prior to that act that should be set aside by the Commission’s ruling’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Damalis Fabricius, 1805, Systema Antiliatorum, p. 147 planiceps, Damalis, Fabricius, 1805, ibid., p. 148. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1342. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 May 1985 266 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1343 KINOSTERNON ALAMOSAE BERRY & LEGLER, 1980 AND KINOSTERNON OAXACAE BERRY & IVERSON, 1980 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name alamose Pritchard, 1979, as published in the binomen Kinosternon alamose, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the specific name oaxacae Pritchard, 1979, as published in the binomen Kinosternon oaxacae, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) alamose Pritchard, 1979, as published in the binomen Kinosternon alamose (Name Number 1157); (b) oaxacae Pritchard, 1979, as published in the binomen Kinosternon oaxacae (Name Number 1158). The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) alamosae Berry & Legler, 1980, as published in the binomen Kinosternon alamosae (Name Number 3001); (b) oaxacae Berry & Iverson, 1980, as published in the binomen Kinosternon oaxacae (Name Number 3002). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2339 An application for the conservation of Kinosternon alamosae Berry & Legler, 1980 and K. oaxacae Berry & Iverson, 1980 by the suppression of K. alamose Pritchard, 1979 and K. oaxacae Pritchard, 1979 was first received from Mr P. C. H. Pritchard (Florida Audubon Society, Maitland, U.S.A.) and Mr N. Pronek (7.F.H. Publications, New Jersey, U.S.A.) on 12 March 1980 following correspondence between the applicants, Professor H. M. Smith (University of Colorado, U.S.A.) and the Secretary. A revised draft was sent to the printers on 21 January 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 212-213. 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 herpetological serials. Supportive comments were received from Professor H. M. Smith (University of Colorado, U.S.A.), Dr J. F. Berry (Elmhurst College, Illinois, U.S.A.) and Dr J. B. Iverson (Earlham College, Indiana, U.S.A.). These were recorded in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, p. 71. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 267 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)8 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 213. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen (in part), Willink, Sabrosky, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis Negative Votes—four (4) received in the following order: Trjapitzin, Heppell, Bernardi, Ride. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their voting papers: Lehtinen: ‘Although supporting in principle the suggested use of plenary powers in the case, I see no reason to suppress Kinosternon oaxacae Berry & Iverson, 1979 in Pritchard, 1979. If this name too, will be sup- pressed, the Commission indirectly accepts the principle that the sup- pression of other more or less unintentionally but validly published names attributed to their correct authors, would be desirable by the use of the plenary powers. Parallel cases in other animal groups seem to be frequent, and as such present no threat to the stability of zoological nomenclature. The name of this species, as published by Pritchard, 1979 and cited in the application seems to differ from that of Berry & Iverson, 1980, only by the year of the publication. Nothing will be gained through suppression of an earlier date, especially when the request for suppression of K. oaxacae was not argued by differences in interpretation of this taxon in 1979 and 1980. Characterization of this taxon in Pritchard’s words cannot as such make it attributable to Pritchard, when the authorship of Berry & Iverson has been unequivocally cited.’ Bernardi: ‘Je considére que les noms Kinosternon alamose et K. oaxacae de Pritchard sont des noms disponibles et leur rejet ne me semble pas necessaire’. Ride: ‘While most zoologists will sympathize with Pritchard in this situation, it is a situation that is not uncommon and one that the Com- mission has no power to correct. Application of the normal provisions of the Code do not, in this case, disturb stability, universality or cause confusion, the only conditions under which the Plenary Powers can be used.’ 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: alamose, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979, Encyclopedia of Turtles. Neptune, N.J., T.F.H. Publ., p. 556 268 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 alamosae, Kinosternon, Berry & Legler, 1980, Contr. Sci. nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County no. 325, pp. 1-12 oaxacae, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979, ibid., p. 557 oaxacea, Kinosternon, Berry & Iverson, 1980, J. Herpetol. vol. 14, pp. 313-320. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)8 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1343. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 269 OPINION 1344 MAYORELLA SCHAEFFER, 1926 GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER DACTYLAMOEBA KOROTNEFF, 1880 (RHIZOPODA, AMOEBIDA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the generic name Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the generic name Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Dactylamoeba elongata Korotneff, 1880, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2278); (b) Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Amoeba bigemma Schaeffer, 1918, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2279). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) elongata Korotneff, 1880, as published in the binomen Dactylamoeba elongata (specific name of the type species of Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880) (Name Number 3003); (b) bigemma Schaeffer, 1918, as published in the binomen Amoeba bigemma (specific name of the type species of Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926) (Name Number 3004). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2387 An application for the conservation of Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 was first received from Dr F. C. Page (The Culture Centre of Algae and Protozoa, Cambridge, U.K.) on 21 July 1981. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 January 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 214-217. 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 seven general serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)9 for or against 270 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 215-216. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Ride Negative Votes — five (5) received in the following order: Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their voting papers. Corliss: ‘I have consulted a number of ‘“‘rhizopod”’ specialists; they too are in favour of the proposals.” Bernardi: ‘Je consideré comme “trop complexe”’ le statut proposé pour le nom Dactylamoeba Korotneff, placé éventuellement sur la Liste Officielle des noms génériques mais jouissant pas du principe de priorité.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bigemma, Amoeba, Schaeffer, 1918, Trans. amer. micros. Soc., vol. 94, pp. 80-88 Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, Arch. Zool. exp. gen., vol. 8, p. 470 elongata, Dactylamoeba, Korotneff, 1880, ibid., pp. 469-470 Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926, Taxonomy of the Amebas, p. 56. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)9 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1344. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 271 OPINION 1345 LAOMEDEA FLEXUOSA ALDER, 1857, SERTULARIA VOLUBILIS LINNAEUS, 1758 AND CAMPANULARIA JOHNSTONI ALDER, 1856 DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF LAOMEDEA LAMOUROUx, 1812, CAMPANULARIA LAMARCK, 1816 AND CLYTIA LAMOUROUX, 1812 (COELENTERATA, HYDROIDA) RESPECTIVELY RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 are hereby set aside and the nominal species Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, is hereby designated as type species of that genus; (b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, other than that of Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, by Naumov, 1960 are hereby set aside; (c) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 are hereby set aside and the nominal species Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857 (Name Number 2280); (b) Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation by Naumov, 1960, ratified by use of the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2281); (c) Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above; Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856 (Name Number 2282). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) flexuosa Alder, 1857, as published in the binomen Laomedea flexuosa (specific name of the type species of Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812) (Name Number 3005); (b) volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sertularia volubilis (specific name of the type species of Campanularia Lamarck, 1816) (Name Number 3006); (c) johnstoni Alder, 1856, as published in the binomen Campanularia johnstoni (specific name of the type species of Clytia Lamouroux, 1812) (Name Number 3007). va 4 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2326 An application for the conservation of Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 was first received from Dr P. F. S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), U.K.) on 19 July 1979. After some correspondence a revised draft with a request to vary the type species of Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 was received on 17 July 1980. It was sent to the printer on 14 October 1980 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 38, pp. 208-220. 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 specialist serials. A comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) bringing to attention an earlier type designation for Clytia Lamouroux, 1812. Dr Holthuis also commented on use of the species name hemis- phaerica by Houttuyn, 1770. These comments were passed to the applicant whose reply was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 222-225. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)11 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 216-217. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Ride Negative Votes — one (1) Dupuis. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their voting papers: Brinck: ‘I agree with Dr Cornelius that it is unhappy that the phrase ‘les types de tous les genres’? has been accepted as indicting type-designations.’ Heppell: ‘It does not state on the voting paper whether or not the original proposals are modified by the notes published subsequently. The only point of substance, however, seems to be the date and authorship to be attributed to the designation of Campanularia johnstoni as type species of Clytia. In this case it certainly seems best to let the original proposal stand, and I accordingly vote for all previous designations to be set aside under the plenary powers in order that an unequivocally valid fixation of C. johnstoni as type may be made.’ Ride: ‘Although it does not seem to make any difference to the appli- cation, I think that the author should re-examine his contention (1981, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 273 para. 10) that C. (O.) poterium is the type of Orthopyxis by monotypy. As I understand his statement, two other species were included in the same work (even if on a later page). Page priority in the same work does not confer any priority in date of publication unless the work was published over a range of dates.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 2, Paris, (Verdiére), p. 112 Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Nouv. Bull. sci. Soc. philom. Paris, vol. 3, p. 184 flexuosa, Laomedea, Alder, 1857, Trans. Tyneside Nat. Fld. Cl., vol. 3, p. 122 Johnstoni, Campanularia, Alder, 1856. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2), vol. 18, pp. 359-360 Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, ibid., p. 184 volubilis, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. nat., ed. 10, p. 811. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)11 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1345. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 May 1985 274 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 OPINION 1346 CYTHEREIS DISTINGUENDA NEVIANA, 1928, CYTHERE CRISPATA BRADY, 1868 AND CYTHERE PAVONIA BRADY, 1866 (CRUSTACEA, OSTRACODA): TYPE MATERIAL CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under Article 75h the previously designated neotypes of Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 and Cythere crispata Brady, 1868 by Athersuch & Bonaduce, 1977, Athersuch, 1978 and Athersuch & Whittaker, 1980 respectively, are hereby ruled not to be name-bearing types and the designations of lectotypes for Cythereis distinguenda and Cythere pavonia and of a holotype for Cythere crispata are hereby ratified. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) distinguenda Neviana, 1928 as published in the binomen Cythereis distinguenda and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Athersuch, 1982. (Name Number 3008); (b) pavonia Brady, 1866, as published in the binomen Cythere pavonia and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Athersuch, 1982 (Name Number 3009); (c) crispata Brady, 1868, as published in the binomen Cythere crispata and as interpreted by the holotype identified by Athersuch, 1982 (Name Number 3010). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2392 An enquiry as to the best procedure to be taken regarding the redis- covered type material of Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere crispata Brady, 1868 and C. pavonia Brady, 1866 was first received from Dr J. Athersuch (BP Research Centre, Sunbury-on-Thames, U.K.) on 30 September 1981. After some correspondence a draft application was received on 13 October 1981. This was sent to the printers on 11 May 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 226-227. No plenary powers were involved and no comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)12 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 227. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following | Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 215 order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — one (1) Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their voting papers: Cogger: ‘There is no evidence in Brady’s original description of Cythere crispata (reference to which is annoyingly omitted from the pro- posal) that Brady had before him only a single specimen. Indeed, use of the phrase “‘a re-examination of the specimens” while ambiguous (i.e. it could refer to specimens of Cythere badia), leaves the issue in doubt. Conse- quently without unequivocal reference to a single specimen in the original description, it would be more appropriate to designate the rediscovered type of crispata a lectotype rather than a holotype.’ [This comment was forwarded to the applicant who replied thus: ‘My reason for designating the rediscovered specimen of Cythere crispata Brady as a holotype rather than a lectotype is based on the fairly sound assumption that further specimens of the type series no longer survive. ‘It is known that Brady’s recent Mediterranean material is confined to the Hancock Museum, Newcastle, the BN(NH) London and to the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Scientifiques, Biarritz. A personal search of the collections of the first two institutions failed to recover further examples of this species, and documentary evidence of the collection in Biarritz (see The Ostracodologist 1970, No 16, p. 5) shows that no specimens survive here either.’] Heppell: “The Commission does not have to ratify the designation of lectotypes and holotype as requested in paragraph 2. If the three neotypes are set aside the original types are reinstated.’ Bernardi: ‘Je vote contre parce que: ‘Cas “A” (Cythere oblonga/Urocythereis distinguenda): \a sup- pression du néotype n’est pas utile, puisque ce néotype et l’éventuel lectotype sont conspécifiques et qu’ainsi ce changement de type ne précise aucun probleme taxonomique; le sexe du lectotype éventuel ne pouvant méme pas étre déterminé avec certitude. II est préférable de conserver le néotype comme support du nom. ‘Cas “B” et “C” (Cythere pavonia et Cythere crispata); puisque la création des néotypes est jugée invalide par un des co-auteurs de la désig- nation, ces deux cas relévent de I’Article 75(c) de la nouvelle édition du Code (“Cas exclus”). Ces deux néotypes n’ont donc “pas d’existence”’ et tout auteur est libre de désigner des lectotypes si la série typique est redécouverte, sans intervention de la Commission. ‘L’ensemble des points discutés ici est d’un grand intéret car ils feront “jurisprudence” en matiére d’application des nouvelles dispositions du Code a propos de types. Cela mériterait une discussion générale au cours dun colloque ou autre réunion.’ 276 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: crispata, Cythere, Brady, 1868, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. 