APD tele et LMS Naty (e ‘ " DAY, TAAL es - of is Ah Why NG ry Miele f it AAd } Pe Bins i f Oil i (Ate i 3 RON] The pie cal 0) ha iernational € ranihae ds pon H Zookogical Nontenctevtur ; ys The Bulletin Tickwical Nomenclature AGS HICZN| The Official Periodical of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Volume 44, 1987 Published on behalf of the Commission by The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London, SW7 5BD, U.K. ISSN 0007-5167 © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature mie es tie } ~ ay i ‘ i Pheegel ' 5 Ve aS : sh ie oe ne SZ re i : oe > : Se . ? ——— A Pm al 7 iar he : ae Ae : ‘s f at ‘= oS 2 eee Ae oe + ; L 4 Vy .. tie sedan eb ae Ge ie a | an r AEN = +) Aiskawcl Ooi" ASO — nee a ve Howie) i Soe ata ane | sted sat iy, a = be HN " a a if) fi hs ‘ Wye : ¥ ba ot oe” L “4 i 4 ‘ a ol; ad TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices . : The International Commission and its Publications. Addresses and specialist fields of members of the Commission Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology General articles The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature . Applications Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia, Carnivora). R. M.Schoch . Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). G. Van Rossem . Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera). V. Svihla : Musca marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 (currently pions marginals: Insecta, Diptera). L.E.O.Braack . . Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M. A. “Alonso- -Zarazaga & Iv Dieckmann . : Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum costulatum: Insecta, Hymenoptera). Yu.A.Pesenko . . Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). SEU: A. Rehder & R. E. Petit Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). W.O.Cernohorsky . . Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 (Nematoda). M. W. Brzeski, E. Geraert & D. J. Raski LARIDAE Vigors, 1825 (Aves) and LARINI LeConte, 1861 (Insecta, Coleoptera). P.J.Spangler . . Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea). /B) P. F. Rose & J. Bi Ss. Olver. Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes). W.R.Taylor . . ive Alveolina d Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida). A. R. Loeblich, if &H. Tappan , Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus pols 1851 a cae: Acarina). E. E. Lindquist & D.C. M. Manson . Comments List of avian family-group names to be proposed for conservation. W. J. Bock . On the family-name for the storm petrels (Aves). S. L. Olson. : On the proposed conservation of Apanteles (currently Pholetesor) ornigis Weed, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). L. B. Holthuis; C. van Achterberg; J. B. Whitfield .. On Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 as type species of Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). J. B. Whitfield . On the proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca, Coleoidea). C. W. Wright; P. Doyle Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1420. Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari) . Opinion 1421. Erigone Audouin, [1826] (Arachnidae, Araneae) . Opinion 1422. Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia, Sauria) . Opinion 1423. Olpium Koch, 1873 (Arachnida) . . . Opinion 1424. Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). — Opinion 1425. Suppressed: Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and specific names published in combination with them . . Opinion 1426. Argyrodes Simon, 1864 and Robertus O. Pickard- -Cambridge 1879 (Arachnida, Araneae). . Sy Opinion 1427. Taenia perfoliata Schrank, 1788 (Cestoda) . Opinion 1428. Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda) . II Opinion 1429. A ruling on the authorship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral Conchology of Great Britain. 3 Say ee yee Tee Opinion 1430. Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea, Copepoda) . : Opinion 1431. Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola) Opinion 1432. Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera) . . Direction 119. Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Official List entry completed . Direction 120. Rhabditis Dujardin, [1844] (Nematoda): ‘Official List entry ‘completed . Direction 121. Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda): Official List entry completed . Notices . aie ae Publication of Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology General article Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a solution for an old problem. P.F.S. Cornelius . Applications Alcyonidium Lamouroux, 1813 (Bryozoa). J. P. Thorpe & J. E. Winston . Proposed conservation of four sipunculan specific names. J.I.SaizSalinas . . Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda). L. B. Holthuis & K. Sakai TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Brachyura) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia).G.J. Morgan . . Chagrinichnites brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 and Chagrinich- nites osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983 (Trace Fossils). R. M. Feldmann & J.T.Hannibal . . Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 (currently Arctocorisa germari: Insecta, Hemiptera). A. Jansson : Corisa distincta Fieber, 1848 (currently Sieerd ( Subsigara) distinct: Insecta, Hemiptera). A. Jansson . Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). C. van Achterberg . Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). C. van Achterberg. . Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 pot Coleoptera) M. Mroczkowski . . Chlorophanus Sahlberg, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Silfverberg . ; Polyommatus emolus Godart, [1824] (currently Anthene emolus; Insecta, Lepidoptera). G. E: Tite. Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868 (Echinodermata, “Holothuroidea). D. rie Pawson & i, E Miller ie Three works by R. W. Wells & C. R. Wellington: proposed suppression for nomen- clatural purposes. The President, Australian Society of Herpetologists . : Halianassa studeri von Meyer, 1838 (Mammalia, Sirenia). D. P. Domning Comments On the proposed conservation of Ammonites (currently Pachydiscus) neubergicus Hauer, 1858 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea).G.Hahn . . On the proposed suppression of Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 and C olumba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 (Aves). S. L. Olson & D. W. Steadman; M. D. Bruce, D. T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault : On the proposed precedence of PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda) over CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892.T.E. Bowman . On the proposed precedence of Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915. over Sienuliure posticatum Meigen, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey & H. Zwick . : On the suggested introduction into the Code of the term ‘nomenclaturally valid’. L. B. Holthuis . 79 101 107 112 114 116 122 126 126 129 19 131 Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1433. Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 (Trilobita) . Opinion 1434. Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (Trilobita) . ae ey ee Opinion 1435. Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita) : Opinion 1436. HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) and H HARPIDAE Broen: 1849 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). . 3 Opinion 1437. Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . Opinion 1438. Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes) Opinion 1439. Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Serranus sexmaculatus (currently Cephalopholis sexmaculata) Rippell, 1830 (Osteichthyes) . . Opinion 1440. Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823 and Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera). . Opinion 1441. Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 1790 (currently ‘Drasterius bimaculatus: Insecta, Coleoptera) . . Opinion 1442. Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 (Insecta, ‘Thysanoptera) Opinion 1443. Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1444. Musca trilineata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Oxycera ‘trilineata; Insecta, Diptera) . Opinion 1445. HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (Insecta, ‘Lepidoptera) and HETERO- GYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta; Hymenoptera) . Opinion 1446. Stenoderma tolteca Saussure, 1860 (Mammalia, Chiroptera) . Notices 3 Call for nominations fort new v members of the International Co ommission on n Zoological Nomenclature . Publication of Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology General articles On the introduction of the term ‘pragmatype’ and some comments on the role of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. R. H. L. Disney & Y.Z. Erzinclioglu . Reply. P. K. Tubbs Applications Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839 (Foraminiferida). A. R. Loeblich, Jr & H. Tappan . Discocyclina Gimbel, 1870 (Foraminiferida). A. R. Loeblich, Jr & H. Tappan . Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). G. Lee : Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. Giannuzzi- Savelli : Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoidea). J. N.Caira . . ee Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). H. Malz & A. 1 Keij 5 Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) and Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C. van Achterberg : Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (currently Ceutorhyncus assimilis; Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Silfverberg . . 5 eee Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Graphoderus cinereus; Insecta, Coleoptera). A. N. Nilsson & G. N. Foster . Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 (currently //ybius ater) and Dyt tiscus planus Fabricius, 178 1 (currently Hydroporus planus; Insecta, Coleoptera). A. N. Nilsson . Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (Insecta, Diptera). N. L. Evenhuis . Pararatus Ricardo, 1913 (Insecta, Diptera). G. Daniels : ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). J. A. Powell . Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida). M. S. Harvey . , Sarotherodon melanotheron Riippell, 1852 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). E. Trewavas : Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 (currently Ctenopoma oxyrhyncus; Osteichthyes, Perciformes). S.M. Norris . : LAs sc Suh BeOS Ee Il 154 155 IV Comments On the proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca, Coleoidea). D.T. Donovan . , On the proposed conservation of Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera). D. E. Bright; M. G. Morris . On the proposed designation of Hyboclypus elon Desor, “1847 | as type species of Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea). J. Roman P On the proposed conservation of Pyralis (currently Cydia or Laspeyresia) higricana Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). G. S. Robinson & E. S. Nielsen; P. R. Seymour . On the suggested introduction into the Code of the term “nomenclatural valid’. Hove smith: <. On the proposed designation ‘of type species for Er phen von Siebold, 185 1 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Arachnida, Acarina). H. A. Denmark; G. T. Baker . Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1447. Trichomonas Donné, 1836 (Protista, Mastigophora). Opinion 1448. Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Opinion 1449. Cholus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Opinion 1450. Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Opinion 1451. Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . Opinion 1452. Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Opinion 1453. Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936 and Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . ; : Fe ; Opinion 1454. Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera) . Opinion 1455. Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 3 Opinion 1456. Ammonites (currently Euaspidoceras) perarmatus J. me June 1822 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea). . Opinion 1457. Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1901 (Crustacea, Isopoda) . Opinion 1458. Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea) . Opinion 1459. Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (Chondrichthyes, Lamniformes) Opinion 1460. Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) . Opinion 1461. A ruling on the authorship and dates of the text volumes of the Histoire naturelle section of Savigny’s Description de Il’ Egypte Notices RA Call for nominations for new v members of the International Commission on n Zoological Nomenclature . Publication of Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology Financial Report for 1986 . Sy -suipsu doy Bile cow heeh Joes ea een: Applications Climacograptus manitoulinensis Caley, 1936 ae: saige manitou- linensis; Graptolithina). J. F. Riva. EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1875 (Protista, Flagellata) and EUGLENIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M. Mroczkowski& S.A.Slipinski . . . Dysidea Johnston, 1842 (Porifera, Keratosa). N. Erridge & M. E: Tollitt . Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 (Tardigrada). M. G. Binda & G. Pilato. Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802 (Nematoda). M.E. Tollitt . . Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 (Crustacea, Decapoda). P. K. L. Ng & L. B. Holthuis . Parasigara Poisson, 1957 (Insecta, Heteroptera). A. Jansson . : Dacus parallelus Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Anastrepha parallela; Insecta, Diptera). A.L.Norrbom. . Asterias squamata Delle Chiaje, 1828 (currently Amphipholis squamata; Echinoder- mata, Ophiuroidea). A. M. Clark . , ) ; Heliases ternatensis Bleeker, 1856 (currently Chromis ternatensis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes). J. E. Randall, M.