2, pl. 14, figs. 14, 15 distinguenda, Cythereis, Neviana, 1928, Memorie Accad. pont. Nouvi Lincei, ser. 2, vol. 11, p. 105 pavonia, Cythere, Brady, 1866, Trans. zool. Soc. Lond., vol. 5(5), pp. 378-379. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)12 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1346. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 June 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 277 OPINION 1347 ANTHALIA SCHOENHERRI ZETTERSTEDT, 1838 DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF ANTHALIA ZETTERSTEDT, 1838 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 are hereby set aside and Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2283. (3) The specific name schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838, as published in the binomen Anthalia schoenherri (specific name of the type species of Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3011. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2380 An application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 was first received from Mr K. G. V. Smith (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London and Dr M. Chvala (Charles University, Prague, Czechoslovakia) on 18 May 1981. It was sent to the printers on 11 May 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 220-221. 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, seven general and nine entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)13 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 221. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. Heppell commented: ‘The details of the proposals are not consistent with the abstract. From the latter it is evident that the Commission is requested to validate the type designation of Anthalia schoenherri by 278 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Melander, 1928. It is all designations of type species prior to that act that should be set aside by the Commission’s ruling.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838, Insecta lapponica, p. 538 schoenherri, Anthalia, Zetterstedt, 1838, ibid., p. 539. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)13 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1347. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 279 OPINION 1348 BOS GAURUS H. SMITH, 1827 (MAMMALIA, ARTIODACTYLA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the species-group name guavera Kerr, 1792 as published in the combination Bos bubalus guavera, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The specific name gaurus H. Smith, 1827, as published in the binomen Bos gaurus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3012. (3) the species-group name guavera Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Bos bubalus guavera 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 1159. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2309 An application for the conservation of Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 was first received from Dr C. P. Groves (Australian National University, Canberra) on 4 July 1979. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 11 May 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 279-280. 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, seven general and four mammalogical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)14 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 279-280. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘The author’s name Knox on the last line of p. 279 of the application (par. 4(3)) evidently is a misprint for Kerr.’ Lehtinen: ‘Point (3) of the printed application includes an obvious but nomenclaturally essential lapsus or printing error. It should read: (3) to 280 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 place the species-group name guavera Kerr, 1792, ... not Knox, 1792.’ [This misprint was noted by the Secretary and is corrected in the present ruling. ] Hahn: ‘Apparently, the name guavera was first used by Pennant, 1781, not by Kerr, 1792 (“‘.. . the description, as is usual with Kerr, is in fact only a paraphrase of Pennant’’). Why then, under (1), is written guavera Kerr, 1792’? [The Secretary pointed out that although the description by Pennant does indeed predate that of Kerr, Pennant uses only a single verna- cular name ‘Guavera’. Kerr’s description was the first to use an available binominal name]. 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: gaurus, Bos, H. Smith, 1827 in Griffith’s Cuvier, Mammals vol. 4, p. 399 guavera, bubalus, Bos, Kerr, 1792, Animal Kingdom, p. 339. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)14 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1348. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 281 OPINION 1349 ANTILOPE DEPRESSICORNIS H. SMITH, 1827 AND ANOA QUARLESI OUWENS, 1910 (MAMMALIA, ARTIODACTYLA): CONSERVED RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the species-group name anoa Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Bos bubalus anoa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Names Numbers specified: (a) depressicornis H. Smith, 1827, as published in the binomen Antilope depressicornis (Name Number 3013); (b) quarlesi Ouwens, 1910, as published in the binomen Anoa quarlesi (Name Number 3014). (3) The species-group name anoa Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Bos bubalus anoa, 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 1160. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2310 An application for conservation of Antilope depressicornis H. Smith, 1827 for the Lowland Anoa and Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 1910 for the Moun- tain Anoa was first received from Dr C. P. Groves (Australian National Museum, Canberra) on 4 July 1979. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 11 May 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 281—282. 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 five mammalogical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)15 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 281-282. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — one (1) Mroczkowski. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 282 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Hahn commented: ‘In this proposal Dr Groves calls the Mountain Anoa “Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 1910”. In Grzimek’s Tierleben it is called ‘“‘Bubalus (Anoa) depressicornis fergusoni (Lydekker, 1905).’” Why is this older name substituted by the younger one (I am not familiar with Beaufortia 1969)?’ [This question was relayed to the applicant who sent a xerox of his paper in Beaufortia which showed that Lydekker’s name was associated with the Lowland Anoa and thus fell as a junior synonym of Bubalus (Anoa) depressicornis (H. Smith 1827)]. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: anoa, bubalus, Bos, Kerr, 1792, Animal Kingdom, p. 239 depressicornis, Antilope, H. Smith, 1827, in Griffith’s Cuvier, Mammals vol. 4, p. 239 quarlesi, Anoa, Ouwens, 1910, Bull. Dép. Agric. Indes néerl., vol. 38, p. 1. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)15 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1349. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 283 OPINION 1350 CONUS ANTIQUUS LAMARCK, 1810 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): NEOTYPE SUPPRESSED RULING —(1) The neotype designation of Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 made by Hall, 1964, Boll. soc. paleont. ital., vol. 3, p. 129 is hereby suppressed. (2) The specific name antiquus Lamarck, 1810, as published in the binomen Conus antiquus and as defined by the lectotype here designated, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3015. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2325 A request for the suppression of the neotype designation of Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 as a result of a rediscovered original specimen was first received from Dr A. J. Kohn (University of Washington, U.S.A.) on 22 October 1979. Due to the financial position of the Commission at the time, the application was not sent to the printers until 11 May 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 283-284. No plenary powers were involved and no comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)16 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 283-284. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Corliss, Ueno, Schuster, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Dupuis Negative Votes — two (2) received in the following order: Bernardi, Ride. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their voting papers: Bernardi: ‘Je ne suis pas persuadé que la ‘“‘procedure” proposée soit utile. Le néotype créé en 1964 par Hall semble remplir parfaitement son rdle de “support du nom”’. Ceci pose, comme pour I’Opinion 1346, un probleme général: faut-il supprimer un néotype simplement parce que la série typique est redécouverte? A mon avis non, si cette activité n’apporte aucune pré- cision taxonomique. Revalider sans raison taxonomique une série typique reléve plus du ‘“‘culte” des types que de la recherche scientifique si un 284 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 néotype existe déja.’ [Article 75h gives the Commission the choice between confirming the neotype or validating the rediscovered type in such cases. Secretary]. Ride: ‘My affirmative vote for a ruling “‘that the neotype .. . is not to be retained as a name-bearing type” (worded to conform with the 3rd Edn. Art. 75h) is conditional upon the Secretary confirming that the locality, horizon, etc., of the rediscovered syntype are sufficient for it to be useful’. [Monsieur B. Meétivier of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris was contacted and asked for information concerning the type locality of the lectotype. Monsieur Meétivier replied to the effect that the type locality was ‘cone du Piémont’. Dr Ride’s vote was thus changed to a negative one]. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference for the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: antiquus, Conus, Lamarck, 1810, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., vol. 15, p. 439. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)16 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. 1350. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 285 OPINION 1351 GALEOPSOM YIA GIRAULT, 1916 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Trichaporus Foerster, 1856 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Euderus columbianus Ashmead, 1888 (Name Number 2284); (b) Encarsia Foerster, 1878 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Encarsia tricolor Foerster, 1878 (Name Number 2285). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) columbianus Ashmead, 1888, as published in the binomen Euderus columbianus (specific name of the type species of Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916) (Name Number 3016); (b) tricolor Foerster, 1878 as published in the binomen Encarsia tricolor (specific name of the type species of Encarsia Foerster, 1878) (Name Number 3017). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers Specified: (a) Trichaporus Foerster, 1856, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 2167); (b) Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Trichaporus (Name Number 2168). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2402 An application for the conservation of Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 was first received from Dr J. LaSalle and Dr P. DeBach (Division of Biologi- cal Control, University of California, U.S.A.) on 14 January 1982. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 25 August 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 297-301. 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, seven general and nine entomological serials. A comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) and published, together with a reply from the authors, in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 73-74. The authors accepted the point raised by Dr Holthuis in point (2) of his comment and this has been incorporated into the present ruling. Support 286 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 for the original proposals was received from Professor D. Rosen (The Hebrew University, Rehovot, Israel). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)17 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 298-299 and as modi- fied in vol. 40, p. 74. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Brinck, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 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: columbianus, Euderus, Ashmead, 1888, Can. Entomol., vol. 20, p. 103 Encarsia Foerster, 1878, Verh. naturf. Ver. preuss. Rheinl., vol. 35, p. 65 Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916, Entomol. News, vol. 27, p. 348 Trichaporus Foerster, 1856, Hymenopterologische Studien, 2 Heft. Chalcididiae und Proctotrupini. Ernst Meer, Aachen, p. 84 Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900, in Smith, J. R., Insects of New Jersey, 27th Annual Report State Board of Agr., Trenton. Supplement, p. 561 tricolor, Encarsia, Foerster, 1878, ibid., p. 66. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)17 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1351. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 287 ___ OPINION 1352 EURHINUS SCHONHERR, i825 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): RULED AS A JUSTIFIED EMENDATION OF EURHIN ILLIGER, 1807 RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) it is hereby ruled that Eurhinus Sch6nherr, 1825 is a justified emendation of Eurhin Illiger, 1807. (b) the generic name Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Eurhinus Mliger, 1807 (gender, masculine) type species, by monotypy, Eurhin cupratus Illiger, 1807 (as amended by Schénherr, 1825 and ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be a justified emendation) (Name Number 2286); (b) Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828 (gender: mas- culine), type species by subsequent designation by Schénherr, 1833, Eurhinus scabrior Kirby, 1819 (Name Number 2287). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) cupratus Illiger, 1807, as published in the binomen Eurhinus cupratus (specific name of the type species of Eurhinus Illiger, 1807) (Name Number 3018) (b) scabrior Kirby, 1819, as published in the binomen Eurhinus scabrior (specific name of the type species of Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828) (Name Number 3019). (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) EURHYNCHINAE (correction of EURHYNCHIDES) Lacordaire, 1863 (type genus Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828) (Name Number 576); (b) EURHININI (correction of EURHINIDES) Lacordaire, 1866 (type genus Eurhinus Illiger, 1807) (Name Number 577). (5) The generic name Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827- as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2169. (6) The generic name Eurhin Illiger, 1807 (ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be an unjustified original spelling) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2170. 288 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2269 An application for a ruling on the homonymous use of family-group names based on Eurhin, Eurhinus and Eurhynchus was first received from Dr E. C. Zimmerman (CS/RO, Canberra, Australia) on 27 June 1978. Due to an unexpected complication at the level of the generic names involved there followed a long period of correspondence between the applicant, the Secretary and Mr R. T. Thompson (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) London). This resulted in the formulation by Mr Thompson of alternative proposals to those of Dr Zimmerman. Both drafts were sent to the printer on 25 August 1982 and published together in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 45-47 (Zimmerman) and pp. 47-52 (Thompson). 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 comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)19 either for the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 46 (Zimmerman) or for those on pp. 50-51 (Thompson). At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — Zimmerman — three (3) received in the follow- ing order: Hahn, Bayer, Cogger Affirmative Votes — Thompson — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Brinck, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Kraus, Heppell, Ride, Schuster A negative vote for both sets of proposals was returned by Dupuis. Late affirmative votes for Mr Thompson were received from Halvorsen and Binder. Lehtinen abstained. No vote was returned by Bernardi. The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their voting papers: Hahn: ‘I think that it is not necessary to change the original spelling of Eurhin and Eurhinus only for the purpose of removing the homonymy. Therefore I vote for the proposal given by Dr Zimmerman. But, as in the case of Scutellum and Scutella, where the Commission has introduced SCUTELLUIDAE, I would prefer to call the name derived from Eurhinus EURHINUIDAE and not EURHINUSIDAE.’ Dupuis: ‘Aucune des solutions proposées n’est satisfaisante, car tous les noms en cause sont essentiellement homonymes (n’en déplaise au Code), d’ou persistance des confusions. I] eut fallu retenir la solution que préconisait déja Latreille d’employer des noms vraiment distincts.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 289 Lehtinen: ‘The choice between the parallel and simultaneously published applications of Zimmerman and Thompson is not the most satisfactory solution for this complex nomenclatural problem. The positive aspects of both applications should be combined to constitute a single application. The information given by Thompson is much more complete than that of Zimmerman, but, on the other hand, it seems also to show that in addition to Zimmerman, at least P. Vaurie, in her wide revisional work, has agreed that in the prevailing nomenclatural mess, the acceptance of the generic names that are valid according to the Code is the best alternative for the basis of names of family group too. ‘Personally, I cannot accept the transfer of the validly published name Eurhinus Kirby, 1819 to be used for another genus by subsequent emendation of both of these names. A mess is a mess, in spite of any majority counts, and in such cases the Code should be followed rather than suggest complex rulings by use of the plenary powers for the generic names. ‘There are various possibilities to solve the more theoretical problem of homonymy of the family-group names. The use of e.g. MACRORHINI instead of EURHININA Or EURHININI in BARIDINAE could be chosen, but I prefer to leave the details of a revised application to specialists of Curculionoidea.’ 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: cupratus, Eurhin, Mliger, 1807, Magazin Insectenk. (Illiger), vol. 6, p. 309 Eurhin Mlliger, 1807, Magazin Insectenk. (Illiger), vol. 6, p. 309 EURHININI Lacordaire, 1866, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléopteéres, vol.7, p. 217, 220 ‘Eurhinus, Mlliger, 1807, ibid., p. 309 EURHYNCHINAE Lacordaire, 1863, ibid., vol. 6, p. 380, 527 Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828, An introduction to entomology, ed. 5, vol. 3, p. 324 Eurhyncus Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s natiirliche Familien des Thierreichs aus dem Franzosischen, p. 74 scabrior, Eurhinus, Kirby, 1819, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. 12(2), p. 428. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)19 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 290 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1352. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 291 OPINION 1353 MYZUS FESTUCAE THEOBALD, 1917 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): CONSERVED RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name festucae Theobald, 1917, as published in the bino- men Myzus festucae, is to be given precedence over the specific name myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the binomen Macrosiphum myrmecophilum, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) festucae Theobald, 1917, as published in the binomen Myzus festucae, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the bino- men Macrosiphum myrmecophilum, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 3020); (b) myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the binomen Macrosiphum myrmecophilum, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over festucae Theobald, 1917, as published in the binomen Myzus festucae, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 3021). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2389 An application for the conservation of Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 was first received from Dr H. L. G. Stroyan (MAFF, Harpenden, U.K.) on 2 September 1981. After some correspondence a draft was sent to the printers on 25 August 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 53-55. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and nine entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)20 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 55. At the close of the Voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes— twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Brinck, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. No vote was returned by Mroczkowski. 292 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Bernardi commented: ‘Je vote pour, mais ne serait-il pas plus simple de placer le nom M. myrmecophilum sur \’Index officiel des noms spécifiques rejetés et invalides en zoologie?’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: festucae, Myzus Theobald, 1917, Entomologist, vol. 50, p. 80 myrmecophilum, Macrosiphum, Theobald, 1916, ibid., vol. 49, p. 49. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)20 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1353. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 May 1985 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 293 BERYTUS FABRICIUS, 1803 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA, BERYTIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CIMEX CLAVIPES FABRICIUS, 1777 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S)2464 By W. R. Dolling (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD, U.K.) The genus Berytus was founded by Fabricius, 1803, pp. 264—265, for two species, Cimex tipularius Linnaeus, 1758 and Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1775. Fabricius ‘indicated’ tipularius as the type species of his new genus by giving an extended description of the genus following the name of this species. This is not now regarded as a valid method of type species desig- nation but Reuter, 1888, p. 546, cited the bibliographic reference to Berytus tipularius of Fabricius, 1803, adding the words ‘ut typus’. On page 548 of the same work, Reuter stated ‘Typus generis Berytus Fabr. (1803) est tipularius L. (Vide supra)’. 2. The genus Neides was founded by Latreille, 1802, p. 246, for the same two species, Cimex tipularius Linnaeus and Cimex clavipes Fabricius. Eight years later, Latreille, 1810, p. 433, validly designated tipularius as the type species of Neides. The two genera were widely regarded as synonymous and the two species as congeneric until Fieber, 1859, monographed the family, placing tipularius in Neides and clavipes in Berytus; this action was - jegitimate at the time as no type species had yet been designated for Berytus. Reuter, 1888, pp. 546-548, attempted to reverse the application of the two generic names as used by Fieber but was not followed by subsequent authors, all of whom agree that clavipes and tipularius are not congeneric; the result of his actions was only to sink Berytus as a synonym of Neides, leaving Berytus sensu Fieber without a name. 3. Mulsant & Rey, 1870, established three new subgenera within Berytus sensu Fieber: Melorus (p. 212, for Neides hirticornis Brullé, 1835, ‘with its synonym Berytus pilicornis Flor, 1862 and probable synonym Berytus trichocerus Scholtz, 1846); Lizinus (p. 212, for Berytus montivagus Meyer-Dur, 1841, with its synonym Berytus rotundatus Flor, 1862, and Berytus signoreti Fieber, 1859) and Xanthocerus (p. 224, for the two new species, /ongicollis and gracilis, and, dubiously, Berytus angustipennis Costa, 1860). No type species have ever been designated for any of these three subgenera; all three have been ignored by all subsequent authors. Xanthocerus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 is preoccupied by Xanthocerus Agassiz, 1845: p. 168, an emendation of Xanthoceros Newman, 1842, in Coleoptera. 4. Kirkaldy, 1900 p. 241, accepted that Berytus was a junior synonym of Neides and established the new genus Berytinus for Berytus sensu Fieber non Fabricius, designating as type species Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1775. This name has been generally accepted by twentieth- 294 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 century authors. Under the provisions of the Code it should fall as a synonym of either Melorus or Lizinus. 5. Stichel, 1957, p. 44, established within Berytinus Kirkaldy the subgenus Berytinellus, citing as type species Berytinus montivagus Meyer- Dir, 1841. This subgenus is a subjective synonym of Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, as it includes all three species-group names eligible for designation as type species of Lizinus. 6. The name of the family BERYTIDAE is based on the generic name Berytus which, being a junior synonym of Neides at present, is not a valid name. Because of this, Southwood & Leston, 1959, pp. 7, 118, changed the name of the family to BERYTINIDAE. Under the provisions of Article 40(a) of the 1961 edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, such changes are to be maintained only if they had won general acceptance before 1961. This criterion obviously could not be satisfied for a name change proposed in 1959, so the family name remains BERYTIDAE based on Berytus, and not BERYTINIDAE, based on Berytinus. 7. The main problem of nomenclature involved is that the well- known Palaearctic genus Berytinus Kirkaldy (= Berytus sensu Fieber non Fabricius) should fall as a synonym of either Melorus or Lizinus, both of which names are completely unfamiliar to entomologists. Berytus Fabricius was legitimately restricted by Fieber, 1859, to clavipes and its allies and became a synonym of Neides Latreille only as a result of Reuter’s (1888) fix- ation of tipularius as the type species of Fabricius’s nominal genus. It is obvious from Reuter’s work that he thought he was simply repeating Fabri- cius’s invalid type designation but under Article 69(a) (iii) Reuter’s action is a valid designation in its own right. Under Recommendation 69B(3) the species selected as type should have been clavipes. A secondary problem is that, if Reuter’s type species designation is allowed to stand, the type genus of the family remains as a junior synonym. There are four possible courses of action, which I outline below; the last three of these require intervention by the Commission. (1) The name Berytinus could be allowed to fall as a synonym of either Lizinus or Melorus. (2) The name Berytinus, type clavipes, could be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The names Lizinus and Melorus could be suppressed and placed on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (4) The name Berytus, type clavipes, could be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and Reuter’s type species designation could be set aside. If course (1) were followed, the current name of the genus would be changed to an unfamiliar one and the type genus of the family would remain a junior synonym. If course (2) were followed, current usage would be preserved, Melorus and Lizinus would remain available for use as names of subgenera and the type genus of the family would remain a junior Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 295 synonym. If course (3) were followed, the same situation would result except that these two names would not be available. If course (4) were followed, current usage would give way to an earlier, legitimate usage of a name familiar as the type genus of the family and Melorus and Lizinus would still be available for use as names of subgenera. 8. Accordingly, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Berytus Fabricius, 1803, and, having done so, to designate Cimex clavipes Fabri- cius, 1775, as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name clavipes Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cimex clavipes (specific name of type species of Berytus, Fabricius, 1803), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Agassiz, L. 1845. Nomenclator zoologicus. Coleoptera. Solothiirn. 170 pp. FABRICIUS, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. Flensburgi & Lipsiae. p. 729. 1803. Systema Rhyngotorum. Brunswick. x+21+314 pp. FreBer, F. X. 1859. Die Familie der Berytideae. Wien. ent. Monatschr., vol. 3, pp. 200-209. KiRKALDY, G. W. 1900. Bibliographical and nomenclatorial notes on the Rhynchota. No. 1. Entomologist, vol. 33, pp. 238-243. LATREILLE, P. A. 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, Vol. 3. Paris, xii+467 pp. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes; avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres, disposés en familles. Paris, 444 pp. MuLsantT, E. & Rey, C. 1870. Histoire naturelle des punaises de France. Coréides, Alydides, Bérytides, Stenocéphalides. Paris, 250 pp. Reuter, O. M. 1888. Revisio synonymica Heteropterorum Palaearcticorum quae descripserunt auctores vetustiores (Linnaeus 1758—Latreille 1806) II. Acta Soc. Sci. fenn., vol. 15, pp. 443-812. SOUTHWOOD, T. R. E. & Leston, D. 1959. Land and water bugs of the British Isles. London. ix + 436 pp. STICHEL, W. 1957. Jilustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen. I. Europa. (Hemiptera-Heteroptera Europae). Vol. 4. Heft 2. Pentatomomorpha Lygaeoidea Piesmidae, Berytidae, Lygaeidae (1). Berlin-Hermsdorf, pp. 33-64. 296 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 THYLACITES GERMAR, 1817; BRACHYDERES SCHONHERR, 1823; CYCLODERES SAHLBERG, 1823; AND CYCLODERES SCHONHERR, 1823 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSAL TO MAINTAIN CURRENT USAGE. Z.N.(S.)2490 By A. T. Howden (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada) Brachyderes and Cycloderes are two distinct genera of weevils placed in two different tribes. The name Thylacites is currently applied to both genera. If Thylacites is suppressed, the most prevalent usage of the names will be stabilised and the family-group name BRACHYDERINAE will agree with its nominate type genus, Brachyderes. 2. Thylacites was established by Germar (1817, p. 341) but no type species was designated from the six valid species names that were included: Curculio incanus (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 385], C. fritillum [Panzer, 1794, p. 19], C. faber [Herbst, 1785, p. 81], C. muricatus [Fabricius, 1792, p. 489], C. hirsutulus (Fabricius, 1792, p. 468], and C. coryli [Fabricius, 1775, p. 148]. In 1819 (p. 205) Samouelle designated ‘Cur. incanus’ as the type species of Thylacites. This type-species designation had been completely overlooked for 94 years when Pierce (1913, p. 411) commented on it. The only authors to adopt this correct application of Thylacites in the 70 years subsequent to Pierce have been Leng (1920, p. 313), Arnett (1960, p. 998, ‘... compiled from the Leng catalog . . .’), Kissinger (1964, p. 28), and O’Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 44); no European authors have done so. 3. Chenu (1860, p. 220) subsequently designated Curculio fritillum Panzer (the second species in the list included by Germar) as the type species of Thylacites Germar. This is the next earliest available type-species designation after Samouelle’s designation of incanus and represents the usual application of the name Thylacites. Curculio incanus L. is usually placed in BRACHYDERINI; Curculio fritillum Panzer is usually placed in TANYMECINI. 4. Recent works using Thylacites in the sense of Chenu are: Des- brochers des Loges (1903: revision), Winkler (1932, p. 1493), Portevin (1935, p. 68), van Emden (1944, p. 570), and Blackwelder (1947, p. 799). 5. Brachyderes was established by Schénherr in 1823 (col. 1140) with ‘Cure. incanus Auctor.’ designated as the type species. Because Samouelle had already designated incanus L. as the type species of Thylacites (para- graph 2 above), Brachyderes is a junior objective synonym of Thylacites. However, Brachyderes continued to be used as a valid name and Curculio incanus L. was specifically cited as its type species by Schénherr (1826, pp. 10, 103), Westwood (1838, p. 35), Thomson (1859, p. 133), Lacordaire (1863, p. 61), and Chenu (1860, p. 220). 6. The Coleopterorum Catalogus (van Emden & van Emden, 1937, pp. 134-142) lists 17 species of Brachyderes, of which one, incanus, is Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 297 widespread throughout Europe and Scandinavia and is now established in North America (A. G. Wheeler, in litt.). Dieckmann (1970, p. 111) has pointed out that an application should be made to the International Commission to conserve the name Brachyderes Schénherr. As mentioned in paragraph 2 above, the use of Brachyderes over its senior synonym Thylacites has been almost unanimous. Notable references in the last 50 years include: van Emden (1944, p. 528), Hoffmann (1950, p. 323; 1963: revision), Endrédi (1960, p. 64), de Viedma (1967, p. 589), Dieckmann (1970, p. 111), van Boven (1972, p. 156), Baitenov (1974, p. 69), Silfverberg (1979, p. 64), and Smreczynski (1981, p. 262). 7. The name Cycloderes was published by both Sahlberg and Schonherr in 1823, each author citing a different type species. Cycloderes Sahlberg could be considered the earlier name if 13 June is accepted as the date of its publication (see (a) below). Cycloderes Schénherr apparently was published in October (see (b) below). (a) The Cycloderes of Sahlberg (1823, p. 21) has ‘Cycloderes catarrhactus Schénherr’ as type species by monotypy. The species is well described and illustrated by Sahlberg, and the spelling is emended in the same work to ‘catarractus’ (loc. cit., p. 83). A note written by Sherborn inside the British Museum copy of Sahlberg 1823 states: ‘This consists of 5 dissertations all read [italics mine] in June 1823; for particulars see Hagen .... Both Hagen (1863, p. 102) and Horn and Schenkling (1928, p. 1035) associate pages 17 to 23 with W. Forssman on 13 June 1823, but it is not clear if these pages were read, submitted, or published on that date. (b) The Cycloderes of Schénherr (1823, col. 1139) was established by listing ‘61. Cycloderes nob. Typ.: Curc. robiniae Herbst.’ The date of publication presumably postdates Schénherr’s introduction which is dated 12 July 1823. Silfverberg (in Jitt.) reasons that part 10 of a journal with monthly issues would have been published in October. Thus, it could be reasoned that Cycloderes Sahlberg was published four months earlier than Schonherr’s Cycloderes and has priority. To fix the genus, the Commission is requested to place Cycloderes Sahlberg on the Official List of Generic Names. 8. Cycloderes Sahlberg and Cycloderes Schénherr are universally considered to be subjective synonyms of each other and of Thylacites, sensu Chenu. Hoffmann (1950, p. 417) erroneously considered Thylacites Germar, 1817 to be a nomen nudum and used Cycloderes Sahlberg as the next available name. This reasoning persisted in Hoffmann’s subsequent papers, in Balachowsky (1963, p. 944), and probably influenced other authors as well. Likewise, the influential Coleopterorum Catalogus nowhere cites Germar, 1817 or Schénherr, 1823. 9. Cycloderes (Sahlberg or Schénherr) is the valid name of this genus of over 100 species and is apparently used more frequently than 298 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Thylacites, sensu Chenu. Recent references using Cycloderes Sahlberg include: Giinther & Zumpt (1933, pp. 23-38), Antoine (1949, pp. 73-132), Hoffmann (1950, see above), Solari (1953, pp. 64-98), Endrédi (1960, p. 82), Baitenov (1974, p. 96), and Kippenberg (1981, p. 274). 10. The family-group name ‘Brachyderides’ was first used by Schonherr (1826, p. 10) but is not valid since Brachyderes was a junior synonym at that time (Code, Article 1le). The family-group name THYLA- CITIDAE was first used by Kirby (1837, p. 207) who included in it only the otiorhynch genus Trachyphloeus. BRACHYDERINAE is much more frequently used than THYLACITINAE. The family-group name BRACHYDERINAE, having won ‘general acceptance’ in the sense of Article 40 of the Code, should therefore also be conserved in conjunction with the conservation of Brachyderes. 11. The type-species designations of the genera may be summarised thus: Thylacites Brachyderes Cycloderes Samouelle, 1819 incanus — — Schonherr, 1823 — incanus robiniae Sahlberg, 1823 —_— — catarractus Chenu, 1860 fritillum — — 12. Insummary, the consequences of the International Commission suppressing Thylacites Germar and THYLACITINAE are, (1) to conserve the almost universal usage of Brachyderes, (2) to conserve the generally accepted family-group name which would agree with the nominal type genus, and (3) to maintain the valid and somewhat more frequently used Cycloderes over the subjectively synonymous Thylacites, sensu Chenu. It would be desirable to have a ruling on the matter before the publication of the Catalog of Coleoptera of North America now in preparation since it will include Brachyderes incanus. 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Thylacites Germar, 1817, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Curculio incanus Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Cycloderes catarractus Sahlberg, 1823; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: : : : Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 299 (a) incanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio incanus (specific name of type species of Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823); (b) catarractus Sahlberg, 1823, as published in the binomen Cycloderes catarractus Sahlberg (specific name of type species of Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823). (4) to place the family-group name BRACHYDERINAE Schonherr, 1826 (type genus Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the family-group name THYLACITINAE Kirby, 1837 (type genus Thylacites Germar, 1817) (invalid because the name of its type genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The problem presented here was discussed with many coleopterists around the world. The opinions expressed by them do not present a con- sensus, and it was my own decision to proceed with this petition as the most effective resolution. In addition to the many helpful discussions, special assistance was received from M. Alonso Zarazaga, Malaga, Spain; H. Sufverberg, Helsinki, Finland; R. T. Thompson, London, England; D. R. Whitehead, Washington, D.C.; and G. Wibmer, Tallahassee, Florida. The contributions of everyone are gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES AnTOINE, M. 1949. Notes d’entomologie marocaine. XLIX. Les Cyclodéres du Maroc. Mém. Mus. nat. Hist. Nat. (N.S.), vol. 28, pp. 73-132. ArRnETT, R. H., Jr. 1960. The beetles of the United States. Washington, D.C. 1112 pp. BaITENOV, M. S. 1974 [Coleoptera: Attelabidae, Curculionidae from Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Illustrated checklist of genera and a species catalogue.] Nauka, Alma-Ata. 285 pp. [in Russian] BALACHOowsKY, A. S. (Ed.) 1963. Entomologie appliquée a !’Agriculture. 1. vol. 2. Paris. 1391 pp. BLACKWELDER, R. E. 1947. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. vol., 185, pp. 765-925. CHENU, J. C. 1860. Encyclopédie d'Histoire naturelle ... Coléoptéres. part 3. Paris. pp. 1-360. DESBROCHERS DES Loces, J. 1903. Monographie des Curculionides d’Europe et des confins de la Méditerranée en Afrique et en Asie, appartenant au genre Thylacites. Le Frelon, vol. 11, pp. 117-190; vol. 12, pp. 1-52. 300 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 DE VIEDMA, M. G. 1967. Revision del género Brachyderes Schonherr, ... Eos, Madrid, vol. 42, pp. 575-596. DIECKMANN, L. 1970. Zur Nomenklatur einiger europdischer Russelkafer— Gattungen. Beitr. Entomol., vol. 20, pp. 111-128. ENnpRODI, S. 1960. Brachyderinae. Curculionidae. Fauna Hungariae, vol. 8, pp. 1-82. Fasriclus, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae. Lipsiae. 832 pp. 1792. Entomologia systematica. vol. 1, part 2. Hafniae. 538 pp. GeRMaAR, E. F. 1817. Magazin Entomol. (Germar), vol. 2, pp. 339-341. GUNTHER, K. & ZumptT, F. 1933. Curculionidae; Tanymecinae. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 131, vol. 27, pp. 1-131. HaGen, H. A. 1863. Bibliotheca entomologica. vol. 2, N-Z. Leipzig. 512 pp. Hersst, J. F. W. 1785. Natursystem aller bekannten in-und auslandischen Insecten.. . Kafer. vol. 1, 310 pp. HOFFMANN, A. 1950. Curculionides. Faune de France. vol. 52, 486 pp. 1963. Révision des Brachydéres paléarctiques. ... Rev. Fr. Entomol., vol. 30, pp. 276-287. ; Horn, W. & SCHENKLING, S. 1928. Index litteraturae entomologicae. vol. 3 pp. 705-1056. KIPPENBERG, H. 1981. 9. Unterfamilie: Tanymecinae. In: FREUDE, H., HARDE, K. and Louss, G. A. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 10. Krefeld. 310 pp. Kirby, W. 1837. The insects. Fauna Boreali- Americana .... IV. Norwich. 326 pp. KIssINGER, D. G. 1964. Curculionidae of America North of Mexico. South Lancaster. 143 pp. LACORDAIRE, T. 1863. Histoire naturelle des insectes .... vol. 6. Paris. 637 pp. | LENG, C. W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, North of Mexico. Mount _ Vernon, New York. 470 pp. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae 1. Editio decima reformata. Holmiae. 823 pp. O'BRIEN, C. W. & Wipmer, G. J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils. Ann Arbor. 382 pp. PANZER, G. W. F. 1794. Faunae insectorum germanicae initia . . ., 18. Niirnberg. PrerCE, W. D. 1913. Miscellaneous contributions... . Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 45, no. 1988. pp. 365-426. PORTEVIN, G. 1935. Polyphaga: Rhynchophora. Histoire naturelle des Coléopteéres de France. vol. 4. Paris. 500 pp. SAHLBERG, C. R. 1823. Periculi entomographici ..., part 2, Aboae, pp. 17-32. SAMOUELLE, G. 1819. The entomologist’s useful compendium .. .. London. 451 pp. SCHONHERR, C. J. 1823. Curculionides. Jsis, Jena, vol. 7, cols. 1132-1146. 1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica . . .. Lipsiae. 338 pp. SILFVERBERG, H. 1979. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Helsinki. 79 pp. SMRECZYNSKI, S. 1981. 8. Unterfamilie: Brachyderinae. In: FREUDE, H., HARDE, K. W. and Louse, G. A. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. vol. 10. Krefeld. 310 pp. SoLaRI, F. 1953. Sulla monografia dei Cycloderes (Thylacites) di Desbrochers .. .. Mem. Soc. entomol. ital., vol. 32, pp. 64-98. THOMSON, C. G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera. vol. 1. Lund. 290 pp. VAN Boven, J. 1972. Oeco-entomologische instructie. Natuurhistorisch Maanbl. vol. 61, pp. 152-159. VAN EMDEN, F. I. 1944. A key to the genera of Brachyderinae of the world. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 11, vol. 11, pp. 503-586. ; > Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 301 VAN EmDEN, M. & vAN Empkn, F. I. 1937. Curculionidae: Brachyderinae 2. Coleop- terorum Catalogus, pars 153, vol. 27, pp. 133-196. WEstTwoop, J. O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. In: An introduction to the modern classification of insects ..... London. 158 pp. Winkter, A. 1932. Catalogus Coleopterorum regionis palaearcticae. vol. 2, F. Rhynchophora. Pars 12. Wien, pp. 1393-1520. 302 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 STENODERMA TOLTECA SAUSSURE, 1860 (MAMMALIA, CHIROPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NEOTYPE AND VALIDATION OF THE REDISCOVERED HOLOTYPE. Z.N.(S.)2466 By L. de Roguin and C. Weber (Department of Mammalogy and Ornithology, Museum of Geneva, Switzerland) The purpose of this application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the neotype of Artibeus toltecus toltecus (Saussure, 1860) designated by Davis, 1969, because of the existence of original type material deposited in the Museum of Geneva (MHNG). 2. Saussure, 1860, p. 427, described and figured a new species of Mexican Chiroptera. He named it Stenoderma tolteca but did not designate ° a type specimen. 3. Davis, 1969, p. 26, noted that no type was designated by Saussure, 1860, and none of the original material appeared to be extant. He designated as neotype a specimen from Mirador, Veracruz province, Mexico, (type locality as restricted by Hershkovitz, 1949) in the collection of the U.S. National Museum, USNM No. 38954/6981. 4. While preparing a new version of the list of type specimens of birds and mammals deposited in the Museum of Geneva, we had our atten- tion drawn by the designation of a neotype of Artibeus toltecus toltecus (Saussure, 1860) in a review by Davis, 1969. This review was overlooked by the author of the first issue of the list of types (Baud, 1977), who mentioned that the holotype of to/teca was deposited in the Museum. 5. Saussure’s holotype consists of skin and skull, MHNG No. 516. 13, adult, sex undetermined. The skin is slightly faded, left wing is broken, the right wing is worn in four places. There is also a 3 cm long stitching on the back. Measurements, in mm, are: forearm, 41.0; thumb, without nail, 4.0; ear, external face, 11.0; nose leaf, 9.3; breadth of interfemoral membrane at the anus, 4.4. All these measurements agree with those of the original description, in spite of a slight shrinking of the skin. The posterior part of the skull is missing, as are the zygomata. The lower mandible is intact. The holotype does not bear any original label, but it was registered in the entry book in August 1860 as Stenoderma tolteca Saussure. 6. The existence in the Museum of Geneva of type material from Mexico described by H. de Saussure was known by some American chirop- terologists. For example, Miller & Allen, 1928, in writing about another species, Myotis californicus mexicanus (Saussure) noted: ‘Type specimen. — The description was based on an alcoholic specimen collected by H. de Saussure. If still in existence it is probably in the Museum of Natural History at Geneva, Switzerland, where most of Saussure’s Mexican material is preserved.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 303 7. Ina review of the genus Leptonycteris, Hoffmeister, 1957, writing about nivalis nivalis (Saussure) noted: ‘Type. — Sex not known to me, No. 515/97. Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, Switzerland, originally skin and skull; now skull only .. .’ It seems clear from the literature that the whereabouts of much of Saussures’s type material was well known. 8. Thus, in compliance with Article 75h of the Code, we refer this rediscovery of the holotype of Stenoderma tolteca to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and request that it: (1) suppress the neotype designation of USNM No. 38954/6981 for Artibeus toltecus toltecus (Saussure, 1860) made by Davis, 1969; (2) place the specific name tolteca Saussure, 1860, as published in the binomen Stenoderma tolteca, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, as defined by the holotype, MHNG No. 516.13. REFERENCES BAUD, F. 1977. Catalogue des types de mammiféres et d’oiseaux du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Genéve. Rev. suisse zool., vol. 84(1), pp. 201-220. AVIS, W. B. 1969. A review of the small fruit bats (genus Artibeus) of Middle America. Southwest. Nat., vol. 14(1), pp. 15-29. HERSHKOVITZ, P. 1949. Mammals of northern Colombia. Preliminary report No. 5: Bats (Chiroptera). Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 99(3246), pp. 429-454. HOFFMEISTER, D. F. 1957. Review of the long-nosed bats of the genus Leptonycteris. J. Mamm., vol. 38(4), pp. 454-461. MILLER, G. S. & ALLEN, G. M. 1928. The American bats of the genera Myotis and Pizonyx. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 144, pp. 1-218. SAUSSURE, H. DE. 1860. Note sur quelques mammiféres du Mexique. Rev. Mag. zool., ser. 2, vol. 12, pp. 428-431. 304 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 NEODORIPPE SERENE & ROMIMOHTARTO, 1969 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2467 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) and Raymond B. Manning (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) This is a simple case of a genus with a misidentified type species, and is referred to the Commission for a decision as prescribed by Article 70b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 2. In the course of a revision of the Indo-West Pacific species for- merly assigned to the brachyuran genus Dorippe Weber, 1795 (Nomencl. entomol. Fabricii, p. 93), Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Mar. Res. Indonesia, no. 9) established several new genera and subgenera. One of these new genera is Neodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 (op. cit, pp. 3, 5, 11), with the type species, by original designation and monotypy, Dorippe astuta Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Entomol. Syst., p. 361). 3. A recent re-examination of the type material of Fabricius’ species of Dorippe in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen and in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie at Leiden showed that the syntypes of Dorippe astuta Fabricius, 1798, do not belong to the species that Serene & Romimohtarto indicated as Neodorippe astuta, but in fact are the species named Dorippoides facchino (Herbst, 1785) (Versuch einer Naturge- schichte der Krabben und Krebse, vol. 1 (6), p. 190) by those authors. Cancer facchino Herbst, 1785, is the type species, by original designation and monotypy, of the subgenus Dorippe (Dorippoides) Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969, pp. 3, 4, 8. If Dorippe astuta is accepted as type species of the genus Neodorippe, that genus and Dorippoides become subjective synonyms. 4. A further examination of Fabricius’ types showed that Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Entomol. Syst., p. 362), belongs to the species that Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 incorrectly identified as Neodorippe astuta. Serene & Romimohtarto, not having seen Fabricius’ types, evidently considered Dorippe callida a species incerta (as had been done by most previous authors) and ignored it in their revision. 5. The genus Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969, therefore, — is clearly based on a misidentified type species, and the Commission should now decide which species should be selected as the legal type species of that genus. Two courses are open to the Commission: (1) to accept Dorippe astuta Fabricius, 1798, as the type species of Neodorippe; or (2) to use their plenary powers and assign Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798, as the type of that genus. 6. Under solution (1) the name WNeodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 would either fall as a synonym of Dorippoides Seréne _ & Romimohtarto, 1969, or replace that name, depending on the action of — A Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 305 the first revisor in this case. A new name would then have to be introduced for the genus containing Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798. 7. Under solution (2) the name Neodorippe can continue to be used in the sense intended by its original authors, and no further action need be taken. 8. In our opinion the second course is definitely to be preferred as it will cause the least disturbance. 