-L. Bauchot & M. Desoutter .. Neamia octospina Smith & Radcliffe, 1912 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). O. Gon Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea).D.W.Rice . . . . : Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). A. M. Lister . Comments On the proposed precedence of Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 over S. posticatum Meigen, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera). M. Ladle & J. A. Bass. ; On the proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes of three works by Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington. G. M. Shea. pe On the proposed conservation of sipunculan names. E. B. Cutler he On the homonymy between THAIDIDAE Joussaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae).P.K.Tubbs . . On the proposed adoption of Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 as the name of the‘ Trish EIk” (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). P. J. Boylan. Se oS ee eee igs oe Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1462. CAECILIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) and CAECILIIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera) . . Opinion 1463. De Lacepéde, 1788-1789, Histoire Naturelle des Serpens and later editions: rejected as a non-binominal work . 5. 3: age: Authorsin present volume. . Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes Key names in Applications and Comments Corrigenda. . . Publication dates and pagination of present volume. Instructions to Binder Sis Table of Contents. oe “i ? “% ei, oS , ON ere ree | ° ai". ¢ / : é Bulletin ; : docical | a Reser clotieie: es oa con a SOR * THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1987 is £53 or $102, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 01-589 6323 ext. 387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Vice-President Prof Dr R. Alvarado (Spain) Secretary-General Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Prof Dr R. Alvarado (Spain) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland) Dr G. Bernardi (France) Mr R. V. Melville (U.K.) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.) Prof C. Dupuis (France) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria) Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (U.S.S.R.) Prof Dr G. Hahn (Fed. Rep. Germany) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen (Norway) Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (U.S.S.R) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan) Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Prof A. Willink (Argentina) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B. A. (Scientific Administrator) Mr M. E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Zoologist) Miss N. A. Erridge, B.Sc. (Assistant Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1987 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 44, part | (pp. 1-76) 23 March 1987 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 normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, 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) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments to the Code are also published for discussion. Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience wider than some small group of specialists. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for volume 43, part 4 (published on 11 December 1986): (1) Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): desig- nation of a type species. Z.N.(S.)2585. H. Silfverberg. (2) Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 (currently J/ybius ater) (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. Z.N.(S.)2586. A. N. Nilsson. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration and Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895 by the III International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 25 zoologists from 15 countries whose interests cover most of the principal divisions (including 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 palaeontology) of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), and its members are elected at open meetings held in conjunction with Congresses of IUBS or of its associated bodies. Nominations for membership may be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim, which is to provide ‘the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names of animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according to taxonomic judgments’. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 in English and French by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission. Observance of the rules in the Code enables a biologist to arrive at the valid name for any animal taxon between and including the ranks of subspecies and super-family. Its provisions can, if necessary, be waived or modified in their application to a particular case; however, this must never be done by an individual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. Proposals for any such action should be addressed to the Commission Secretariat, and should follow the instructions on the inside back cover of the Bulletin. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is published four times each year. It con- tains applications for Commission action, as described above; their publication is an invitation for any person to contribute comments or counter-suggestions, which may also be published. The Commission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case only after a suitable period for comments. All Opinions are published in the Bulletin, which also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such contributions may be sent to the Secretariat. The Commission’s rulings are summarised in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology; a single volume covering the entire period 1895-1985 will be published in Spring 1987. In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters the Commission’s Secretariat is willing to help any zoologist with advice on any question with nomenclatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is a charity (non-profit making company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present located in London, and the Trust is established there for legal reasons to handle the financial affairs of thé Commission. The income of the Trust comes from the sale of publications (Code, Bulletin and Official Lists), from support by national and inter- national institutions, and from donations by societies and individuals. The level of income has been, and remains, a constraint on the services given to zoology by the Commission, and donations to the Trust are gratefully received. Addresses and specialist fields of members of the Commission Prof Dr Rafael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain) (Vice-President) Echinodermata Dr F. M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.) Corallia; Systematics Dr G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France) Lepidoptera Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 3 Dr L. R. M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) Brachiopoda Dr H. G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W., Australia) Reptilia Prof John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (Councillor) Protista: Systematics Prof C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France) Heteroptera Dr G. C. GRUCHY (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, KIA 0M8, Canada) Ichthyology Prof Dr Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdts-Gebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, W. Germany) Palaeontology Prof DrO. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) Parasitology Mr David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K.) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (Councillor) Crustacea Dr Z. KABATA (Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 5K6, Canada) Copepoda Prof Dr Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, W. Germany) Arachnida; Myriapoda Dr P. T. LEHTINEN (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) Arachnida Mr R. V. MELVILLE (93 Lock Road, Ham ,Richmond, Surrey TW107LL, U.K.) Palaeontology Dr M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut Zoologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) Coleoptera Dr W. D. L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia) (President) Mammalia Prof Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (Councillor) Herpetology Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER (nstitut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitadtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria) Acari Dr Y. I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) Mollusca; Crustacea Dr F.C. THOMPSON (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.) Diptera Dr V. A. TRJAPITZIN (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R.) Entomology Dr Shun-Ichi UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1, Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) Entomology Prof A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) Hymenoptera 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology In May 1987, the Trust is publishing a revised and updated version of the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. For the first time all the names and works on which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has ruled since it was set up in 1895 are brought together in a single volume. Entries are arranged in four sections giving in alphabetical order the family-group names, generic names, specific names and titles of works which have been placed on the Official Lists or the Official Indexes. There are about 9,900 entries of which 134 are for works. In addition, there is a full systematic index and a reference list to all relevant Opinions and Directions. Copies can be ordered from: The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 or The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to members of A.A.Z.N.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 5 The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature Raymond B. Manning Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. In response to an appeal by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for financial support of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, a group of American systematists formed the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN) late in 1983. The founders and initial members of the AAZN’s governing Council, all employees of various agencies of the United States Government, included Richard C. Banks, Bird and Mammal Laboratories, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior; Bruce B. Collette, Systematics Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce; J. Ralph Lichtenfels, Animal Parasitology Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Raymond B. Manning, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution; S. Dillon Ripley, Smithsonian Institution; F. Christian Thompson, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Ellis Yochelson, U.S. Geological Survey. From its inception, the offices of the AAZN have been at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution, which houses more than 100 pro- fessional zoological systematists, the largest concentration of systematists in the United States. The Museum has provided office space and rooms for meetings as well as support for duplicating and mailing. For the Smithsonian to be an integral part of this new organisation is most fitting, for the Smithsonian also had housed the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and its first Secretary, C. W. Stiles, from 1895 to 1936; many of the early Opinions of the Commission were published in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. The activities of the AAZN since 1984 have largely been concerned with organiz- ational matters and the.development of rudiments of a support base in the United States from individuals and institutions. This was made possible with a start-up grant of $1500 provided by S. Dillon Ripley, then Secretary of the Smithsonian, who recog- nized the importance of the work of the AAZN. Organizational activities included incorporation in the District of Columbia, a prerequisite to seeking tax-exempt status from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, and recognition of the AAZN as a tax-exempt organization. Thus, from the beginning, memberships and contributions to the AAZN have been fully tax deductible for American supporters. The AAZN has two primary purposes, (a) to raise money in the United States to provide direct financial support from American systematists for the work of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature through tax-deductible member- ships and donations, and (b) to provide a liaison between the American systematic community and the Commission. Any new organization must develop some recog- nition, and AAZN activities since 1984 reflected this. Individuals, scientific societies, and other institutions were contacted to publicize the existence and the activities of the AAZN. These activities helped the AAZN to achieve its primary purpose, and the establishment of a newsletter in 1985 contributed towards both objectives. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 The present goal of the AAZN is to raise at least $10,000 a year in support of the activities of the Commission. American systematists generate almost 25% of the work- load of the Commission, so they should be willing to provide a reasonable amount of the funds required to keep the Commission operating. In 1984 the AAZN contributed $500 to the International Trust in support of the Commission’s work. This was the first major financial contribution to the Commission from the United States. The 1985 contribution to the Trust from the AAZN was $2000. The contribution for 1986 from the AAZN has not been determined by the AAZN’s Council, but the amount should be substantially higher. Membership in the AAZN totalled 110 individuals and 10 institutions in December 1985, and rose to 250 individuals and 15 institutions by the end of 1986. The following American organizations have provided support for the AAZN since 1984: American Entomological Society American Museum of Natural History American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists American Society of Mammalogists American Society of Parasitologists American Type Culture Collection Biological Society of Washington Biosciences Information Service The Cleveland Shell Club The Crustacean Society Field Museum of Natural History Helminthological Society of Washington Harold W. Manter Laboratory, University of Nebraska National Museum of Natural History Point Loma Biology Laboratory Brayton H. Ransom Memorial Trust Fund Smithsonian Institution Society of Systematic Zoology Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists In 1987 the AAZN plans to continue to build a support base from individuals and organizations, working towards its present goal of 500 American members. In ad- dition, its activities will include publicizing, in North America, the redesigned Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and publicizing and marketing the 1987 edition of the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology in North America. Interested persons are invited to write to Dr Raymond B. Manning at the address given above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 7 Case 1594 Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia, Carnivora): proposed conservation Robert M. Schoch College of Basic Studies, Boston University, 871 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of both the generic and specific names in the binomen Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872, the name of the type species of a genus of early Tertiary carnivores. The suppression is sought of Triacodon fallax Marsh, 1871, an unused senior subjective synonym based on part of a single tooth. 1. The binomen Viverravus gracilis was proposed by Marsh (1872, p. 127), based on a lower jaw and partial dentition (Yale Peabody Museum No. 11836), for a new genus and species of Middle Eocene carnivores. 2. However, in the previous year Marsh (1871, p. 123) had proposed the new genus and species Triacodon fallax for what was described by Wortman (1901, p. 200) as ‘the anterior portion of a tooth crown (Yale Peabody Museum No. 10021) of the first lower molar or sectorial, which agrees in every particular with the corresponding tooth of Viverravus gracilis’. Thus Triacodon Marsh, 1871 (type species by monotypy Triacodon fallax Marsh, 1871) can be considered a senior subjective synonym of Viverravus Marsh, 1872 (type species by monotypy Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872), and Triacodon fallax is a senior subjective synonym of Viverravus gracilis. 3. The names Viverravus and Viverravus gracilis are widely known and have been cited repeatedly in zoological literature; a list of ten representative works is held in the office of the Secretariat. In his original revision of these forms, Wortman (1901, p. 200) preferred usage of the names Viverravus and V. gracilis even though he con- sidered them to be junior subjective synonyms of Triacodon and T. fallax respectively. Triacodon has perhaps not been used since Hay (1930, p. 478). 4. Adoption now of the names Triacodon Marsh, 1871 and Triacodon fallax Marsh, 1871 does not appear to be in the interest of stability of zoological nomenclature. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic and specific names Triacodon Marsh, 1871 and fallax Marsh, 1871, as published in the binomen Triacodon fallax, 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 name Viverravus Marsh, 1872, (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872; 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name gracilis Marsh, 1872, as published in the binomen Viverravus gracilis (specific name of the type species of Viverravus Marsh, 1872); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Triacodon Marsh, 1871, as suppressed in (1) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name fallax Marsh, 1871, as published in the binomen Triacodon fallax and as suppressed in (1) above. References Hay, O. P. 1930. Second bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Publications. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Pub. 390, 2: 1-1074. Marsh, O. G. 1871. Notice of some new fossil mammals and birds from the Tertiary formations of the West. American Journal of Science, ser. 3, 2: 120-127. Marsh, O. G. 1872. Preliminary description of new Tertiary Mammals. American Journal of Science, ser. 3, 4: 122-128. Wortman, J. L. 1901. Studies of Eocene Mammalia in the Marsh Collection, Peabody Museum. American Journal of Science, ser. 4, 12: 193-206, figs. 31-43. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 9 Case 2324 Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation G. Van Rossem Berkenlaan 25,6711 RM Ede, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the generic name Cryptus Fabricius, 1804, a widely used name for a genus of ichneumonid wasps, by the suppression of a senior homonym: Cryptus Panzer, 1804, an unused name for a sawfly genus. 1. In 1801, G. W. F. Panzer published anonymously in the Intelligenzblatt der Litteratur Zeitung, Erlangen, vol. 1, number 21, a “Nachricht von einem neuen entomo- lischen [sic] Werke, des Hrn. Prof. Jurine im Geneve’ (Notice of a New Entomological Work by Hr. Prof. Jurine of Geneva). In the paper, commonly called the ‘Erlangen List’, Panzer listed (with a brief description but no included species) some of Jurine’s new generic names, thereby making them available. One such name was Cryptus (p. 163) for a genus of sawfly. Although there has been much confusion over the authorship of the names in the ‘List’, it is clear from Article 50a of the Code that this is to be credited to Jurine alone. Probably the only remaining copy of the Litteratur Zeitung for 1801 is preserved in the University of Erlangen library, but a fascimile reprint of the ‘List’ isin a paper by Morice & Durrant (1914), with Cryptus on page 362. 2. Later Panzer (1804, tab. 17) gave the generic name Cryptus (de novo, without reference to Jurine) with the single included species Cryptus segmentarius. This generic name has remained unused. 3. Fabricius (1804, p. 70; for date see Hedicke, 1941) erected a new genus Cryptus for 103 species of ichneumonid wasps. Curtis (1837, pl. 668) designated C. viduatorius Fabricius, 1804 (p. 70) as the type species. It is known from references in Fabricius’ Systema Piezatorum to parts of Panzer’s work (e.g. p. 23—‘Panz. Fn. Germ. 89 tab. 10”) published after that part containing Cryptus that Cryptus Panzer is the senior name. Despite this lack of priority Cryptus Fabricius has been in continuous use. 4. Chester Bradley (1919, p. 54) drew attention to the nomenclatural problems surrounding the name Cryptus and suggested that according to the rule of priority replacement names should be used for Cryptus Fabricius. As the latter has had family- group names based on it there are repercussions involved in using replacement names. For example, the important subfamily name CRYPTINAE Kirby, 1837 (p. 259) has been changed to GELINAE (Townes, 1970, p. 1), HEMITELINAE (Fitton & Gauld, 1976, p. 251) and PHYGADEUONTINAE (Fitton & Gauld, 1978, p. 245). 5. The Commission, in response to an application in 1935 by Chester Bradley and others, took action on the Cryptus problem, firstly in Opinion 135 (1939) when the ‘Erlangen List’ was suppressed for all purposes of nomenclature and secondly in Opinion 157 (1945) when Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 was placed on the Official List. Finally, by Direction 4 (1954), the ‘Erlangen List’ was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology. The net effect of the Commission’s decisions 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 however has merely been to eradicate Cryptus Jurine, 1801. They have not resulted in the original aim, conservation of Cryptus Fabricius, 1804, a commonly used name fora genus of ichneumonid wasps, as this still remains a junior homonym of Cryptus Panzer, 1804. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cryptus Panzer, 1804 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Cryptus Jurine, 1801, as a name published in a work suppressed for nomen- clatural purposes; (b) Cryptus Panzer, 1804, as suppressed in (1) above. No other action is requested since Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 is already on the Official List. References Bradley, J. C. 1919. The synonymy and types of certain genera of hymenoptera, especially of those discussed by the Rev. F. D. Morice and Mr Jno Hartley Durrant in connection with the long-forgotten ‘Erlangen List’ of Panzer and Jurine. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1919: 50-75. Curtis, J. 1837. British Entomology, vol. 14, 673 plates. London. Fabricius, J. C. 1804. Systema Piezatorum. 439 pp. Brunswick. Fitton, M. G. & Gauld, I. D. 1976. The family-group names of the Ichneumonidae (excluding Ichneumoninae) (Hymenoptera). Systematic Entomology, 1: 247-258. Fitton, M. G. & Gauld, I. D. 1978. Further notes on family-group names of Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Systematic Entomology, 3: 245-247. Hedicke, H. 1941. Uber das Erscheinungsjahr von Fabricius’ Systema Piezatorum. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 10: 82-83. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1939. Opinion 135. The suppression of the so-called ‘Erlangen List’ of 1801. Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 2: 7-12. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1945. Opinion 157. Three names in the order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 2(27): 251-262. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1954. Direction 4. Addition to the ‘Official Lists’ and ‘Official Indexes’ of certain scientific names and of the titles of certain books dealt with in ‘Opinions’ 134-160, excluding ‘Opinion’ 149. Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 2(53): 629-652. Kirby, W. 1837. The Insects. xxxix + 325 pp. Jn: Richardson, J. Fauna Boreali-Americana, part 4. Josiah Fletcher: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans, Norwich. Morice, F. D. & Durrant, J. H. 1914. The authorship and first publication of the ‘Jurinean’ genera of Hymenoptera: being a reprint of a long-lost work by Panzer, with a translation into English, an introduction, and bibliographical and critical notes. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1914: 339-436. Panzer, G. W. L. 1801. Nachricht von einem neuen entomologischen Werke, des Hrn. Prof. Jurine im Geneve. /ntelligenzblatt der Litteratur Zeitung, Erlangen, 1, no. 20: 153-154, 160; 1, no. 21: 161-165. Panzer, G. W. L. 1804. Fauna insectorum Germanicae initia; oder Deutschlands Insecten gesammet und herausgegeben von D. G. W. F. Panzer. Heft 88, 24 tabs. Niirnberg. Townes, H. 1970. The genera of Ichneumonidae. Part 2. Memoirs. American Entomological Institute, 12: 1-537. ee eee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 11 Case 2523 Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 as type species Vladimir Svihla Narodni muzeum, odd. entomologie, Kunratice 1, 148 00 Praha 4, Czechoslovakia Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Dryops femorata as type species of Oncomera, in accordance with the current usage; when proposing the genus Stephens had misidentified this species as Necydalis podagrariae Linnaeus, 1767, now placed in a different genus. 1. Stephens (1829, p. 20) established the nominal genus Oncomera with the single included species Necydalis podagrariae Linnaeus, 1767 (p. 642). In 1832 Stephens (pp. 57-58) gave a full description of his new genus, again with the same single included nominal species, but he noted ‘Linnaeus’s definition of Ne. podagrariae does not well accord with this species’. Clearly Stephens was beginning to consider the possibility that he had misidentified N. podagrariae in his earlier work. By 1839 (pp. 337-338) he seemed convinced of this and the single listed species under Oncomera was now Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 (p. 74). Meanwhile, Westwood (1838, p. 31) had in the previous year listed N. podagrariae as type species of Oncomera. 2. Oedemera Olivier, 1789 (p. 31) has as type species Necydalis caerulea Linnaeus, 1767 (p. 642). N. caerulea and N. podagrariae are held to be congeneric (see Svihla, 1985 (p. 210), so that Oncomera Stephens and Oedemera Olivier would be subjective synonyms if Westwood’s listing of type species for the former genus were to be fol- lowed. However, Oncomera and Oedemera are always treated as clearly defined and distinct genera within the family OEDEMERIDAE, and for over 150 years Oncomera Stephens has been used solely in the sense of Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 (a species widely distributed over a large part of Europe). Oncomera in the sense of Necydalis podagrariae would upset this long and well established usage. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Oncomera Stephens, 1829 and to designate Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name femorata Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Dryops femorata, (specific name of the type species of Oncomera Stephens, 1829). 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 References Fabricius, J. C. 1792. Entomologia systematica, vol. 1(2). 538 pp. Hafniae. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, ed. 12, vol. 2: 533-1327. Laurentic Salvii, Holmiae. Olivier, A. G. 1789. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire Naturelle, vol. 4: 377 pp. Panckoucke, Paris; Plomteux, Liége. Stephens, J. E. 1829. The Nomenclature of British Insects. 68 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. Stephens, J. E. 1832. I//ustrations of British Entomology: or a Synopsis of Indigenous Insects. Vol. 5, Mandibulata. 448 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. Stephens, J. E. 1839. A manual of British Coleoptera or Beetles. 443 pp. Longman, Orme Brown, Green, and Longmans, London. Svihla, V. 1985. Revision of the generic classification of the Old World Oedemeridae (Coleop- tera). Acta Musei nationalis Pragae, Series B, vol. 41: 141-238. Westwood, J. O. 1838-1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects, vol. 2, appendix. Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects. 158 pp. Longman, Orme Brown, Green and Longmans, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 13 Case 2553 Musca marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Chrysomya marginalis; Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific name L. E. O. Braack Department of Research and Information, Kruger National Park, Skukuza 1350, South Africa Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 by the suppression of the disused senior primary hom- onyms marginalis Fourcroy, 1758 and marginalis Fallen, 1824. Chrysomya marginalis is the established name of a well-known and common calliphorid blow-fly of considerable veterinary importance. 