9. The family name DORIPPIDAE has already been placed on the Official List of Family Names in Zoology as Name no. 355, in Opinion 688 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. No action concerning that name therefore seems to be called for, were it not that the name on the Official List is incorrectly attributed to De Haan, 1841, while as far as we can make out, the first use of it (as DORIPPINA) was by Macleay, 1838, p. 69. We therefore take this opportunity to request the Commission to correct this error. 10. The following are the concrete proposals that we now submit to the Commission, in which we ask that it: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 and, having done so, to designate Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798, as the type species of that genus; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (a) Dorippoides Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation and monotypy, Cancer facchino Herbst, 1785; (b) Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) callida Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Dorippe callida (specific name of the type species of Neodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969); (b) facchino Herbst, 1785, as published in the binomen Cancer facchino (specific name of the type species Dorippoides Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969); (4) correct the entry under no. 355 on the Official List of Family Names in Zoology to DORIPPIDAE (correction by White, 1847, List Specimens Crustacea British Museum: 53, of DORIPPINA) MacLeay, 1838 (in A. Smith, Illustrations of the Zoology of South Africa (Invertebrata), pp. 1-75, type genus: Dorippe Weber, 1795). 306 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 SAGARTIA LUCIAE VERRILL, 1898 (COELENTERATA, ACTINIARIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE USE OF THE RELATIVE PRECEDENCE PROCEDURE. Z.N.(S.)2363 By Robert W. Seaton (Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, U.S.A.) The validity of the long and widely used specific name /uciae Verrill, 1898, as published in the binomen Sagartia luciae, is threatened by at least two and possibly three prior specific names: pustulata McMurrich, 1887, as published in the binomen Sagartia pustulata; lineata Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Sagartia lineata; and cavernata Bosc, 1802, as published in the binomen Actinia cavernata. From 1898 to 1978 the specific name /uciae Verrill, 1898, has never been employed as a junior synonym of these or any other prior names. Nomenclatural stability will be served best by giving nomenclatural precedence to the specific name J/uciae Verrill, 1898, whenever prior specific names are regarded as denoting the same biological taxon. 2. The intertidal sea anemone currently known as Diadumene (or Haliplanella) luciae is among the most widely distributed and studied of all coelenterates. It might now be the most widely distributed of all intertidal marine invertebrates (Dr L. L. Minasian, personal communication), and at sites where it is present it usually occurs in abundance (e.g. Verrill, 1898; Hargitt, 1912). Under the specific name /uciae it is cited in the primary zoological literature at least 125 times by 76 authors in 56 of the last 82 years, including 29 of the last 32 years, and every year from 1963 to 1980. From 1950 to the present it is documented by the name /uciae in at least 31 publications that are primarily ecological or distributional, in 13 that are primarily taxonomic, and in 34 that are primarily physiological or morphological in emphasis. (Ten of these works use /uciae as a valid name: Carlgren, 1952; Stephenson & Stephenson, 1952; Hedgpeth, 1954; Pax & Muller, 1962; Calder, 1972; Belem & Monteiro, 1977; Dunn & Hand, 1977; Honma & Kitami, 1978; Williams, 1979; Minasian, 1980.) In contrast, the specific name pustulata McMurrich, 1887, appears in two later taxonomic discussions (McMurrich, 1921, p. 737, footnote; Hand, 1956, p. 217), ina key (Parker, 1900, p. 754), and with a question mark in a list (Carlgren, 1949, p. 102). It is never used as a senior synonym of /uciae. The specific name /ineata Verrill, 1869, is cited in five subsequent publications. McMurrich (1921, p. 737), Uchida (1932, p. 73) and Hand (1956, p. 217) remarked that /ineata might be a senior synonym of /uciae, but only recently has lineata been formally proposed or employed as a valid name for the species under consideration (Williams, 1978, p. 17; 1980, p. 84). The specific name cavernata Bosc, 1802, is often cited in the literature, but never as a synonym of luciae. 3. McMurrich, 1921, was unable to decide whether or not the unstriped animals that he had described in 1887 as Sagartia pustulata were Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 307 conspecific with Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898. No type material of pustulata exists (McMurrich, 1921, p. 733). External features aside, Diadumene luciae differs from its congeners primarily by the microstructural characteristics of everted nematocysts from acontia (Hand, 1956) and from catch tentacles (Seaton, unpublished). These characters, as well as the peculiarities of external morphology, texture and coloration attributed to pustulata (McMurrich, 1887, p. 60), exist in certain clones of unstriped Diadumene luciae from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of Florida (Seaton, unpublished). As Hand anticipated (1956, p. 217), re-examination of McMurrich’s pustulata morphotype points to that specific name as a prior synonym of Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898. 4. I concur with Williams, 1978, that the original description of Sagartia lineata (Verrill, 1869, p. 57) is diagnostic of the species described as Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898. This is perhaps the only actiniarian species that in many cases can be identified with reasonable certainty by a color pattern alone: orange intermesenterial stripes (cf. Hand, 1956, p. 218). As Williams noted, Verrill, 1869, in fact described two of the four color ‘races’ recorded by Uchida, 1936, p. 895 (numbers one and four); but the stripes in Uchida’s animals were orange or yellowish white, not red or pink as in Verrill’s animals (1869, p. 57). It seems a minor distinction, yet one wonders why previous authors hesitated to assign validity to lineata. To my know- ledge such red stripes, assuming that they are entirely red and not merely red distally, are uncommon, and also unknown in the literature after 1869 except for a color painting in Gosner, (1979, plate 12). I have seen such red-striped animals once, in a clone from Cameron, Louisiana. 5. Uchida, 1932, p. 71, remarked that along with /ineata three other of Verrill’s 1869 species might be identified with /uciae: Sagartia radiata, Sagartia sp., and Sagartia (?) Napensis [sic]. Uchida concluded that none of these, including /ineata, could be accurately determined from Verrill’s descriptions. With the exception of /ineata, Uchida’s judgement in this regard seems unquestionable. 6. The oldest reasonably certain record of the species under con- sideration might be the ‘Actinia cavernosa Bosc’ of McCrady (1858, p. 275, 3 figs.), an incorrect subsequent spelling of the specific name cavernata Bosc, 1802. The specific name cavernosa is thus unavailable. Nothing in McCrady’s paper demonstrates ‘intent’ to change the spelling in the sense of Article 33b (i) of the third edition of the Code. The identity of Actinia cavernata Bosc, 1802, is uncertain. Although Bosc’s description and illus- tration (second edition, 1830, p. 260, plate 13 fig. 2) indicate similarities to Diadumene luciae (e.g. size, column texture, color pattern, habitat and abundance), like Andres (1881b, pp. 125-127) I recognize in Bosc’s cavernata a stronger resemblance to Aiptasiogeton comatus (= Paractis comata Andres, 1881a) than to any other species. (In his 1883 monograph, Rome edition, pp. 166, 167, 240, Andres changed his mind.) Bosc’s cavernata and McCrady’s cavernosa were both collected in the Carolinas and have previously been considered synonyms (Verrill, 1864, p. 17; 308 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 Andres, 1883, p. 240; McMurrich, 1887, p. 62). Combined, the original descriptions of cavernata and cavernosa could only apply to Diadumene luciae among known Western Atlantic actiniarians, but taxonomic arguments based on such reasoning do not compel assent. 7. A prima facie case (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31 (2), pp. 87-88) exists for suppressing the specific name pustulata McMurrich, 1887, but not for lineata Verrill, 1869. The specific name cavernata Bosc, 1802, cannot be sup- pressed without endorsement of uncertain taxonomic judgements. In view of the well established usage of the specific name /uciae and the confusion that would ensue were any prior name to be substituted for it, it seems appropriate and parsimonious to request conservation under the ‘relative precedence’ procedure. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name /uciae Verrill, 1898, as published in the binomen Sagartia luciae, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific names pustulata McMurrich, 1887, as published in the binomen Sagartia pustulata; lineata Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Sagartia lineata; and cavernata Bosc, 1802, as published in the binomen Actinia cavernata, whenever it and any one of them are treated as synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) luciae Verrill, 1898, as published in the binomen Sagartia luciae, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomen- clatural precedence as ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) pustulata McMurrich, 1887, as published in the binomen Sagartia pustulata; (c) lineata Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Sagartia lineata; (d) cavernata Bosc, 1802, as published in the binomen Actinia cavernata; each with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name /uciae Verrill, 1898, as published in the binomen Sagartia luciae when it is considered a synonym thereof. REFERENCES ANDRES, A. 1881a. Prodromus neopolitanae actiniarum faunae, addito generalis actiniarum bibliographiae catalogo. Mittheil. zool. Stat. Neapel, vol. 2, pp. 305-371. 1881b. Intorno alla scissiparita delle attinie. Mittheil. zool. Stat. Neapel, vol. 2, pp. 305-371. 1883. Le Attinie, Reale Accademia dei Lincei (1882-1883), Rome. (x, +460 pp. Pagination in this Rome edition differs from other Rome (1883) and Leipzig (1884) editions.) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 309 BELEM, M. J. C. & MONTEIRO, D. C. 1977. Contribucaoes ao conhecimento da fauna de cnidairios de Rio de Janeiro. II. Haliplanella luciae (Verrill, 1898), una nova occurencia no Brazil. Univ. fed. Rio de Janeiro, Inst. Biol., Dept. Zool. separate 26, pp. 1-19. BOSC, L. A. G. 1802. Histoire naturelle des vers, contenant leur description et leurs moeurs; avec figures dessinées d’aprés nature, 3 vols., Paris, Déterville. 1830. Histoire naturelle des vers...(second edition, 3 vols.) Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. CALDER, D. R. 1972. Cnidaria of the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. vol. 13 (Suppl), pp. 100-102. CARLGREN, O. 1949. A survey of the Ptychodactiaria, Corallimorpharia, and Actiniaria. K. svenska Vetensk. Hand. (4) vol. 1 (1), pp. 1-121. 1952. Actiniaria from North America. Ark. Zool. (2) vol. 3 (30), pp. 373-390. DUNN, D. F. & HAND, C. 1977. Haliplanella Treadwell, 1943 (Polychaeta): Request for suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Haliplanella Hand, 1955 (Anthozoa). Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 94-97. GOSNER, K. L. 1979. A field guide to the Atlantic seashore, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. HAND, C. 1956. The sea anemones of central California. Part III. The acontiarian anemones. Wasmann J. Biol. vol: 13, (for 1955) pp. 189-251. HARGITT, C. W. 1912. The Anthozoa of the Woods Hole region. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. vol. 32, pp. 223-254. HEDGPETH, J. W. 1954. Anthozoa: The anemones. Fish. Bull. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. vol. 55, pp. 285-290. HONMA, Y. & KITAMI, T. 1978. Fauna and flora in the waters adjacent to the Sado Marine Biological Station, Niigata University. Ann. Rep. Sado mar. Biol. Stn., Niigata Univ. no. 8, pp. 7-81. McCRADY, J. 1858. Instance of incomplete longitudinal fission in Actinia cavernosa Bosc. Proc. Elliott Soc. Sci. Art. vol. 1, pp. 275-278. McMURRICH, J. P. 1887. Notes on Actiniae obtained at Beaufort, N.C. Stud. biol. Lab. Johns Hopkins Univ. vol. 4, pp. 55-63. 1921. Note on the systematic position and distribution of the actinian Sagartia luciae. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (1921), pp. 729-739. MINASIAN, L. L. 1980. The distribution of proliferating cells in an anthozoan polyp, Haliplanella luciae (Actiniaria: Acontiaria), as indicated by 3H-thymidine incorporation. Pp. 415-420. Jn P. Tardent & R. Tardent, eds., Developmental and Cellular Biology of Coelenterates, Elsevier/North-Hol- land Biomedical Press, Amsterdam. PARKER, G. H. 1900. Synopses of North American invertebrates. XIII. The Actiniaria. Amat. Nat. vol. 34, pp. 747-758. PAX, F. & MULLER, I. 1962. Die Anthozoenfauna der Adria. Fauna Flora Adriat. vol. 3, pp. 1-343. STEPHENSON, T. A. & STEPHENSON, A. 1952. Life between tide marks in North America. Part IT. Northern Florida and the Carolinas. J. Ecol. vol. 40, pp. 1-49. UCHIDA, T. 1932. Occurrence in Japan of Diadumene luciae, a remarkable actinian of rapid dispersal. J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido imp. Univ. (6) vol. 2, pp. 69-82. 1936. Influence of the currents upon the distribution of races and frequency of asexual reproduction in the actinian, Diadumene luciae. Zool. Mag., Tokyo, vol. 48, pp. 895-906. 310 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 VERRILL, A. E. 1864. Revision of the polypi of the eastern coast of the United States. Mem. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. vol. 1, pp. 1-45. 1869. Synopsis of the polyps and corals of the North Pacific Exploring Expedition, under Commodore C. Ringgold and Capt. John Rogers, U.S.N., from 1835 to 1856. Collected by Dr Wm. Stimpson, naturalist to the expedition. Part IV. Actiniaria. Essex Inst. (Salem, Mass.) Communs. vol. 6, pp. 51-104. 1898. Descriptions of new American Actinians, with critical notes on other species, I. Am. J. Sci. (4) vol. 6, pp. 493-498. WILLIAMS, R. B. 1978. A comment on the request for suppression of Haliplanella Treadwell (Polychaeta) in favour of Haliplanella Hand (Anthozoa). Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 17-18. 1979. A survey of the littoral anthozoa, with additional notes on some other marine invertebrates of Gower, South Wales. Nature Wales vol. 16, pp. 253-266. 1980. A further note on catch tentacles in sea anemones. Trans. Norfolk Norwich Nat. Soc. vol. 25, pp. 84-86 wD natal ail PE alae y Opinion 1346. Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere crispata «Brady, 1868 and Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 yee cea ‘ Ostracoda) . _ Opinion 1347. Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera) . — 1348. Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 ae ise Artiodactyla) . 4 Ouwens, 1910 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) . : ’ Opinion 1350. Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) . Sp eition 1351. Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . Opinion 1352. Eurhinus Schonherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): a or , “9 fied emendation of Eurhin Illiger, 1807. . . ¥ - Opinion 1353. Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Heminiecs) am New and revived cases Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Berytidae). W. R. Dolling _ Thylacites Germar, 1817; Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823; Cycloderes : Sahlberg, 1823 and Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 Insecta, Coleoptera). A. T. Howden ; Stenoderma tolteca Saussure, 1860 0 (Mammalia, Chiroptera). a “de Roguin and C. Weber ; . :. _ Holthuis and R. B. Manning * jagartia luciae Verrill, 1898 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria). R. Ww. Seaton 274 277 279 281 283 285 287 291 293 296 302 304 306 {ternational Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express preciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British eum (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 DP ade Comments ; On proposed amendment to Article Slc of the Code. B. C. Ratcliffe; J. R. Vockeroth; R. W. Crosskey and others . . Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926. K. G. A. Hamilton: M. Boulard; P. Lauterer : PAPE Be sat Se uk \ Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870 D. Rosen ; Chromis Cuvier, 1814 (Osteichthyes). S. O. Kullander; A R. Emery . HOLOTHUROIDEA. L. B. Holthuis . . 3 ; Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825]. J. D. Bradley & K. Sattler j CAECILIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta. M. H. Wake Opinions Opinion 1328. Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Coleoidea). . Opinion 1329. Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 basins: Galigidae) . . . : Opinion 1330. Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (Nematoda) . ; ; Opinion 1331. SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (Mollusca, Bivalvia) and MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Opinion 1332. Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and Calamoecia australis ; (Searle, 1911) (Crustacea, Copepoda) . . Opinion 1333. Jpnops murrayi Gunther, 1878 (Ostiechthyes) Opinion 1334. Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 (Coleoptera) . Opinion 1335. Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera) ; Opinion 1336. Five specific names proposed for Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 (Aschelminthes, Nematoda) by B. A. Cooper, 1955. . Opinion 1337. Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977 as type species of Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida) Opinion 1338. Thrips rufus Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). Opinion 1339. Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Opinion 1340. Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Arachnida, Araneae) Opinion 1341. Simulium amazonicum Goeldi (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1342. Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera) ‘ Opinion 1343. Kinosternon alamosae Berry & Legler, 1980 and Kinosternon oaxacae, Berry & Iverson, 1980 (Reptilia, Testudines . Opinion 1344. Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 given nomenclatural pre- cedence over Dactylamoeba ceded 1880 (Rhizopoda, | Amoebida). . . oO nS Sd Rae? ee Opinion 1345. ‘baomedea Hace Alder, 1857, Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758 and Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856 © (Coelenterata, Hydroida) . > yes Ble Pea Oa al 6 December, 1985 Volume 42 Part 4 pp. vii—viii, 311-420, T.P., I-VII ISSN 0007-5167 The Bulletin — of Zoological I ora caclatare The Official Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 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. to: CENTRAL SALES FARNHAM ROYAL SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U. K. COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX 7 All rights reserved. No part of this publication maybe duced in any form or by any means, electronically, me ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, withou 7 th prior permission of the copyright owner. Vii . 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. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain). Executive Secretary: Dr. P.K. TUBBS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Secretary-General: Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election ) Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Histoire, 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 (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. 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 Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 7LL, U.K.) (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 Vill 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 Dr. G.C. GRUCHY (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0M8) (15 April 1985) Ichthyology Dr. Z. KABATA (Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K6, Canada) (4 September 1985) Copepoda Dr. F.C. THOMPSON (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (4 September 1985) Diptera Prof. B.S. ZHENG (Department of Vertebrate Taxonomics and Faunistics, Institute of Zoology, 7 Zhongguancun Lu, Haitien, Beijung, China) (4 September 1985) Ichthyology INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. Dr. G.C. Gruchy (Chairman ) Dr. R.H. Hedley, F.1.Biol. Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Dr. L.B. Holthuis Managing Director) Dr. M.K. Howarth Prof. Per Brinck Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. Prof. J.H. Callomon Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. P.F.S. Cornelius Dr. M. Luc Prof. C.B. Cox Dr. R.B. Manning The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, Mr. R.V. Melville Fae See Zs Dr. I.W.B. Nye Mr. D. Curry Dr. E.P.F. Rose, 1D: Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Dr. G.B. White Prof. J. Forest Prof. J.M. Dodd, F.R.S. (Observer for Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. the Royal Society) B. The Officers of the Trust Dr. P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (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. 42, pt 4, December 1985 311 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 42, part 4 (pp. vii—vili, 311—420, T.P., I-VI) 6 December 1985 NOTICES (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. This period is nor- mally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his con- tribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve months of the date of publication of the application. (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 23b and 79b): (1) Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes): proposed designa- tion of Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2434. Amy R. McCune. *(2) Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Cephalopholis sex- maculata (Ruppell, 1830) (Osteichthyes, Serranidae): pro- posed conservation by suppression of Bodianus guttatus Bloch, 1790, Anthias argus, Bloch, 1792 and Serranus zanana Valenciennes, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 2470. J. E. Randall, M. L. Bauchot, A. Ben-Tuvia, & P. C. Heemstra. (3) Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita): proposed designation of Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 1845 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2337. P2D: Lane: (4) Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 (Insecta, Thysanoptera): pro- posed designation of Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2503. D. J. Brothers & L. A. Mound. (5) HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) and HETEROGYNINAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta, Hymenop- tera): proposals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2496. M.C. Day. (6) THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae): pro- posals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2307. P. T. Lehtinen. (7) Drasterius bimaculatus (Rossi, 1790) (Insecta, Coleoptera, Elateridae): proposed conservation by suppression of Elater bimaculatus Fourcroy, 1785. Z.N.(S.) 2345. M. Mroczkowski. 312 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 *(8) Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conser- vation by suppression of Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834. Z.N.(S.) 2453. E. P. Nartshuk & R. RozkoSny. *(9) Musca trilineata Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation by the suppression of Musca graeca Pontop- pidan, 1763. Z.N.(S.) 2454. E. P. Nartshuk & R. Rosko&ny. (10) The family names for the storm petrels and the dippers. Z.N.(S.) 2024. R. V. Melville. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for vol. 42 (3) (published on 30 September 1985) (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23b and 79c): (1) Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2525. K. H. L. Key & N. D. Jago. (2) Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2526. A. Warén. *(3) Heteronota pelagica Girard, 1857 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed designation. Z.N.(S.) 2527. G. R. Zug. (4) Listrocelis pectinata Guérin-Méneville, 1830 (Insecta, Gryllop- tera): proposed acceptance of Phisis Stal, 1861 and Feuthras Stal, 1874 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2528. D. K. Mc. E. Kevan. *(5) Polymastodon taoensis Cope, August 1882 (Mammalia, Multituberculata): proposed conservation and designation as type species of Taeniolabis Cope, July 1882. Z.N.(S.) 2529. M. B. Simmons. (d) Guidelines for applications to the Commission. Intending appli- cants should draw up their applications in line with the Guidelines published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, volume 42, part 1. pages 3-5. Copies of the Guidelines can be obtained from the Executive Secretary. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION Professor E. E. Binder (Switzerland), who was first elected in 1962, and Professor Per Brinck (Sweden), first elected in 1958 and Vice-President since 1977, retired from the Commission on 6 September 1985. Their services were invaluable, and the Commission is most grateful to them. During the XXII General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences in Budapest the Section on Zoological Nomenclature met on 4 September, and made the following elections to the Commission: Dr Zbigniew Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. Christian Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 313 Dr Bao-shan Zheng (China; Ichthyology). The Commission is glad to welcome these new members. ELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT The members of the Commission have elected Professor Dr Raphael Alvarado (Universidad de Madrid) to be Vice-President from 1 November 1985. P.K. TUBBS Executive Secretary November 1985 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE GENERAL MEETING, BUDAPEST, 2-6 SEPTEMBER 1985 Present: W. D. L. Ride (President) in the Chair: Alvarado, Bernardi, Brinck, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell, Lehtinen, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and the Secretary. Tubbs and Smith from the Secretariat also present. (1) Apologies for absence had been received from Bayer, Cocks, Kraus and Willink. (2) The minutes of the previous General Meeting (Ottawa, August 1982) had been published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 40, pp. 7-13. (3) The Agenda was adopted as circulated with the addition of an item for Any Other Business. (4) The Secretary’s report to IUBS had been circulated. There was no discussion. 5 President’s Report The President opened his report by paying tribute to Mr Richard V. Melville who would retire from the post of Secretary of the Commission at the end of the IUBS General Assembly. The President said that Mr Melville’s association with the Commission had begun more than 30 years ago when he played a prominent part in the 1953 Copenhagen Colloquium and the International Congress of Zoology Section on Nomenclature, sub- sequently verifying and seeing through to publication the “Copenhagen Decisions’’. In 1958 Mr Melville was seconded from the Geological Survey and Museum for 18 months as Assistant Secretary of the Commission in order to be Secretary of the London Colloquium and Congress Section on Nomenclature. In 1968 he was elected a member of the Commission and appointed its Secretary. Outstanding amongst his many achievements as Secretary and Editor of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature had been 314 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 the preparation of some 500 Opinions, the handling of the Appeal for Funds to ensure the Commission’s survival and his secretaryship of the Editorial Committee for the 3rd Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The Commission RESOLVED to record in the Minutes the great debt that it and zoologists as a whole owed to Mr Melville. Other points raised in the President’s report and not recorded in other items of the Minutes were: a) Financial Position: A note on the financial position of the Inter- national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature was circulated. The President pointed out that, to avoid bankruptcy and cessation of the Council’s work, it was essential to increase the Trust’s income. He emphasised the urgency of resolving the financial problem by widening the funding-base for the Commission’s work and urged all Commissioners to do their utmost to encourage funding organizations in their own countries to provide long- term support. The President recorded that, in addition to a grant from IUBS, donations had been made by the Royal Society of London and the British research councils; the Australian Academy of Sciences; the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; the Royal Society of New Zealand; the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; and the Academia Sinica, Taiwan. He was particularly pleased to be able to announce that a most welcome donation had also been received from the Soviet Academy of Sciences. [The following resolution was adopted by the [UBS General Assembly: RESOLUTION 4: SUPPORT FOR SYSTEMS OF NOMENCLATURE Recalling the decisions and conclusions of previous General Assemblies on the fundamental and applied importance of taxonomy, including nomenclature and of the need for inter- national support for systems of nomenclature that will secure their continued function, Appreciating the generous support provided in recent years to Zoological Nomenclature by members of IUBS and, in particular, by the Royal Society including the British research councils, the Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the Academia Sinica, Taiwan, Noting with pleasure the donation made by the USSR Academy of Sciences announced at the General Assembly, Commends to all member bodies the importance of developing and providing ongoing support for all systems of biological nomen- clature which provides a fundamental base for communication in biological science.] Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 515 b) 3rd Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature: The 3rd Edition of the Code had been published in February 1985 and more than 3500 of the 5000 copies printed had already been sold. The Trust was negotiating translation rights for a number of languages, particu- larly German, Italian and Spanish. Such translations would facilitate dissemination of the Code and also bring in a useful income to the Trust through royalties. Dr Trjapitzin announced that a Russian translation was being prepared by the USSR Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. He explained that the Commission, now under the Presidency of Professor Andrijashev and with Dr I. M. Kerzhner as Secretary, was set up in 1946 to encourage zoological nomenclature in a number of ways relating both to research and education. The Russian translation of the Code would incorporate the Official Lists of Names in Zoology, and the Soviet Commis- sioners were asked to liaise with the Secretariat who were preparing an updated edition of the Official Lists. The President asked Commissioners in those countries where a translation of the Code was not yet in hand to take steps to procure a translation. c) Council Meeting: A meeting of Council had been held on 11 October 1984. A copy of the Minutes could be seen on request. 6 Election of Commissioners i) Procedure for Elections. Although casual vacancies can be filled by the Commission itself (Article 4(f) of the Constitution), it was agreed that, to widen the Commission’s foundations, the formal election procedure through the Section of Nomenclature should be followed when the timing was feasible. It was suggested that meetings of ICSEB would provide additional opportunities for the Section of Nomenclature to meet, with the advantage over the IUBS General Assembly that many more systematic zoologists would be present. This would provide an additional opportunity for the election of members of the Commission, although the elections would not take effect until the close of the following TUBS General Assembly. A revision of the Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of [UBS was agreed (see Appendix). It was thought desirable that the Commission should receive more nominations that at present, and it was agreed that unsuccessful nominees should remain on the list for one further meeting of the Section. The Commission considered the recommendation of the Council that it should at the election of Commissioners depart from the procedure of only presenting pairs of candidates on the slate. It was agreed that to enable a new procedure to be adopted the Bylaws would be amended. While the Commission was enabled under the Constitution to submit to the Section a single list of unpaired vacancies providing the total nominations did not exceed twice the number of vacancies, there was sufficient ambiguity in the present wording to render amendment desirable. The Commission RESOLVED to propose to amend Article 4(d) to 316 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 read: “The Commission shall prepare a list of not more than twice as many nominees as there are places to be filled, under procedures to be specified in the Bylaws, and shall present it to the Section of Nomenclature’. It was also decided to amend Bylaws 3 and 5 so that vacancies are not treated individu- ally. The Secretariat was authorised to develop new wording prescribing the voting procedure for voting on a single list. ii) Election to Vacancies. Following the retirements of Com- missioners Binder, Brinck and Sabrosky, there were 3 vacancies to be filled and papers nominating 6 candidates had been circulated. The Commission RESOLVED to present the Section with a single list of all these nominees; that there should be successive ballots in each of which the candidate hav- ing the most votes would be elected and have his name removed from the next ballot; and that a tie in any ballot should be decided by the Chairman’s casting vote. The nominees were considered using the criteria in Article 2(c) of the Constitution, and 3 (Kabata, Thompson and Zheng) were selected for recommendation to the Section under Bylaw 3(a). [A meeting of the Section was held on 4 September, and Drs Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda), F. C. Thompson (USA; Diptera) and B. S. Zheng (China; Ichthyology) were elected. Amended Statutes of the Section, as proposed by the Commission, were adopted.] 