1. A metallic blue, carrion-frequenting blow-fly was first described by Wiedemann (1830, p. 395) and named Musca marginalis. Later in the same year Robineau-Desvoidy (p. 395) also described the same species under the name Chrysomya regalis. Wiedemann is considered to have published before Robineau-Desvoidy (Aubertin, 1933). 2. Fourcroy in 1785 (p. 497) had, however, already described an unrelated fly as Musca marginalis (a name subsequently never used) and Fallén in 1824 named yet another unrelated fly as M. marginalis (now known as Spilogona marginifera Hennig, 1959). Under Art. 52b & 53c of the Code Musca marginalis Fallen, 1824 and M. marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 are junior primary homonyms and permanently invalid. Therefore, the valid name of the latter is Chrysomya regalis Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. 3. Since publication of the name and description by Wiedemann in 1830 the fly has become widely known as Chrysomya marginalis (Wiedemann, 1830) and the technical incorrectness of this name consistently overlooked. The name has appeared in numer- ous primary zoological publications; a list of 13 representative works is held in the office of the Secretariat, and its use is especially entrenched in the veterinary profession. 4. To my knowledge the species had not been referred to by any other name until the 1980 publication of the Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afro-tropical Region by Crosskey, in which the true status of the name was revealed by Pont (p. 789). Subsequent to that publication only two works have appeared (Prins, 1980 and 1982) referring to the species as Chrysomya regalis Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, whereas numerous other authors have persisted in using C. marginalis (Wiedemann). 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: (a) marginalis Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis; (b) marginalis Fallén, 1824, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis; 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name marginalis Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) marginalis Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis and as suppressed in (la) above; (b) marginalis Fallén, 1824, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis and as suppressed in (1b) above; (c) regalis Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Chrysomya regalis. Acknowledgement I am greatly indebted to Mr A. C. Pont of the British Museum (Natural History), London, for his guidance and aid during the compilation of this application. References Aubertin, D. 1933. Notes on certain species of the genus Orthellia, with a description of one new species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10), 11: 139-144. Fallén, C. F. 1824. Monographia Muscidium Sueciae, vol. 7: 65—72. Lundae. Fourcroy, A. G. 1785. Entomologia Parisiensis, 2 (5), 544 pp. Paris. Pont, A. C. 1980. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 779-800, in Crosskey, R. W. (ed.), Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Prins, A. J. 1980. The arthropods associated with decaying organic matter in the southern and western Cape Province. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Stellenbosch. Prins, A. J. 1982. Morphological and biological notes on six South African blow-flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) and their immature stages. Annals of the South African Museum, 90 (4): 201-217. Robineau-Desvoidy, J. B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers Savants a l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, vol. 2: 1-813. Wiedemann, C. R. W. 1830. Aussereuropdische zweifliigelige Insekten, vol. 2, xii & 684 pp. Hamm. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 15 Case 2555 Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga Carretera de Cadiz, 89, 1° A, 29004 Malaga, Spain L. Dieckmann Leibnizstr. 17, 1300 Eberswalde, D.D.R. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the generic name Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (APIONIDAE, NANOPHYINAE) by suppression of its senior synonym Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825. 1. Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825 (p. 587) was established for three species and two nomina nuda. The type species by original designation is Rhynchaenus lythri auctt. (namely, Curculio lythri Fabricius, 1787 (p. 102), a junior subjective synonym of Curculio marmoratus Goeze, 1777 (p. 413)). 2. Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (p. 780) was established as a replacement name for Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825; it included 13 species, among which is the type species of Nanodes, which is also the type species of Nanophyes (Art. 67h of the Code). Nanodes was thought erroneously by Schoenherr to be preoccupied by Nanodes Vieillot, pub- lished properly for the first time by Stephens (1826, p. 118) for a genus of PSITTACIDAE (Aves). 3. The name Nanophyes is a junior objective synonym of Nanodes and, strictly adhering to the Code, must not be used. However, it has been so, constantly, and a list of representative works has been given to the Commision Secretariat. Moreover, 411 nominal taxa of the species-group level have been described in it, most of which are still included. 4. Nanophyes is the basis of the family-group name Nanophyina Seidlitz, 1891 (p. 167), NANOPHYINAE in modern form. 5. Quite recently, O’Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 19) resurrected the name Nanodes and used it in combination with five Nearctic species. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825 (a senior objective synonym of Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838) 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 name Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (gender: masculine), type species designated by Schoenherr, 1825 (for Nanodes): Curculio lythri Fabricius, 1787 (a junior subjective synonym of Curculio marmoratus Goeze, 1777); 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name marmoratus Goeze, 1777, as published in the binomen Curculio marmoratus (valid name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825 as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgement We wish to thank Mr R. T. Thompson, of the British Museum (Natural History), London. References Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum sistens eorum species nuper detectas adiectis characteri- bus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationibus. Vol. 1, xx+348 pp. Hafniae. Goeze, J. A. E. 1777. Entomologische Beytrdége zu des Ritter Linne zwolften Ausgabe des Natursystems. Vol. 1, 736 pp. Leipzig. O’Brien, C. W. & Wibmer, G. J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae sensu lato) of North America, Central America, and the West Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, no. 34, ix+ 382 pp. Schoenherr, C. J. 1825. Continuatio tabulae synopticae Familiae Curculionidum. Jsis (von Oken, Jena) 5: 581-588. Schoenherr, C. J. 1838. Genera et species Curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus familiae. Species novae aut hactenus minus cognitae, descriptionibus a Dom. Leonardo Gyllenhal, C. H. Boheman, et entomologis aliis illustratae, vol. 4(2): 601-1121 (+ pp. 1122-1124 Corr.). Seidlitz, G. 1891. Fauna Baltica. Die Kaefer (Coleoptera) der deutschen Ostseeprovinzen Russlands, ed. 2, 1887-1891. (10) + LVI+ 192+ 818 pp. Stephens, J. F. 1826. Aves. In Shaw, G. General Zoology or systematic Natural History commenced by the late George Shaw, M.D., F.R.S. &c. Vol. 14, pt 1, iv+385 pp. London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 17 Case 2573 Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum costulatum; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of specific name Yu. A. Pesenko Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad 199034, US.5.R. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 for a Palaearctic halictid bee. The specific name is threatened by Andrena campestris Eversmann, 1852, a senior synonym unused since 1896. 1. Eversmann (1852, p. 20) established the name Andrena campestris for a new species from the South Ural mountains. The description is based on female specimens. Dalla Torre (1896, p. 94) erroneously placed this name in the synonymy of Melitta sexnotata Kirby, 1802 (now Lasioglossum sexnotatum) and was followed in this view by all subsequent authors (e.g. Warncke, 1973, p. 285). 2. Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (p. 59) was described from males and females found in different parts of Western Europe. The lectotype, a female from Rosenheim (F.R.G.), deposited in the Zoologische Staatssamlung, Miinchen, was designated by Ebmer (1976, p. 4). The species is distributed from W. Europe and N.W. Africa up to Lake Baikal. During the last fifty years the specific name has been used as valid in dozens of publications including keys of regional faunas and faunistic lists, and a list of representative references is held by the Commission Secretariat. The species is currently placed in Lasioglossum Curtis, 1833. 3. The type series of A. campestris is deposited in the Zoological Institute, Leningrad, and consists of three conspecific females all labelled, in Eversmann’s hand, ‘Spassk’ (Spasskoe, Orenburg Province); one of them will be designated as lectotype (Pesenko, in press). An examination of the syntypes shows that A. campestris is a senior subjective synonym not of L. sexnotatum but of L. costulatum. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name campestris Eversmann, 1852, as published in the binomen Andrena campestris, 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 Specific Names in Zoology the name costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873, as published in the binomen Halictus costulatus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name campestris Eversmann, 1852, as published in the binomen, Andrena campestris and as suppressed in (1) above. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Acknowledgement My sincere thanks to Dr I. M. Kerzhner for his help and advice. References Dalla Torre, C. G. de, 1986. Catalogus hymenopterorum. Vol. 10. Apidae (Anthophila). 643 pp. Lipsiae. Ebmer, A. W. 1976. Revision der von W. Nylander und J. Kriechbaumer beschriebenen Halictidae (Apoidea). Nachrichtenblatt der Bayerischen Entomologen, 25 (1): 1-6. Eversmann, E. 1852. Fauna hymenopterologica Volga-Uralensis. (Continuatio). Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 25 (2) no. 3: 1-137. Kriechbaumer, J. 1873. Hymenopterologische Beitrage. III. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch- botanischen Gessellschaft in Wien, 23: 49-68. Warncke, K. 1973. Zur Systematik und Synonymie der mitteleuropdischen Furchenbien Halictus Latreille (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Halictidae). Bulletin de la Société de Sciences de Liége, 42 (7/8): 277-295. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 19 Case 2548 Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name Harald A. Rehder and Richard E. Petit Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the well known harp shell name Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822, which is threatened by the unused senior synonyms Harpa delicata and Harpa urniformis Perry, 1811. 1. George Perry in his 1811 Conchology (pl. 40, fig. 1-3) figured and briefly described three species of Harpa. These particular Perry illustrations are poor, and the figures cannot be identified with any degree of certainty. In the words of Melvill (1916, p. 40): ‘the figure of No. 1 [Harpa grandiformis] is fairly good; of Nos. 2 and 3 very fantastic and specious, all impossible to determine with absolute certainty’. Perry’s species of Harpa are H. grandiformis, H. delicata and H. urniformis. None of these names have been used as valid names and none of Perry’s types have ever been located (with the possible exception of Conus fasciatus Perry (Wilkins, 1957, p. 137)). Harpa grandi- formis Perry, 1811 is considered by Rehder (1973, p. 247) to be a junior synonym of Harpa major Roding, 1798 and does not enter into this petition. 2. Harpa delicata Perry, 1811 (pl. 40, fig. 2) was listed as a senior synonym of Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 by Rehder (1973, p. 250) in a monograph on the genus and stated to be a nomen oblitum. Harpa nobilis Lamarck, 1816 is listed as a junior synonym of H. delicata, but does not require action as it is a junior primary homonym of Harpa nobilis R6ding, 1798 and is therefore invalid. Under Art. 79c (iii) of the 1985 Code the relegation of H. delicata as a nomen oblitum is not valid, and the Commission is asked to ratify Rehder’s action. Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 has been used as the valid name of this species in recent years by many authors; ten representative publications have been submitted to the Commission Secretariat. 3. Harpa urniformis Perry, 1811 (pl. 40, fig. 3) has been mentioned in subsequent literature only by Deshayes (1844, p. 131) and Melvill (1916, p. 40). Deshayes, who considered Lamarck’s taxa inviolable (see Petit, 1984), listed Perry’s figure in the synonymy of Harpa ventricosa Lamarck, 1816. This is the only one of Perry’s figures mentioned by Deshayes, which is strange considering that it is the poorest of the three. Melvill (1916, p. 40) stated of Perry’s H. urniformis: ‘var. monstr. incertae sedis’. The present authors do not consider this Perry figure to be identifiable as to species and petition for the suppression of Harpa urniformis. 4. Although we are advocates of the Principle of Priority, it is our opinion that stability of nomenclature will be best served in this instance by the suppression of these names which have not been used as senior synonyms since their original publication. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) delicata Perry, 1811, as published in the binomen Harpa delicata; (b) urniformis Perry, 1811, as published in the binomen Harpa urniformis, (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the name articularis Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Harpa articularis; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) delicata Perry, 1811, as published in the binomen Harpa delicata and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) urniformis Perry, 1811, as published in the binomen Harpa urniformis and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Deshayes, G. P. 1844. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, ed. 2. vol. 10. 