7 Appointment of Executive Secretary and Secretary-General and their duties Following discussion of a proposal to appoint an Executive Secre- tary and a Secretary-General, the following changes to Bylaws were agreed (with renumbering as necessary): i) New Bylaw — The Council shall appoint an Executive Secretary and, in addition, it may appoint a Secretary-General. Both appointments shall end at the close of the next General Assembly, and may be renewed. The word Secretary in the Constitution and Bylaws shall, unless otherwise specified, mean the Executive Secretary. The duties of the Offices shall be as described in Bylaws as follows: [numbers to be inserted] ii) New sections of Bylaw 23: duties of the Secretariat to read: g) to send drafts of Opinions to the Secretary-General before publi- cation, and to incorporate or discuss with him any comments or amendments he may make within one month. h) to send every proposal for amendment of the Code, Constitu- tion and Bylaws to the Secretary-General for his agreement before submitting them to the Council prior to publication. ill) Bylaw 24 to read: 24. Where, after the issue of a voting paper, the Executive Secretary Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 317 discovers or is informed that the application was incomplete or incorrect, he shall have discretion to defer publication of the Com- mission’s decision, in which case he shall at once notify the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General shall have discretion to proceed with the publication; if he does not do so, the Executive Secretary shall within one month refer the matter to the Council. The Council may then declare the vote to be cancelled, or direct that a vote be taken under the One-Month Rule (Bylaw 33) or direct the Executive Secretary to publish the decision taken by the Commission’s vote. In any reference to the Council under this Bylaw the Executive Secretary may act on the decision of the majority of the Council responding within one calendar month. iv) New Bylaw 27 to read: 27. The Secretary-General shall on request by the Executive Secre- tary give assistance on any matter of doubt or difficulty. 8 Office of Vice-President Under Bylaw 10, it was RESOLVED that the procedure for electing a successor to Professor Per Brinck as Vice-President would begin on 1 October 1985. Under Bylaw 11(b), Dr H. G. Cogger and Mr R. V. Melville were appointed to join the Council for the purpose of nominating two candidates. It was RESOLVED that, by amendment to Bylaw 11(b), this nomination could proceed immediately. 9 Proposed Amendments to the Code A number of proposals to amend the 3rd Edition of the Code had been received and some of these had been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The President pointed out that those which had been published could proceed to a vote. Nevertheless, he thought that the new edition of the Code should be given time to settle down and become fully used before significant amendments were decided. He had set up a Scrutinizing Committee to consider proposed amendments and make recommendations at the next IUBS General Assembly, at which time a decision could be taken on setting up an editorial committee for the 4th Edition of the Code. The Commission RESOLVED to refer all proposed amendments to the Scrutinizing Committee but, for the benefit of members present at the meeting, it was agreed to hold preliminary discussions of proposals that had been received to date. The Commission (Mr Heppell in the Chair in the President’s absence) proceeded to examine the proposed amendments. Proposed Amendment to Article 5lc: Bull. zool. Nomencl. 41(3) Aug. 1984: 149-150 and comments in Bull. 42(1) : 10-12 Members were generally agreed that the use of parentheses to enclose the name of the author of a specific-group name in a new combination was of some value in taxonomic works, but of less 318 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 value for other uses. However, this point had to be weighed against the disadvantage of giving misleading information when, as frequently happened, parentheses were wrongly omitted in a secondary combination. To amend Article 51c as proposed would have the advantage of eliminating this source of misinformation. Apart from a change to Recommendation 22B, there would be no other implications for the Code. Proposed Amendment to Article 59b : Bull. 41(3) : 151 This Article makes permanently invalid a junior secondary homonym that has been replaced before 1961. Members preferred not to see a change since they considered this to be a useful provi- sion which was clearly worded and for which there was a let-out clause when stability was threatened. Proposed Amendment to Article 70b : ibid : 156-158 and comments in Bull. 42(1) : 12, 13 & Bull. 42(2) : 123 Members agreed that there was a case for modification of the text and the Scrutinizing Committee should be asked to examine this in detail. Request for a Declaration clarifying the meaning of “‘suppressed”’ and “‘rejected’’, and the status of works not complying with Articles 8 or 9 : Bull. 41(3) : 152-155 This application by Drs Holthuis, Ride and Sabrosky was discus- sed and referred to the Scrutinizing Committee. 10 Proposed Suppression of Works (Code Article 79) Papers relating to a likely request for suppression of publications had been circulated before the meeting. The works in question were by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington (Australian Journal of Herpetology /, 73-79, (1984) and Aus. J. Herpetol. Supplement Series No. 1 (1985)). Among the grounds for objection to these works by a large number of Australian herpetologists were: i) No (or inadequate) justifications are given for proposed tax- onomic and nomenclatural changes, which include omissions and errors. ii) The publication were not apparently subjected to impartial peer and editorial review. ili) If taken seriously they would permanently destabilize the nomenclature of the Australian herpetofauna. In discussion other points were raised. Attention was drawn to the question of scale (107 new genera and 470 new species) and it was pointed out that there was nothing new in zoologists producing works which destabilized taxonomy, but new methodology meant that this could be done more quickly and on a wider scale. It was important for the Commission’s credibility that it should be seen to be responding positively, although there were limitations as to what could be done by the Commission, whose Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 319 competence was nomenclatural rather than taxonomic. A register of available names might present one way of responding to such a situation in the future, as also might the development of a system of registering acceptable publications in specified journals. No formal application for the suppression of the works under Article 79 of the Code had yet been received by the Secretariat. Article 80 would apply when the receipt of such an application was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 11 Specialist Nomenclature Committees The President outlined his proposition that a greater involvement of zoologists in the decision-making processes of the Commission, and a wider consciousness of the importance of the work of the Commission, would be obtained by the development of nomenclature committees to advise the Commission on cases in special fields. Relevant applications would be sent to the nomenclature committees before publication so that the applications could be developed and improved where necessary. A paper prepared by the Secretariat showed that a small number of taxonomic groups accounted for the great majority of the applications to the Commission. On this basis, it was considered that 9 nomenclature com- mittees should be set up, covering Mammals; Birds; Reptiles and Amphibia; Fishes; Insects; Crustacea; Arachnids and Arthropods (other than Insects and Crustacea but including Trilobites); Molluscs and Brachiopods; and Protists. Applications concerning other taxonomic groups would be dealt with by the advisory mechanism available through Bylaw 30. It was important that the nomenclature committees should make their recommendations to the Commission and would be committees of the Council. However, this would not negate the possibility of those nomen- clature committees which already existed in certain areas performing this role. It was RESOLVED that the Council would approach existing com- mittees through their parent bodies and would itself set up nomenclature committees in those areas where none existed, the Secretariat initiating action as soon as possible. 12 Official Lists of Names in Zoology Members welcomed the intention to publish in 1986 a new and up-dated edition of the Official Lists and Indexes. In preparing the entries, the Secretariat had uncovered a number of anomalous points including omissions, corrections of fact and points of editorial inconsistency. It was agreed that these should be dealt with by the Secretariat rather than through a vote by the Commission. In the event of alterations, the entries should make it clear, by reference to the earlier entry, that a deliberate alteration had been made to the text. A further issue related to the “Declaration 21” problem. Article 67e of the 1961 and 1964 editions of the Code required that if a nominal species which is the type of a genus is 320 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 found to be a junior objective synonym, the senior synonym must be cited as the name of the type species of the genus in question. This provision was deleted in the 1985 edition of the Code which provides in a Recommenda- tion that the type species when cited in its original binomen be accompanied by the senior objective synonym. To adopt the new rule retrospectively would affect 19 names in 10 Opinions. It was agreed that the status of these names that had been fixed by Opinions should be sustained by a relevant reference in each entry to Article 78i (Previous decisions of the Commission). 13 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Members discussed the Bulletin and considered that both the con- tents and the format could be improved to make it more useful and attract- ive, thus widening the circulation. This would increase not merely the income from subscriptions but also the dissemination of information. The Secretariat reported that this view was shared by the Interna- tional Trust for Zoological Nomenclature which had set up a working party to examine the issue. Dr R. B. Manning, President of the American Associ- ation for Zoological Nomenclature and a member of the Trust, had under- taken to gather the views of zoologists in North America. The main points developed in the ensuing discussion concerned: a) The possibility of widening the contents of the Bulletin to include more general articles on nomenclature or perhaps, as with Taxon, articles on systematics, possibly in conjunction with a learned society. b) The need for much wider distribution of the Opinions which were a main end-product of the Commission’s work. c) The desirability of being able to subscribe to sub-sections of the Bulletin each covering particular taxonomic groups. d) A number of editorial points such as grouping the contents page into taxonomic categories, putting the editor's name on the volume, and a blanket statement of certification covering all Opinions in any one part of the Bulletin. These comments and any others which members wished to send to the Secretariat would be considered there and by the Trust’s work- ing party. It was hoped that a report would be made to the Trust by the Summer of 1986 so that any changes agreed could be implemented in time for the 1987 volume. 14. Names of Higher Taxa Dr Starobogatov suggested that names of taxa higher than the family-group names should be covered by the Code. This would be particularly valuable for computer retrieval. Dr Lehtinen said that many Scandinavian zoologists were opposed to an extension of the Code to cover names of higher taxa. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 321 Dr Starobogatov was invited to initiate a debate by submitting an article for publication in the Bulletin. 15 Biological Nomenclature A Workshop on Biological Nomenclature was held on the morning of 4 September when the Commission was joined by a number of other biologists, including several botanists. Dr Ride initiated a discussion by referring to Resolutions 5 and 6 of the IUBS General Assembly at Ottawa on Common Approaches to Bio- logical Nomenclature and the need to assist the organizations responsible for biological nomenclature. He circulated the report of the Ad hoc Com- mittee on Biological Nomenclature which he chaired, with Dr Rita Colwell and Dr W. Greuter as members (to be published Biology International, 1986). The main recommendations related to the need to undertake a study of the Botanical and Zoological Codes to harmonize them as far as possible and the desirability of registering names of taxa and ultimately making such regulation mandatory. In the course of detailed discussion, the main points made were: a) It would not be practicable for zoologists and botanists to use a common Code but some of the main differences could be reduced or, in some cases, eliminated. b) Developing technology and changes in the Codes relating to the definition of publication were likely to lead to a great increase in the number of new taxa and names, some of doubtful validity. It was desirable to develop a system of registering new names, perhaps eventually extending this to names already existing. Dr Cogger thought that it was essential to develop a mechanism which took account of irresponsible or incompetent taxonomy, although he recognised that this was primarily a taxonomic matter which was highly subjective. c) There might be merit in restricting the number of journals and publications in which new names could be published or of requir- ing new names to be listed in particular journals before they were accepted as valid. It was agreed that IUBS should be asked to fund a feasibility study to examine the scope for developing a register of names. Dr Corliss referred to his working party on the Nomenclature of Protists and circulated a preliminary report. APPENDIX INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature (Adopted at the XXII General Assembly, Budapest, 4 September 1985) 322 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 Article 1 The Section constitutes the Section of Nomenclature specified in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 2 At each General Assembly of TUBS, or at other congresses as prescribed in Article 4, the Section of Zoological Nomenclature shall carry out the functions and duties of the Section of Nomenclature set out in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and in the Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In particular, the Section shall receive and discuss proposals from the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature and shall submit recommendations concerning them to IUBS. Article 3 The members of the Section are: (a) Members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (b) At a General Assembly of IUBS, any zoologists being members of national or other delegations, Sections or Commissions of the Union. (c) Any zoologists admitted by the Commission. Article 4 (a) A Session of the Section shall be held between the opening of a General Assembly of IUBS and its closing. (b) Providing all members of the Commission are notified in advance, Sessions may, at the discretion of the President of the Commission, begin before and continue after a General Assembly or an international congress as prescribed in this Article. (c) Provided all members of the Commission are notified in advance, Sessions may be convened by the President to be held in conjunc- tion with international congresses convened by a Scientific Member of IUBS. Article 5 There is no limit to the number of General Assemblies, or inter- national congresses as prescribed in Article 4, at which an individual may serve as a member of the Section. Article 6 (a) The Chairman of the Section shall be the President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (b) In the absence of the President, the Vice-President of the Commission shall be Chairman. (c) In the absence of both the President and the Vice-President, the Section shall elect a Chairman at the meeting. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 323 Article 7 (a) At any Session the Section may consider nominations to the Commission presented by the Commission in accordance with its Constitu- tion and Bylaws, providing that any elections to the Commission shall be made between the opening of a General Assembly of IUBS, or an interna- tional congress as prescribed in Article 4, and its closing. (b) In elections no one shall vote if he is a candidate. (c) The voting procedures of the Section shall be in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Commission. (d) Membership of the Commission of persons elected at a Session other than during a General Assembly of IUBS shall take effect at the close of the General Assembly next held. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1984 Income from sales of publications was slightly greater than in 1983 but made up differently. As in 1983, £10,000 was received under the agree- ment with the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux by which they print and market the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. From this have been deducted outstanding debts from 1982 to give a net figure of £9,572. The figure of £2,377 for ‘International Codes’ was composed of interest of £2,364 on money earmarked for printing of the 3rd Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and £13 from sale of Amendment to the 2nd Edition of the Code. Grants were received from the International Union of Biological Sciences, the Royal Society of London and the four British research councils (IUBS £3,166; Royal Society £1,000; Agricultural and Food Research Council £2,000; Medical Research Council £2,000, plus £2,000 for 1983; Natural Environment Research Council £2,000; Science and Engineering Research Council £2,000). The Appeal Fund received no large deferred covenants in 1984, so the receipts decreased from £41,793 to £8,687. Ordinary deeds of covenant (exempt from tax under British law) brought in £3,575 (£2,880 in 1983). Bank and other interest on reserves increased to £9,777 (£4,410 in 1983). Salaries and fees increased from £14,852 to £20,012 as a result of staff changes. £1,174 was provided to write off bad debts that have accumulated over a number of years. Most of these stem from 1981 when the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux undertook to publish and market the Bulletin and there was a change from payment in arrears to payment in advance. Strenuous efforts have been and are being made to collect these debts and already (1985) some have been paid, but it becomes increasingly difficult to locate individuals who have changed their addresses. The surplus for the year was £26,693 against £50,194 in 1983. Accumulated reserves total £128,793 against £106,697. The greater part of the reserves are invested in National Savings Income Bonds or on deposit 324 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 as 7-day money with Coutts Finance. Working capital is deposited or on current account with Coutts & Co., Bankers, London. Anticipated changes in 1985 include income from sales of the 3rd Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Payment from the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux will be less by £5,000 but grants from IUBS, the Royal Society and the British research councils will continue at about the same rate as in 1984. Interest on reserves will be much the same as in 1984, but income from the Appeal cannot be forecast and is likely to be less than in 1984. £1,400 is expected for work done on the nomenclature of parasitic diseases for the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Tentative total income is forecast as £54,606. Expenditure on wages and salaries will increase as a result of Mr R. V. Melville’s retirement as Secretary of the Commission and the appoint- ment of a successor who will have to be paid more realistically. For various reasons office expenditure is likely to be greater than in 1984. Unusual expenses in 1985 include preliminary work on the Official Lists of Names in Zoology which it is proposed to bring up to date and publish, foreign travel (IUBS General Assembly, Budapest) and conference expenses (ICSEB III, University of Sussex). Total office expenses are forecast to be £13,500 and publication of the Code has cost more than £12,165. The total outgoings are forecast as £51,065 and the excess of income over expenditure £3,541. The Trust will have no difficulty in meeting all its expenses in 1985 and 1986, although 1986 may be a difficult year. We cannot be certain of a payment from the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux with whom agree- ment to publish and market the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is being re-negotiated. Nor can we be certain of grants from IUBS, the Royal Society and the British research councils. If all are lost, income will decrease by some £18,500. Income from the Appeal is also likely to diminish further. During 1984 and 1985, the Trust has taken the opportunity to increase the efficiency of the office and this will speed work on zoological nomenclature, may increase income from publications and help to meet the challenge of changes proposed in the organization of the International Commission. F. G. W. JONES Secretary 22 June 1985 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature dd} TWIWIOD JUSS eUR yy AYN) SINNAG om dy} JO Sioquiayy] NOLONILLIHM ‘8 “H N rag) Z9S‘S1F (L6L) $]S09 JOOIIP paye[nuUINdY -ssaT 000°L spun, Isniy woly uoneidoiddy 6SE6 suoneuog sytoedg ‘SMOT[OJ se dn opeuw SI dN} B[SUSUIO NT [BOIsO[OOZ Jo epoy [euoneusojuy oq} jo uorlIpyA Pig 118) sunuiud 1Oj uoIsiAoid eauL ‘ALON % €6L'871F L69°901F a Z9S‘S1 (2}0N 998) UOoIsIAoIg 9Yt9adg 6S1'81 z I€Z'€l I 8ES‘88 5 €69'b7 p86] Joy snjding p61‘0S r) 8ES‘88 €86] “Joquiooed 3S] ¢ 18 sourleg pre'se Q AAUASAY ANNAATU es SGNN4 GaLVINWNDOV Le €6L'871F L69°901F N ——$—$ ¢ 1R8' ; 009°€ : wo) C39 v6 SOUPAPR ul P9ATed01 SJUBUSAO,) payisodaq CLYr € > rAlyé S1OUPaD Arpung STI : SAILITIAVIT LNAYUND S 089'I€1 L67‘011 2. 5... ey ——_ een pine Leen one 34 peregrinus, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 ear 1340) as rs tae fe 258 perfoliata, Taenia, Schrank,1788 . . . nf. Spee ee: 77 perforans, Stoa,DeSerres,1855. . . . arth Oe te ea 48 permianus, Tupus, Sellards, 1906 (Opinion 1317) “ASS oe eae igo Te 169 picipes, Byrrhus, Olivier, 1790 (Opinion 1323) . . ..... . 182 pilipennis, Actia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 . . . ..... . 93 pilipennis, Tachina, Fallen, 1810. . ane ede ee 93 planiceps, Damalis, Fabricius, 1805 (Opinion 1342). bir ettacks-<% Maly. 264 polita, Musca, Linnaeus,1758 . . . tad Sa: ba 3 ye. 5 393 polygoni, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 (Opinion 1336) Rae al cde ae 244 Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837 (Opinion 1290) . . ..... =. 21 Porcus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808 . . . Rae ae ete ae 14 posticata, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1361) SA esac to ee 349 Priapus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1295). Sy NaN ahaa NUE hry 34 Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (Opinion 1330) . Mec ce tie tae eek tales 228 protea, Heterogyna, Nagy,1969. . . . SUES EIEOE 386 Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898. . . . .......~. 57 Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898 (Opinion Ee Shy Sunes taylan 238 Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926. . A Aaa = hei Bn Ly Reg i 121 Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 (Opinion 1307) . MT oe ee 148 pulcher, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 (Opinion 1340) ae aR egy sy 258 pulcher pallida, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 (Opinion 1340) . a 258 pumilio, Bracon Nees, 1834 . . 3 Bh ager on de 101 punctularia, Testudo, Daudin, 1801 (Opinion 1309). he add ean 152 pura, Xenocrepis, Mayr, 1904 (Opinion 1297) . . Le Ry “teeta eB 39 putrescentiae, Acarus, Schrank, 1781 (Opinion 1298) . patie pee 124 quadripunctatus, Cimex, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1326). . . . . 190 quadripunctatus, Cimex, Villers, 1789 (Opinion 1326). . . . . . 190 quadripunctatus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1326) . . . . 190 quarlesi, Anoa, Ouwens, 1910 (Opinion 1349). AUP RTSS GE 281 quinquecincta, Scolia, Fabricius, 1793 (Opinion 1293) . ae TROT 29 redimacula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1874 (Opinion 1354) . . . . . . 330 redimicula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1874 (Opinion se NB t csiasiigin f 330 R. Forsteri, Columba, Wagler, 1929. . . . EA f ., ST BaOs 50 Rhabditis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844]. . . wos MLSE MR 197 Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (Opinion 1309) seo ee RUBY £4025 Ws 152 riparia, Ephydra, Fallén, 1813 (Opinion 1321) . . ..... . 177 manertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879. . . . . . ke mmtl. 81 rostrolamellatus, Humerobates, Grandjean, 1936 . . lee (ate 54 rufa, Thrips ( Aptinothrips), Haliday, 1836 (Opinion 1338) dick Ak 251 rubra, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1335). . . tiawse 241 rufipes, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792 (Opinion 1323) . . on SLE 182 rufus, Thrips ( Aptinothrips), Haliday, 1836 (Opinion 1338) Hieithee 251 rufus, Thrips, Haliday, 1836 (Opinion 1338). . . Big gat be 251 418 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 sachalinensis, Mactra, Schrenk, 1862 (Opinion 1366) . salinus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1301). . salmachus, Sphinx, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion pone savignyi, Olpium, Simon, 1879 . . . scabrior, Eurhinus, Kirby, 1819 (Opinion 1352) . f schoenherri, Anthalia, Zetterstedt, 1838 (Opinion 1347) scripta, Testudo, Schoepff, 1792 (Opinion 1313). sculptilis, Glyptus, Brullé, 1835 (Opinion 1299) . Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Opinion 1337) Semionotus Agassiz, 1832. . . ‘ semistriatus, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1323) . sexmaculata, Cephalopholis (Ruppell, 1830) . Simplocaria Stephens, 1829 (Opinion 1323) . . : soemmeringii, Aeolidiella, Bergh, 1882 (Opinion 1315). soemmerringii, Eolida, Leuckart, 1828 (aes aan Southernia Allgén, 1929 : Southernia Filipjev, 1927 . . . . spengleri, Testudo, Gmelin, 1789 (Opinion 1309) SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845 (Opinion 1331) . . SPHAERITIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (Opinion 1331). Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 (Direction 117) . 3 Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 (Opinion 1331). . . spiniger, Althous, Candéze, 1860 as at 1334) Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 spirulaeformis, Stoa, De Serres, 1855 eee : stelleri, Hydrodamalis, Retzius, 1794 (Opinion 1320) : Stoa De Serres, 1855. : : stroemii, Cyclops, Baird, 1837 (Opinion 1367) ater sublucanus, Cancer, Forskal, 1775 (Opinion 1367) . . sybillae, Mactra, Valenciennes, 1858 (Opinion 1366) . teguixin, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1300) . TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Opinion 1300) . Teius Merrem, 1820 (Opinion 1300) . . terricola, Rhabditis, Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] . : tetragonus, Diademodon, Seeley, 1894 (Opinion 1324) : teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802 alae ss ee Thaida Karsch, 1880 . . : THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 THAISIDAE Jousseaume, 1888. . THALASSIDROMIDAE J.W. von Miiller, 1865 Thalassidroma Vigors, 1825 . . Theranthropus Brookes, 1828 (Opinion 1368) Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843 . ; ThylacitesGermar, 1817 . . THYLACITINAE Kirby, 1837. . TIBICENIDAE Van Duzee, 1916 . Tibicina Amyot, 1847 Ao TIBICININAE Distant, 1916. Tigris Oken, 1816 (Opinion 1368) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 tiliae, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1303) . . tipuliformis, Sphinx, Clerck, 1759 (Opinion 1288) . tisboides, Dactylopus, Claus, 1863 (Opinion 1356) . Titan Matthews, 1858 (Opinion 1307). . . . titan, Trichopteryx, Newman, 1834 Se aes 1307) tolteca, Stenoderma, Saussure, 1860. . toltecus toltecus, Artibeus, (Saussure, 1860) Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842. . . . Trichaporus Foerster, 1856 (Opinion 1351) : Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900 (Opinion 1351) . tricolor, Encarsia, Foerster, 1878 (Opinion 1351) trilineata, Musca, Linnaeus, 1767 . . troglodytes, Homo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1368). aS tropicalis, Globigerina, Blow & Banner, 1962 (Opinion 1316) TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 (Opinion 1300) . Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 (Opinion 1300). Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Opinion 1317) . . TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919 (Opinion 1317). Typus Sellards, 1909 (Opinion 1317) . . TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924 (Opinion 1288). Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (Opinion 1298). UROPLATIIDAE Boulenger, 1884 (Opinion 1359) UROPLATINI Leng, 1920 (Opinion 1359) . . . Uroplata Chevrolat, 1835 (Opinion 1359) . Uroplatus Duméril, 1806 (Opinion 1359). . urticae, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 (Opinion 1336). vagans, Erigone, Audouin, 1826. . velox, Lacerta, Pallas, 1771 (Opinion 1318) . ventricosa, Emys, Gray, 1855 (Opinion 1313). vernum, Simulium, Macquart, 1826 . vetusta, Phryganeolitha, Germar, 1813 (Opinion 1327) vicarius, Oeciacus, Horvath, 1912 (Opinion 1360) . vinetella, Tinea, Fabricius,1787. . . volubilis, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1345) Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (Opinion 1297). Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (Opinion 1306) zanana, Serranus, Valenciennes, 1828 . . zebra, Antilope, Gray, 1838 (Opinion 1291) . zebrata, Antilope, Robert, 1836 (Opinion 1291) zosterae, Southernia, Allgén, 1929 420 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 CORRIGENDA Vol. 42, part 2 page 121, line 36 for “Caetha’ read ‘Cnetha’. page 121, line 37 for ‘Official List ...’ read ‘Official Index of Rejected and Invalid...’ PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication (pages ) ] 1-98 2 April 1985 2 99-204 27 June 1985 3 205-310 30 September 1985 4 311-420 6 December 1985 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: T.P. I-VII, 1-420 Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be bound in at the end of the volume. THAIDIDAE J ousseaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and a THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae). P.T. to Lehtinen. . . 389 _ Drasterius bimaculatus (Rossi, 1790) (Insecta, Coleoptera ‘Elateridae). M. Mroczkowski. . . 391 Ps Riicathrysc Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera). E. P. Nartshuk & R. Rozkosny . . 393 Musca trilineata Linnaeus, “1767 (Insecta, Diptera). E. P. Nartshuk & R. : _ Rozkosny . . . 2 395 Family names for the storm petrels and. dippers. R. V. Melville . an St 398 % ‘The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express ‘its ee eciahien of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British CONTENTS Officers and Members of the Commission. ; Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology eEpecaees Special Announcements International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: General Meet- ing, Budapest, 2-6 7 esise 1985. Financial Report for 1984. . . s Comment Comment on proposed amendment of Article 71b of Code. W.D.L. Ride Opinions Opinion 1354. Agrotis redimicula Morrison, 1874 (Lepidoptera) Opinion 1355. Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 (Brachiopoda) . Opinion 1356. Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Crustacea, Copepoda) Opinion 1357. ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 and ANUROPODIDAE Stebbing, 1893 (Crustacea) . Opinion 1358. Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Opinion 1359. UROPLAT- ‘as the stem of family-group 1 names in - Reptilia, Sauria and Insecta, Coleoptera . . Opinion 1360. Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Opinion 1361. Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaeffer, 1839 and Phalaena posticata Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Opinion 1362. Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805 and Phalaena hirtata Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Opinion 1363. Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (Insecta, H Hymenoptera) . Opinion 1364. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia, Anura) . Opinion 1365. Allygus Fieber, 1872 (Insecta, Homoptera) . . Opinion 1366. Mactra sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . Opinion 1367. Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . Opinion 1368. Pan and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia, Carnivora) New and revived cases * Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes). A.R. McCune . : Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Cephalopholis sexmaculata (Rippell, 1830) (Osteichthyes, Serranidae). J.E. Randall, M.L. Bauchot, A. Ben-Tuvia & P.C. Heemstra . Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita). P.D. Lane . Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 and Cryptothrips conocephali ie anay, 1913 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). D.J. Brothers& L.A.Mound . . HEVEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 and HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta). M.C. Day . Request for ruling that French theses submitted for Docteur du Troisiéme Cycle are not published. G.C. Hewitt & V. Rousset. ~ Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset % ~ toh ¢ Sy ORE: x cs 5 4 4 Ky se sy » 4 | : z; | f as S - ‘ ma w 4" af . \ ay | 7 4 \ aga } t. . - . * a > e > —_ asia eset peered se oe eee slee an gey viry sth nyt hae! tye Sit? Hrile ey) i} r: Sos