638 pp. Paris. Melvill, J. C. 1916. Notes on the genus Harpa. Journal of Conchology, London, 15 (2): 33-40. Perry, G. 1811. Conchology, or the Natural History of Shells; containing a new arrangement of the genera and species ...4 pp., 61 pls. London. Petit, R. E. 1984. Some early names in Cancellariidae. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, 2: 57-61. Rehder, H. A. 1973. The family Harpidae of the world. Indo-Pacific Mollusca. Monographs of the Marine Molluscs of the tropical Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, 3 (16): 207-274. Wilkins, G. L. 1957. The Cracherode Shell Collection. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 1 (4): 123-184. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 21 Case 2563 Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name W. O. Cernohorsky Auckland Institute and Museum, Private Bag, Auckland 1, New Zealand Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the widely accepted marine prosobranch name Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 by the suppression of an unused senior subjective synonym, Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865. 1. Crosse (1865, p. 304) described Conus anabathrum on the basis ofa single specimen from the Cuming collection. No type locality was given by Crosse but the name has been erroneously associated with Indo-Pacific species and largely ignored. Tomlin (1937, p. 211) in his catalogue of recent and fossil cones listed the specific name anabathrum Crosse, but placed the taxon in the synonymy of the Japanese species C. japonicus Hwass in Bruguiere, 1792. Hinton (1972, p. 88) illustrated a species from Queensland, Australia as ‘Conus species’, and in the text mentioned that the species could possibly be C. anabathrum. Walls (1979, p. 962) listed C. anabathrum as a ‘doubtful taxon’. Neither of the aforementioned three authors used anabathrum as a valid name, and C. anabathrum is thus considered to be unused. 2. Coomans et al. (1980, p. 34), during research for a monograph on the genus Conus, examined the holotype of C. anabathrum in the British Museum (Natural History), London, and recognised it as being not of Indo—Pacific origin but conspecific with C. floridanus Gabb, 1869 (p. 195 [as 19]) from Florida and the Bahamas. The authors considered C. anabathrum Crosse, 1865 to be a senior synonym of C. floridanus Gabb, 1869, and suggested that the status of a nomen oblitum for C. anabathrum would be most appropriate for the sake of stability of nomenclature. However, since such a rejection is no longer applicable under the Code, an application for suppression under the plenary powers is mandatory. 3. Vink (1985, p. 3) reviewed the nomenclature of C. floridanus and C. anabathrum, and after studying the type of C. anabathrum agreed with Coomans ef al. that the specific names are synonymous. Vink proposed the re-instatement of anabathrum, but the re-introduction of this unused name for the well known, common, living and Pliocene species C. floridanus poses a serious threat to nomenclatural stability. The junior name C. floridanus is well entrenched in malacological literature and has been used by at least 29 different authors during the last 50 years (a list of references is held in the office of the Secretariat). 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name anabathrum Crosse, 1865, as published in the binomen Conus anabathrum, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name floridanus Gabb, 1869, as published in the binomen Conus floridanus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name anabathrum Crosse, 1865, as published in the binomen Conus anabathrum and as suppressed in (1) above. References Coomans, H. E., Moolenbeek, R. G. & Wils, E. 1980. Alphabetical revision of the (sub) species in recent Conidae. 3. albus to antillarum with the description of Conus algoensis agulhasi, nov. subspecies. Basteria, 44: 17-49. Crosse, H. 1865. Description de Cones nouveaux provenant de la collection Cuming. Journal de Conchyliologie, 13: 299-315. Gabb, W. M. 1869. Description of a new cone from the coast of Florida. American Journal of Conchology, 4 (4): 195-196. Hinton, A. 1972. Shells of New Guinea and the Central Indo-Pacific. xviii+ 94 pp. Robert Brown and Associates/Jacaranda Press, Port Moresby etc. Tomlin, J. R. Le B. 1937. Catalogue of recent and fossil cones. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 22: 205-333. Vink, D. N. L. 1985. What price stability? The vexing problem of synonymy. Hawaii Shell News, 33: 3. Walls, J. G. 1979. Cone shells, a synopsis of the living Conidae. 1011 pp. TFH Publications, Hong Kong. eee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 23 Case 2582 Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 (Nematoda): proposed designation of Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963 as type species M. W. Brzeski Instytut Warzywnictwa, 96—100 Skierniewice, Poland E. Geraert Instituut voor Dierkunde, K. L. Ledeganckstraat 35, B9000 Gent, Belgium D. J. Raski Division of Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963, previously misidentified as Tylenchus filiformis Bitschli, 1873, as the nominal type species of the phytoparasitic nematode worm genus Filenchus Andrassy, 1954. This is in conformity with the usage of the last 33 years. 1. In 1954 (p. 12) Andrassy erected the subgenus Filenchus, within the genus Tylen- chus Bastian, 1865 (p. 125), designating as type species Tylenchus ( Filenchus) filiformis Bitschli, 1873 (p. 37), and including four other species. 2. The description of T. (F.) filiformis by Biitschli is inadequate by present day standards (e.g. the structure of the lateral field and of the head region is unknown), although it is not a nomen nudum. The type locality is not indicated and no type specimens are preserved. Brzeski (1982, p. 72) concluded that the original description of T. (F.) filiformis was inadequate for generic classification ‘according to the present taxonomy of Tylenchidae’ and proposed that it be declared a ‘species inquirenda’. 3. In the same 1954 paper (p. 26) Andrassy redescribed 7. (F.) filiformis from so-called ‘neotype specimens’ collected in Hungary (although under Article 75d this is not a valid neotype designation). His description was different from Bitschli’s original by many characteristics (e.g. body length, tail shape). These new specimens were sub- sequently found to belong to a separate and distinct species described by Brzeski (1963, p. 532) as Tylenchus vulgaris. 4. Meyl (1960, p. 59) raised Filenchus to generic status with Tylenchus filiformis Bitschli, 1873, as type species. Subsequently Filenchus was considered to be a junior objective synonym of Tylenchus by many workers, while others thought the taxa dis- tinct. This state of confusion is probably the reason why no species lists have been published since Mey] (1960) and that it was only in 1985 that Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski was transferred to Filenchus by Lownsbery & Lownsbery (p. 9). 5. As the genus Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 was based on a misidentified type species, under Article 70b the case must be referred to the Commission. To resolve the situation there are three possibilities: (a) to validate the existing designation by Meyl (1960) to Tylenchus filiformis Biitschli, 1873. This is highly undesirable because it would make Filenchus a genus inquirendum; 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 (b) to designate T. filiformis sensu Andrassy (1954). This is also undesirable because the species has no type material in existence, has no name of its own and one can never be absolutely sure that it is conspecific with T. vulgaris Brzeski, 1963; (c) to designate T. filiformis in the sense in which it has been used since 1954 and for which Brzeski (1963) proposed the new name T. vulgaris. As the identity of this species is unambiguous, this seems the best solution. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species made for the nominal genus Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 and to designate Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963 as type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above, Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vulgaris Brzeski, 1963, as published in the binomen Tylenchus vulgaris (specific name of the type species of Filenchus Andrassy, 1954). References Andrassy, I. 1954. Revision der Gattung Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Tylenchidae, Nematoda). Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae, 1 (1—2): 5-42. Bastian, H. C. 1865. Monograph on the Anguillulidae, or free nematodes, marine, land, fresh- water; with descriptions of 100 new species. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 35 (2): 73-184. Brzeski, M. W. 1963. On the taxonomic status of Tylenchus filiformis Butschli, 1873 and descrip- tion of T. vulgaris sp. n. (Nematoda, Tylenchidae). Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences, cl. I], 11 (11): 531-535. Brzeski, M. W. 1982. Taxonomy of Ottolenchus Husain & Khan and description of Coslenchus polonicus sp. n. (Nematoda: Tylenchidae). Revue de Nématologie, 5 (1): 71-77. Biitschli, O. 1873. Beitrag zur Kenntniss der freilebenden Nematoden. Nova Acta Academiae Caesarea Leopoldino—Carolinae Germanicum Naturae Curiosorum, 36 (5): 1-144. Lownsbery, J. W. & Lownsbery, B. F. 1985. Plant-parasitic nematodes associated with forest trees in California. Hilgardia, 53 (5): 1-16. Meyl, A. 1960. Freilebende Nematoden. Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. | (5a): 1-164. a ee, le ll ee ee eee ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 25 Case 2581 LARIDAE Vigors, 1825 (Aves) and LARINI LeConte, 1861 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposal to remove the homonymy Paul J. Spangler Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to remove the homonymy between the currently used subfamily names LARINAE (Aves, LARIDAE) and LARINAE (Coleoptera, ELMIDAE). It is proposed that the riffle beetle subfamily name be altered to LARAINAE by changing the stem of the type genus name Lara from LAR- to LARA-. 1. The family name LARIDAE (Aves) was first used for the gulls by Vigors (1825, p. 498) based on the genus Larus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 136). The type species of Larus is L. marinus Linnaeus, 1758, by the designation of Selby (1840, p. 48). Following Bonaparte (1831, pp. 33 & 58) the gulls are usually treated as the subfamily LARINAE. 2. LeConte (1861, p. 116) proposed the tribal name LARINI, based on his elmid beetle genus Lara LeConte, 1852 (p. 42) of which the type species is by monotypy L. avara LeConte, 1852. Boving (1929, p. 67) introduced the family name LARIDAE, but later Boving & Craighead (1930, p. 45) reduced the taxon to the subfamily rank, LARINAE. Spangler (1986) discussed the homonymy and used the name LARAINAE for the elmid beetle subfamily with the hope that the Commission will reach the same decision. 3. Although the generic name Lara was used by Drapiez (1819, p. 45) in the Hymenoptera, this usage has no standing according to the Code (Art. 33) as it is an incorrect subsequent spelling of the generic name Larra Fabricius, 1793. Pate (1937, p. 33) and Bohart & Menke (1976, p. 42) regarded its use by Drapiez as a typographical error. 4. It is suggested that the avian subfamily name LARINAE be conserved, on the basis of the Principle of Priority, and that the ELMIDAE subfamily name be altered to avoid homonymy. The Commission is requested to rule that the stem of Lara LeConte, 1852, be changed from LAR- to LARA-, thereby making the subfamily name LARAINAE. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic name Lara LeConte, 1852, for the purposes of Article 29, is LARA-; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Larus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Selby (1840) Larus marinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves); (b) Lara LeConte, 1852 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Lara avara LeConte, 1852 (Insecta); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) marinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Larus marinus (specific name of the type species of Larus Linnaeus, 1758); 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 (b) avara LeConte, 1852, as published in the binomen Lara avara (specific name of the type species of Lara LeConte, 1852); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) LARIDAE Vigors, 1825 (type genus Larus Linnaeus, 1758) (Aves); (b) LARAINI LeConte, 1852 (emendation, through the ruling in (1) above, of LARINI LeConte, 1852) (type genus Lara LeConte, 1852) (Insecta); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology the name LARINI LeConte, 1852 (a junior homonym of LaRIDAE Vigors, 1825; emended to LARAINI by the plenary powers in (1) above). Acknowledgement I thank Curtis W. Sabrosky and Christian Thompson for reviewing this article. References Bohart, R. M. & Menke, A. S. 1976. Sphecid Wasps of the World: a generic revision, viii + 695 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bonaparte, C. L. 1831. Giornale Arcadio di Scienze lettere ed arti, 49: 3-77. Béving, A. G. 1929. On the classification of beetles according to larval characters. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 24 (2): 55-80. Béving, A. G. & Craighead, F. P. 1930. An illustrated synopsis of the principal larval forms of the order Coleoptera. Entomologica Americana, vol. 11 (new series): 1-351. Drapiez, M. 1819. Description de huit espéces d’Insectes nouveaux. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques ( Bruxelles), 1: 45—S5. Fabricius, J. C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, etc., vol. 2, viiit+ 519 pp. C. G. Profit, Hafniae. LeConte, J. L. 1852. Synopsis of the Parnidae of the United States. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 6: 41-45. LeConte, J. L. 1861. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Part 1. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 3: 1-286. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, iv+824 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. Pate, V. S. 1937. The generic names of the Sphecoid Wasps and their type species. Memoirs of the American Entomological Society, Philadelphia, 9: 1-103. Selby, P. J. 1840. A Catalogue of the generic and subgeneric types of the class Aves, birds arranged according to their natural system. Tracts of Zoology, (1788-1867), 11: 1-70. Spangler, P. J. 1986. The status of the riffle beetle genus Lara and homonymy of the subfamily group name Larinae (Coleoptera: Elmidae). Entomological News, 97 (2): 77-79. Vigors, N. A. 1825. Observations on the natural affinities that connect the orders and families of birds. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 14 (3): 395-517. eo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 27 Case 2579 Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea): proposed confirmation of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 as type species Edward P. F. Rose & Jane B. S. Olver Department of Geology, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 as the nominal type species of Desorella Cotteau, 1855. The original publication defining the Jurassic echinoid genus Desorella did not explicitly designate a type species. There is an indication that D. icaunensis Cotteau, 1855 was intended, but this conflicts with Cotteau’s later (1873) choice of D. elata (Desor, 1847) and with general usage. 1. In 1855 Cotteau founded the echinoid genus Desoria to accommodate five species: four described from the late Jurassic (Corallian: now within the Oxfordian Stage) of the Yonne district of France (Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847; Desoria icaunensis Cotteau, 1855; D. orbignyana Cotteau, 1855; D. drogiaca Cotteau, 1855), plus one species from the early Cretaceous (Neocomian) of Switzerland (Nucleopygus incisus Agassiz, 1840). 2. The precise date of foundation is now uncertain. Cotteau published identical text and illustrations almost simultaneously in two different ways: (i) as one (Cotteau, 1855a) of a series of articles on Yonne Jurassic fossil echinoids, published intermittently in the bulletin of the local natural history society over the years 1850-1856 (see Weisbord, 1971, p. 64 for full list of articles); (ii) as part of a single monograph (Cotteau, 1855b, in Cotteau, 1849-56) which provides a comprehensive account of the fossil echinoids of the Yonne Jurassic as then known. 3. If they were not simultaneous, presumably the date of publication of (i) preceded that of (ii) rather than vice-versa, but this is now not clear. The only difference between the two is the pagination. Cotteau in later works (1855c; 1873) consistently cited only (ii) without reference to (i), and he has been followed in this by later authors (e.g. Lambert & Thiéry, 1909-25; Wagner & Durham, 1966b). 4. The precise date of first publication of the name Desoria is not, however, of great significance, for Cotteau quickly (1855c, p. 710) realised that the name Desoria was preoccupied by an insect name (presumably Desoria Nicolet, 1842, as stated by Lambert & Thiéry (1909-25) and Wagner & Durham (1966b), although not explicitly stated by Cotteau (1855c)). The name would in any case have been preoccupied by that of Desoria Gray, 1851 (a spatangoid echinoid, for which the replacement name Protenaster was founded by Pomel (1883)). 5. Cotteau (1855c, p. 710) therefore founded the name Desorella Cotteau, 1855 asa replacement name for Desoria Cotteau, 1855, and Desorella rather than Desoria was given in the table of echinoid genera and species which appeared as an index at the end 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 of his accounts of Yonne Jurassic echinoids (1849-56, p. 344; 1856, p. 76). The 1855 date is now widely accepted despite the explicit citation by Lambert & Thiéry (1909-25, p. 585) of 1856. 6. Apart from the new name, Desorella, and the inclusion of a description of D. incisa, Cotteau’s (1855c) account of the assigned species differs little from those given in his other two near-contemporaneous publications (1855a,b). It is arguable whether or not he defined a type species ‘by original designation’ in the strict sense. In his introduc- tory remarks to the genus, Cotteau (1855a, p. 11; 1855b, p. 221) distinguished two forms amongst his assigned species: one ‘allongée, ovoide, renflé et trés-voisine des Pyrines’, another with ‘charactéres qui tendraient a les rapprocher des Hyboclypus’. Without giving any name, he stated the elongate species to be ‘celle qui nous a servi de type’. Mention of a particular structure as ‘type’ or ‘typical’ of a genus does not constitute designation under Art. 67c (2) of the Code. However, in 1855c (p. 711), ifnot 1855a,b, Cotteau actually names D. icaunensis and D. incisa (in that order) as the two species ‘trés voisines des Pyrines’. D. icaunensis Cotteau, 1855 is consistently described first of all the assigned species in each of Cotteau’s (1855a,b,c) accounts and is the only one of the (1855a,b) assigned species in which the term ‘elongata’ appears in the diagnosis. D. incisa (Agassiz, 1840) was not recorded from the Yonne Jurassic, so although cited in discussion by Cotteau (1855a,b) it was not actually described by him until later (1855c, p. 715). It seems clear that Cotteau originally regarded either D. icaunensis or D. incisaas the type species for his genus Desorella, and of these two almost certainly D. icaunensis. However, any ambiguity in the original intent is resolved by Cotteau himself (1862, p. 69, in Cotteau, 1858-80), who refers, in discussion of the new species Desorella guerangeri from the Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) of France (a species later made the type of the genus Pyrinodia Pomel, 1883), to ‘Des. icaunensis, qui avait servi de type a notre genre’. 7. To establish D. icaunensis as the type species for Desorella Cotteau, 1855 would destabilise and complicate echinoid nomenclature. As early as 1857 Desor (1855-58) excluded both D. icaunensis and D. incisa from Desorella, retaining only D. elata, D. orbignyana and D. drogiaca. Desor & de Loriol (1871, p. 287) redescribed D. icaunensis as a member of the genus Pyrina Desmoulins, 1835, a revision accepted by Cotteau (1873, p. 396, in Cotteau, 1867-74). Pomel (1883, p. 54) subsequently made D. icaunensis the type of his new genus Pygopyrina, a genus now widely accepted and currently (Wagner & Durham, 1966a, p. U445) classified as a member of the order Holectypoida, suborder Echinoneina. To establish D. icaunensis as the type species for Desorella Cotteau, 1855 would make Pygopyrina Pomel, 1883 a junior objective synonym, and so necessitate the use of the name Desorella for species of holectypoid echinoids (of superorder Eognathostomata Smith, 1981) in contrast to its consistent use since 1873 for echinoid species more closely associated (Mortensen, 1948) with the order Cassiduloida (i.e. within superorder Microstomata Smith, 1984). The species consistently included in Desorella would require a new generic name. 8. Zoology is best served by disregarding as non-rigorous the indications of Cotteau (1855a,b,c; 1862) with respect to type species, and applying Art. 69 of the Code (‘type species not fixed in the original publication’). In this case, D. elata (Desor, 1847) would become type species by the subsequent designation of Cotteau (1873, p. 333 in Cotteau, 1867-74). It is the only one of the five originally assigned species to be retained in Desorella by Cotteau (1873). ‘Elimination of all but one of the originally included —_ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 29 nominal species from a nominal genus does not in itself constitute type fixation’ (Art. 69b of the Code), but Cotteau’s listing of D. elata as the type is clear. D. elata has consistently been accepted as the type species for Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (e.g. Lambert & Thiéry, 1909-25, p. 327; Mortensen, 1948, p. 111; Wagner & Durham, 1966b, p. U631). 9. Cotteau (1855a,b,c; 1873) identified his Yonne specimens with Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 by comparing them with a plaster cast of the holotype, specimen V.7 of the Neuchatel Museum. In accordance with Art. 70 of the Code, since Cotteau (1855a,b) included D. elata as ‘an already established nominal species in a new nominal genus. . , it is to be assumed that the author has identified the species correctly’. 10. Desor (in Agassiz & Desor, 1847, p. 94) in the original description of Hyboclypus elatus gave an uncertain origin for the type specimen: ‘Ool. inf.? des environs de Nancy’ (=early Middle Jurassic). Cotteau (1873, p. 388) comments that Desor’s record may be in error. All other published records of D. elata are from rocks of Corallian age (Late Jurassic: Oxfordian Stage). 11. The type is an internal mould, lacking the test. Other specimens of D. elata are reported by Cotteau (1873, p. 388) to be ‘assez abondant’ but from very few localities. Almost all of them are internal moulds collected from the surface of ploughed fields in the Yonne district of France. Exceptions to this rule are two specimens from the Corallian of Upware in Cambridgeshire, the only specimens known from England and the only known ones with test material preserved. Description of one of these (Woods, 1904, p. 480) provides the fullest description to date of D. elata, and consequently of the genus Desorella. 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to confirm that the type species of the nominal genus Desorella Cotteau, 1855, is Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 by subsequent designation by Cotteau, 1873; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Cotteau, 1873, Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name e/atus Desor, 1847, as published in the binomen Hyboclypus elatus (specific name of the type species of Desorella Cotteau, 1855). References Agassiz, L. & Desor, E. 1847. Catalogue raisonné des familles, des genres et des espéces de la classe des échinodermes. 167 pp. L. Martinet, Paris. [Extrait des Annales des Sciences naturelles. Paris. Zoologie, ser. 3, vol. 6, 7, 8). Cotteau, G. H. 1849-56. Etudes sur les échinides fossiles du département de l’Yonne. Vol. 1. Terrain Jurassique. 347 pp. Balliére, Paris. Cotteau, G. H. 1855a. Etudes sur les échinides fossiles du département de l’Yonne. Etagecorallien (suite). Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Historiques et Naturelles de l’ Yonne, 9: 11-29. Cotteau, G. H. 1855b. Pp. 221-239, in Cotteau, G. H. (1849-56). Cotteau, G. H. 1855c. Note sur un nouveau genre d’échinide fossile. Genre Desorella Cotteau. Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, ser. 2, 12: 710-716. Cotteau, G. H. 1856. Etudes sur les échinides fossiles du département de I’Yonne. Etage Kimméridgien. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Historiques et Naturelles de l’Yonne, 10: 11-79. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Cotteau, G. H. 1858-1880. Echinides nouveaux ou peu connus. 234 pp. Balliére, Paris. [Extrait de la Revue et Magasin de Zoologie}. Cotteau, G. H. 1867-74. Tome IX. Terrain Jurassique, Echinides Irréguliers. 552 pp. In D’Orbigny. A. Paléontologie Francaise. G. Masson, Paris. Desor, P. J. E. 1855-58. Synopsis des échinides fossiles. 490 pp. Reinwald, Paris and Kreidel et Niedner, Wiesbaden. Desor, P. J. E. & de Loriol, P. 1868-72. Echinologie Helvétique. Déscriptions des oursins fossiles de la Suisse. Echinides de la période jurassique. 442 pp. Kreidel, Wiesbaden and Reinwald, Paris. Lambert, J. & Thiéry, P. 1909-25. Essai de nomenclature raisonneé des échinides. 607 pp. Librairie L. Ferriére, Chaumont. Moore, R. C. (ed.) 1966. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part U. Echinodermata 3. 695 pp. The Geological Society of America, Inc. and the University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Mortensen, T. 1948. A monograph of the Echinoidea. Vol. 4, part 1. Holectypoida, Cassiduloida. 371 pp. Reitzel, Copenhagen. Pomel, N. A. 1883. Classification méthodique et Genera des Echinides vivants et fossiles. 132 pp. Jourdan, Algiers. Wagner, C. D. & Durham, J. W. 1966a. Holectypoids. Pp. U440—450, in Moore, R. C. (ed.) (1966). Wagner, C. D. & Durham, J. W. 1966b. Gnathostomata or Atelostomata. Pp. U631—2, in Moore, R. C. (ed.) (1966). Weisbord, N. E. 1971. Bibliography of Cenozoic Echinoidea including some Mesozoic and Paleozoic titles. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 59 (236): 1-314. Woods, H. 1904. The genus Desorella. Geological Magazine, 41: 479-81. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 31 Case 2533 Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed designation of a neotype William Ralph Taylor Department of Vertebrate Zoology (Fishes), National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 20560, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to settle a problem as to whether a putative type specimen which is incorrectly described or a written description, can be relied on in the application of the specific name felis to an eastern North American species of sea catfish, family ARIIDAE. A neotype is proposed. 1. Linnaeus (1766, pp. 501 & 503) described Silurus felis from one or more specimens from Carolina collected by Dr Alexander Garden — most likely from the vicinity of Charles Town (now Charleston, South Carolina). 2. Characteristics given are of a species of ARIIDAE, of which there are two known from the Carolinas, both moderately common. They are known in ichthyological literature as the gafftopsail sea catfish (Bagre marinus (Mitchill, 1815, p. 433)) and the hardhead sea catfish (Ariopsis felis (Linnaeus, 1766)). 3. The structures described by Linnaeus that are useful in separating the two species are found in the Appendix. The cirri or barbels are very easily observed and difficult to overlook. Fin-ray counts, especially of the anal fin, usually require careful dissection to determine the small anterior rays and are often inaccurately given. 4. In the Linnean Society of London there is the left half skin of a specimen collected by Alexander Garden in the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina between 1760 and 1771 and sent via John Ellis in London to Linnaeus in Uppsala. This specimen is indicated by Wheeler (1985) as the holotype of Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766. It is clearly a specimen of the species currently known as the gafftopsail or Bagre marinus and is not the hardhead sea catfish currently known as Ariopsis felis. | have not examined the specimen, but useful identification characteristics of Bagre marinus, visible in the figure, are the long flattened maxillary barbels and long flattened filaments of the dorsal and pectoral fins — neither of which were mentioned by Linnaeus — and the distinc- tive shape of the body and fins. This appears to be the only extant Garden specimen bearing the label Silurus felis Linnaeus. 5. The Appendix (page 35) presents a summary of the variation that I have found in my study of the two species. Because the Linnean Society specimen is a gafftopsail, it would be expected to have characteristics identical to those listed for Bagre marinus and not those of the original description nor of Ariopsis felis. In fact the characteristics of only Ariopsis felis agree with the original description, except for the number of anal rays. The count of 23 anal rays is slightly high for felis and too low for a Carolina marinus. However, because the specimen is a skin or split specimen some of the anal rays may be missing. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 6. I have found no published indication that Linnaeus based his description on two or more specimens (and thus perhaps on two species) but this seems probable because of the discrepancy in the listed characteristics as well as the fact that both species live along the Carolina coast and were likely to be available to Dr Garden. That three of the four characteristics listed by Linnaeus accurately describe the hardhead sea catfish rather than the gafftopsail seems more than coincidental. His two statements that the fish had 6 cirri and ‘cirri sub labio inferiore 4, . . .’ can only have been derived from a whole specimen and not from a hemisection. 7. The following extracts from Garden’s letters point to several shipments of speci- mens which may have contained other sea catfishes: On 12 April 1761 (see Smith, 1821, pp. 303-308) Garden wrote to Linnaeus, ‘I have sent you all the fishes that I have been able to collect, accompanied by as exact descriptions as I could make.’ Also that, ‘Many specimens of fish, preserved in rum, are sent herewith, that you will not find noticed in my descriptions; . . . He also stated, ‘I conceive that many of the species already sent are either entirely new, or not as yet perfectly well determined. I subjoin a list of such, with their numbers, and the names by which they are known here [= Charlestown], till you can hereafter examine them yourself.’ ... ‘10 Silurus, here called Cat-fish’ [10 is a probable error for 19, see below]. . . ‘Ihave sent you the skins of these, as well as of what are described, . . ., all carefully taken off and dried, with a slip of paper to each, bearing the numbers and vernacular names, as last year; that you may compare my characters with the specimens, and determine whether they are properly defined.’ Wheeler (1985) has indicated that the rum-preserved specimens are no longer to be found. Garden’s descriptions of the specimens sent in 1761, and subsequently, are also lost (Alwyne Wheeler, in Jit. and Edmund Berkeley, in /it.). 8. Mr Wheeler (in Jit.) has furnished the following information about the Linnaean specimen: ‘It is the left half skin of the fish, including vertical fins and half the head, now rather damaged by insects (old damage, not new). It has an ink number No. 19 in Alexander Garden’s hand on the side, and a piece of paper wrapped around the caudal peduncle, on which is written “No. 19. Silurus Nostratib Cat Fish”. On the underside, in Linnaeus’ hand is written “‘S. Felis.” I think therefore there is little doubt that this is his type of Silurus felis.’ Mr Wheeler further states: ‘Anal fin . . . 23 rays visible; the skin is damaged at the rear end. . .’ ‘The chin [mental] barbels are no longer visible.’ ‘I cannot be sure of the branchiostegal rays: I make it five at least.’ 9. For over a century ichthyologists either compiled Linnaeus’ description of felis, without comment, or ignored it. Gill (1876, p. 410) incorrectly speculated that felis ‘can only be an Amiurus.’ 10. About 1879, asa result of increased zoological research, felis came into use as the specific name of the hardhead sea catfish. In 1885, Goode & Bean reported studying the Linnean Society specimen, but misidentified it, presumably on the basis of the pub- lished description. They stated: ‘The species is, of course, the one now known as Arius felis.’ Giinther (1899) correctly identified the specimen as Aelurichthys marinus. Subse- quently, between 1900 and 1928, felis was the specific name sometimes used for both the hardhead and the gafftopsail. Jordan et al. (1930) stated that Dr Einar Lonnberg had found a Linnaean type of Silurus felis in Uppsala, identified as Bagre marina. They also stated, ‘But Linnaeus’s own description shows clearly that this was not his type which must have been our common sea cat here called Galeichthys felis.’ 11. Dr Ake Holm (in Jit.) has informed me that neither the Linnaean collection in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 33 Uppsala nor the Stockholm collection contains a type specimen of Silurus felis and that Dr Loénnberg did not find one nor list one. 12. The numerous references after 1928 that I have examined used felis exclusively as the specific name for the hardhead sea catfish. Between 1900 and 1928, seven publi- cations used felis for the gafftopsail and 30 used felis for the hardhead. There are more than 70 uses of the specific name marinus for the gafftopsail catfish before 1928 and many subsequent publications with the same usage. Wheeler (1985, p. 35) again advocated use of Bagre felis for the species long known as Bagre marinus with a change of name for Ariopsis felis, but he had not fully considered Linnaeus’ published description. 13. Although the Garden specimen, a skin in the Linnean Society Collection labelled Silurus felis, reportedly in Linnaeus’ handwriting, is stated to be the type, there is no reason to believe it was the sole type. In fact, Linnaeus’ description supports there having been more than one specimen. Not one of the characteristics listed by Linnaeus would identify the Linnean Society specimen as belonging to the Carolina gafftopsail population although Carolina was obviously its origin. 14. The original description best describes the hardhead sea catfish currently known by the specific name felis. The description is probably not erroneous but was most likely based on at least two specimens one of which, the hardhead, was correctly described and one of which, the gafftopsail, was a poorly preserved skin which was sufficiently incomplete for it to be misidentified and its characters incorrectly listed. 15. Three characteristics listed by Linnaeus, two of which are characteristic for a Carolina silurid, apply exclusively to the hardhead sea catfish. They are (1) the easily observed three pairs of barbels (6 cirri, twice mentioned by Linnaeus, pp. 301, 303), two pairs mental (‘Cirri sub labio inferiore 4’), and (2) 5 branchiostegals, all diagnostic, and (3) 1,10 pectoral rays. We can speculate that these characters were observed from either a rum-preserved specimen, since destroyed, or from a description, provided by Dr Garden, of the hardhead catfish. It would be impossible to count 6 cirri with 4 of them sub labio in Bagre marinus. 16. Despite the early confusion about the specific names felis and marinus, both have become widely and universally used for the hardhead and gafftopsail sea catfishes respectively since about 1930. The use of the name fe/is has been based entirely upon the description given by Linnaeus. Both species are common and wide-ranging in the coastal waters and embayments along the Atlantic and Gulf coast of the United States and are well known to fisherman and dealers in fish products as well as to fishery workers and descriptive and experimental biologists. I am convinced that to apply the name felis to any species other than the hardhead catfish would be unfortunate, requiring two changes of well known and long established names and resulting in attendant confusion that would require years to sort out. To avoid these changes and conform best with Linnaeus’ published description, I believe the appropriate action is to set aside the type specimen status of the Linnean Society specimen. If that action is taken I propose a specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) No. 1985.11.11:1 to be the neotype of Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766. The characteristics of BMNH 1985.11.11:1, a specimen 210 mm in standard length, collected by Mr Frank Mckinney from Charleston Habour, South Carolina are: branchiostegal rays 5 (both sides); pectoral rays I,10 (both sides); anal rays 20; barbels: 3 pairs of which two pairs are mental. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 17. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) To use its plenary powers to set aside any type specimen status of the specimen 125 in the Linnean Society of London collection, labelled Silurus felis Linnaeus, No. 19 of Garden, and having done so to designate the specimen (BMNH 1985.11.11:1), and whose data are given in paragraph 16, as neotype of Silurus felis; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) felis Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Silurus felis and as defined by reference to the neotype designated in (1) above; (b) marinus Mitchill, 1815, as published in the binomen Silurus marinus. References Gill, T. N. 1876. Appendix L. Report on ichthyology, Pp. 383-431, in Simpson, J. H. (Ed.), Report of explorations across the Great Basin of the Tertiary of Utah ... in 1859. 495 pp. Washington. Goode, G. B. & Bean, T. H. 1885. On the American fishes in the Linnaean collection. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 8: 193-208. Giinther, A. 1899. The President’s Anniversary address. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, 1898-1899, pp. 15-38. Jordan, D. S., Evermann, B. W. & Clark, H. W. 1930. Check list of the fishes and fishlike vertebrates of North and Middle America north of the northern boundary of Venezuela and Colombia. Report United States Commissioner of Fisheries, (1928), part II, pp. 1-670. Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, ed. 12, vol. 1 (1), 532 pp. Holmiae. Mitchill, S. L. 1815. The Fishes of New York, described and arranged. Transactions of the Literary and Philosophical Society of New York, 1: 355-492. Smith, J. E. 1821. A selection of the correspondence of Linnaeus and other naturalists from the original manuscripts. Vol. 1, xiv+605 pp. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, London. Wheeler, A. 1985. The Linnaean fish collection in the Linnean Society of London. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London (1985), 84: 1-76. 35 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 a ee ee ee (pud ial uej}eon X JO YINOs CZ 0} ¢Z 1e Apog wood pajeredas ‘ajo[dwioour IZ(OZ-81) LI — SuewonX Jo yysou gz 01 ¢z uy -ydes8oj0yd wou) ¢z £7 skey jeuy snuldDu K[SNOIAgO OL‘ Aqjensn 6‘] ELLIO ZIT uowIdeds jnq aIqISIA JOU Jajovreya or=1 SABy [P10}00g snutanu K[SnoIAgo ¢ 9 uoutoads yng s{qISIA jou Jaorieys) ¢ s[eSa\soryouevig snuldpud K[SNOIAGO [BUS p ‘9 [eUuoW Z fp uaurisads nq aI[qISIA Jou Ja}ORIeYD [BUSOU p ‘9 (sjaqieq) aI syjaf snip Os[y syjaf sisdoiup SNULIDU aasDg SnULIDUL a43Dg _ uoneoynuap! justin Ysy1¥9 vas Ysyje9 vos snovuury siyjaf (uondiosap [eursi0) peoypiey [resdoyyen snangig JO adAy se €0S ‘10s ‘dd p9o}sl] uouttoedg ‘99LI ‘snoeuury Aja100g uvoeuurT syaf snangig OUIBU 9Y} 9UI0g dAvyY }BY} SaIdads pur ‘uauntdeds-ad} poumsaud & “99L| snovuury syaf snanjig JO UoNdisap [eUIsLIO ay) Jo uostiedwi0> XIGNdddV 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Case 2356 Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825 as type species Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr. and Helen Tappan Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the important foraminiferan generic name A/veolina in accord with majority usage, rejecting its treatment as a junior synonym of Borelis Montfort, 1808. 1. For more than 150 years Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826, has been among the most widely recognised and stratigraphically useful genera of the Foraminiferida. It is the type genus of the family ALVEOLINIDAE Ehrenberg, 1839 (table opposite p. 20, as ‘Alveolinea’). 2. In describing the genus, d’Orbigny (1826, p. 306) listed seven species, three being then denoted by nomina nuda that were made available in later publications: A. bulloides (later the type species of Bullalveolina Reichel, 1936); A. elongata; and A. ovoidea (later the type species of Ovalveolina Reichel, 1936). Another new species, A. Quoii, was based on accompanying figures (the spelling of this name, dedicated to J. R. C. Quoy, was emended by H. Douvillé (1907, p. 585) to A. quoyi when he made the species the type of Alveolinella Douvillé, 1907). 3. The remaining species listed by d’Orbigny were A. melo (= Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798, p. 118), A. boscii (= Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825, p. 44), and the new species A. oblonga. None was designated as the type species of Alveolina. In discussing these species, d’Orbigny said that Alveolina melo had also been described as Clausulus indicator Montfort, 1808, Borelis melonoides Montfort, 1808, Melonia sphaerica de Blainville, 1824, and Melonites sphaeroidea Lamarck, 1816. Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll is now regarded as the type species of Borelis Montfort, 1808, and a neotype has been designated (R6gl & Hansen, 1984, p. 71). 4. In the synonymy of Alveolina oblonga d’Orbigny included Fasciolites Parkinson, 1811 (p. 158), a genus based on figures and a description, but to which no species were assigned. Galloway (1933, p. 150) stated that d’Orbigny’s citation of the figures of Fasciolites in the synonymy of A. oblonga fixed that species as the type of Fasciolites by subsequent monotypy. This interpretation was followed by Reichel (in Loeblich & Tappan, 1964), but was not then and is not now correct. Fasciolites elliptica Sowerby, 1840, the first species to be included in Fasciolites, became the type by subsequent monotypy. This species was later placed in A/veolina. Yabe & Hanzawa (1929, p. 180) transferred Fasciolites to subgeneric status, and designated Alveolina schwageri Checchia-Rispoli, 1905 (p. 162) as the type of Borelis (Fasciolites). Thus 3 different species have been cited as the type species of Fasciolites, and its continued use can only result in further confusion. Bulletin of Zoological, Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 37 5. Inthe synonymy of A/veolina boscii d’Orbigny noted ‘Alvéolite grain de festuque’ [sic] Bosc, Miliolites subulatus [sic; recte sabulosus] Montfort, and Orizaria [sic; recte Oryzaria] boscii Defrance. Oryzaria is discussed below. Miliolites sabulosus Montfort, 1808 (p. 175; not a nomen nudum as stated by Hottinger, 1960b, p. 231) was said by Parker & Jones (1860b, p. 342) to be represented by ‘a very bad figure of a fusiform Alveolina.’ Later (1863, p. 431) they commented that Alveolina boscii Defrance (as represented by d’Orbigny’s model no. 50) had previously been named Miliolites sabulosus by Montfort, and in 1865 (p. 26) Parker, Jones and Brady again observed that A. sabulosa had priority over A. boscii. Nevertheless, A. sabulosa has not been used since that date, whereas A. boscii has been widely reported in all the literature referring to the alveolines. Furthermore, despite these early statements of synonymy, the status and identity of M. sabulosus are not certainly established. The original figure could equally well represent the milioline Fabularia, and Montfort (1808, p. 175) merely stated that a broken specimen showed the interior of his miliolite to have many chamberlets as in the tinopores and the nummulites (the latter are hyaline calcareous perforate foraminifers unrelated to either the miliolines or the alveolines). He added that it was very common at Grignon in the Paris basin, which is also the type locality of Fabularia discolites Defrance in Bronn, 1825 (p. 43; the type species, by monotypy, of Fabularia), and of its senior synonym, Nummulites ovatus de Roissy, 1805. Thus, in the absence of a type specimen, Miliolites sabulosus is unrecognisable and we propose the suppression of the name. Even d’Orbigny’s (1826) inclusion of Miliolites ‘subulatus Montfort’ [sic] in the synonymy of Alveolina boscii does not fix the nature of Montfort’s taxon in the absence of any supporting evidence as to its true nature. 6. In proposing his new genus A/veolina d’Orbigny noted that some of the included species had been named earlier. Later (1839, pp. 69-70) he elaborated on the nomencla- ture of the taxon, observing that the oldest-named species had been referred by Fichtel & Moll to Nautilus, following the system of Linné and Gmelin. Bosc (1802, 1803, 1816) had observed the many chamberlets and complicated internal structure of his fossils and referred them to the coral genus A/veolites Lamarck, 1801. Bosc did not then erect a new genus but clearly stated that he was referring to Lamarck’s and that the description should be extended to include species that were fusiform (‘grain de festuque’) or ovoid (‘grain de millet’) as well as globose or hemispherical forms. 7. In 1816 Defrance (p. 136) proposed Alveolites for a new genus distinct from Lamarck’s coral genus (the name of which was spelled by de Blainville as ‘A/veolitis’ in the following article). This genus included Bosc’s ‘Alvéolite grain de festuque’ and ‘Alvéolite grain de millet’ and a new species, Alveolites larva, which, as the only included species with an available name, is the type species of A/veolites Defrance, by monotypy, even though this was not Defrance’s intention. Although not a nomen nudum (as had been stated by Hottinger, 1960b, p. 230), A. Jarva is unrecognisable. No other foraminiferans have been referred to Alveolites. In 1820 (p. 103) Defrance said that the ‘Alvéolite grain de millet’ was his Fabularia ‘discolithe’. Parker & Jones (1861, p. 162) synonymised that species with Numulites ovatus de Roissy, 1805, and the latter specific name is the valid name for the type species of the miliolid genus Fabularia. The ‘Alvéolite grain de festuque’ was stated by Defrance (1816) to be the ‘discolithe ovoide’ of Fortis and in 1820 he named it in the vernacular as ‘Oryzaire-Bosc’. This was later latinised by Defrance in Bronn (1825, p. 31) as Oryzaria boscii. 8. D’Orbigny (1826) regarded the various names proposed by Montfort, de 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Blainville and Lamarck as unnecessary new names for species described by earlier authors, and thus as invalid. He stated (1839, p. 69): “Nous avons reconnu ce chaos et nous avons cherché a le débrouiller; alors, tout en recourant au premier nom d’ Alveolites, auquel nous substituames celui d’ Alveolina, ayant découvert une espéce vivante, nous fimes justice de tous ces genres inutiles et les indiquames seulement comme synonymes dans notre tableau méthodique. . .’. 9. He thus regarded Alveolina as a reverse name modification of Alveolites (pro- posed for a fossil coral), since fossil representatives of living genera were often in those days given names formed by substituting -ites for the termination of the original name (but see Article 20 of the Code). Nevertheless, d’Orbigny clearly shows that he was proposing Alveolina as a replacement name for Alveolites Defrance, 1816 (a junior homonym of Alveolites Lamarck, 1801). The two genera must therefore have the same type species, A. /arva Defrance, but to accept this would be to treat Alveolina as anomen dubium and this would be absurd. H. Douvillé (1907, p. 585) said ‘on peut considérer comme type [of Alveolina] Alv. Boscii du Calcaire Grossier’. This was followed by Cushman (1917, p. 97 and later) and others, and Alveolina boscii (Defrance) has been regarded as the type species of the genus for most of this century. 10. However, an earlier type-species designation for Alveolina had been overlooked. Parker & Jones (1860a, p. 182), in discussing the species described by Fichtel & Moll, had stated: ‘The oldest specific name on record for Alveolinais A. melo, which may well pass as the type’. This was accepted as the type designation by Reichel in Loeblich & Tappan, 1964 (see note by R. C. Moore, p. C506 therein), and Alveolina was accord- ingly regarded as a junior objective synonym of Borelis Montfort, 1808. The species formerly referred to A/veolina were transferred to Fasciolites Parkinson (see paragraph 4 above). 11. Few specialists on the alveolinids have agreed with this, which contradicts wide prior usage (e.g. Cushman, 1917, p. 97; Yabe & Hanzawa, 1929, p. 181; Reichel, 1936, 1937; Hottinger, 1960a, 1960b) and is discussed by Reichel in Loeblich & Tappan, 1964, p. C508 (note on Fasciolites). Some have continued to use Alveolina as a nomen conservandum, in the sense of A. boscii, even stating that a proposal for conservation would be prepared (e.g. Hottinger, 1973, p. 444; Drobne, 1977, p. 11) although none has been submitted. 12. In contrast, a few authors have accepted the Treatise usage and have not only recognised Fasciolites but in one instance (Gaemers, 1978, p. 106) proposed an additional subgenus, Fasciolites (Microfasciolites), with Alveolina boscii as type species. 13. Unfortunately, each attempt to stabilise alveolinid nomenclature (those of d’Orbigny, 1826, 1839, of Galloway, 1933, and of Reichel in Loeblich & Tappan, 1964) has only resulted in greater confusion. Action by the Commission using its plenary powers seems necessary to stabilise the nomenclature. 14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all previous designations of type species for Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826, and to designate Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825 as type species; (b) to suppress the generic names Fasciolites Parkinson, 1811 and Oryzaria Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 39 Defrance in Bronn, 1825 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (c) to suppress the specific name sabulosus Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Miliolites sabulosus, 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 name Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825, as published in the binomen Oryzaria boscii (specific name of the type species of A/veolina d’Orbigny, 1826); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology the name ALVEOLINIDAE Ehrenberg, 1839 (type genus A/veolina d’Orbigny, 1826); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the names (a) Fasciolites Parkinson, 1811, (b) Oryzaria Defrance in Bronn, 1825, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, and (c) Microfasciolites Gaemers, 1978, as a junior objective synonym of Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name sabulosus Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Miliolites sabulosus, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above. References Bosc, L. A. G. 1802. Sur deux nouvelles Alvéolites. Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philo- mat(h)ique de Paris, 3 (61): 99, pl. 5. Bosc, L. A. G. 1803. Alvéolite. Alveolites. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 1, p. 281. Deterville, Paris. Bosc, L. A. G. 1816. Alvéolite. A/veolites. Nouveau Dictionnaire d Histoire Naturelle, ed. 2, vol. 1, p. 397. Deterville, Paris. Bronn, H. G. 1825. System der urweltlichen Pflanzenthiere. iv +47 pp. J.C. B. Mohr, Heidelberg. Checchia-Rispoli, G. 1905. Sopra alcune Alveoline eoceniche della Sicilia. Palaeontographia Ttalica, 11: 147-167. Cushman, J. A. 1917. A monograph of the Foraminifera of the North Pacific Ocean. Pt. 6, Miliolidae, 1-108, pls. 1-39, figs. 1-52. Defrance, J. L. M. 1816. Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 1, suppl., p. 136. Hachette, Paris. Defrance, J. L. M. 1820. Fabulaire. Fabularia. Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 16, pp. 103-104. Le Normant, Paris. Douvillé, H. 1907. Les calcaires a fusulines de Il’Indo-Chine. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, ser. 4, 6 (1906): 576-587. Drobne, K. 1977. Alvéolines paléogénes de la Slovénie et de I’Istrie. Schweizerische Paldontolo- gische Abhandlungen, 99: 1-175, pls. 1-21. Ehrenberg, C. G. 1839 [1840]. Uber die Bildung der Kreidefelsen und des Kreidemergels durch unsichtbare Organismen. Physikalische Mathematische Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1838: 59-147 [separate 1839]. Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J. P. C. von, 1798. Testacea microscopica, aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus, ad naturam picta et descripta (Microscopische und andere Klein Schalthiere aus den Geschlechtern Argonaute und Schiffer), vii+ 123 pp. + 24 pls. Camesina, Wien. Gaemers, P. A. M. 1978. Systematics of the alveolinids of the Tremp Basin, south-central Pyrenees, Spain. Leidse Geologische Mededelingen, 51: 103-129. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Galloway, J. J. 1933. A manual of Foraminifera. 483 pp +42 pls. Principia Press, Bloomington, Indiana. Hottinger, L. 1960a. Ueber paleocaene und oecaene Alveolinen. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 53: 265—283, pls. 1-21. Hottinger, L. 1960b. Recherches sur les alvéolines du Paléocéne et de l’Eocéne. Schweizerische Paldeontologische Abhandlungen, 75-76: \—243. Hottinger, L. 1973. Selected Paleogene Larger Foraminifera, pp. 443-452, in Hallam, A. (ed.), Atlas of Palaeobiogeography. Elsevier, Amsterdam, London, New York. Loeblich, A. R., Jr., & Tappan, H. 1964. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleon- tology, Part C, Protista 2, vol. 1, pp. 511-900. Geological Society of America, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Montfort, Denys de, 1808. Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles, vol. 1, lxxxvii+409 pp. Paris. Orbigny, A. D. d’, 1826. Tableau méthodique de la classe des Cephalopodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, ser. 1, 7: 245-314; atlas: pls. 10-17. Orbigny, A. D. d’, 1839. Foraminiféres, in Sagra, Ramon de la, Histoire physique, politique et naturelle de l’ile de Cuba, x\viii + 224 pp., atlas, 12 pls. Arthus Bertrand, Paris. Parker, W. K. & Jones, T. R. 1860a. On the nomenclature of the Foraminifera, Part III. The species enumerated by von Fichtel and von Moll. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 3, 5: 98-116, 174-183. Parker, W. K. & Jones, T. R. 1860b. The Foraminifera enumerated by Denys de Montfort. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 3, 6: 337-347. Parker, W. K. & Jones, T. A. 1861. On the nomenclature of the Foraminifera, Part VI. Alveolina. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 3, 8: 161—168. Parker, W. K. & Jones, T. A. 1863. On the nomenclature of the Foraminifera, Part X. The species enumerated by D’Orbigny in the ‘Annales des Sciences Naturelles’, vol. vii, 1826. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 3, 12: 429-441. Parker, W. K., Jones, T. R. & Brady, H. B. 1865. On the nomenclature of the Foraminifera. Part X [XII]. The species enumerated by D’Orbigny in the ‘Annales des Sciences Naturelles’, vol. vii, 1826. III. The species illustrated by models. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 3, 16: 15-41. Parkinson, J. 1811. Organic remains of a former world. vol. 3, 455 pp. Sherwood, Neely & Jones, London. Reichel, M. 1936. Etude sur les alvéolines. I. Schweizerische Paldeontologische Abhandlungen, 57: 1-93. Reichel, M. 1937. Etude sur les alvéolines. II. Schweizerische Paldeontologische Abhandlungen, 59: 95-147. Rogl, F. & Hansen, H. J. 1984. Foraminifera described by Fichtel & Moll in 1798. A revision of Testacea Microscopica. Neue Denkschriften des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Band 3. F. Berger & Sohne, Wien. Sowerby, J. de C. 1840. Systematic list of organic remains. (Appendix to Grant, C. W., Memoir to illustrate a geological map of Cutch). Transactions of the Geological Society, London, ser. 2, 5: 327-329, pl. 24. Yabe, H. & Hanzawa, S. 1929. Tertiary foraminiferous rocks of the Philippines: Tohoku Imperial University Scientific Reports, ser. 2 (Geology), 11 (3) (1927-1929): 137-190. ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 41 Case 2044 Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Arachnida, Acarina): proposed designation of type species Evert E. Lindquist Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, K1A 0C6, Canada D.C. M. Manson Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Lynfield Plant Protection Centre, P.O. Box 41, Auckland, New Zealand Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of type species for the eriophyoid mite genera Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 which accord with the long-established understanding of these economically important taxa. Changes in eriophyoid nomenclature proposed in 1971 by R. A. Newkirk and H. H. Keifer are a cause of confusion, despite being in conformity with the Code. 1. In 1971, Newkirk and Keifer published an article on a revision of the type species of Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851, and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851, whereby the long standing usage and definition of these genera was to be drastically changed. Some of the repercussions of their revision were that species of the genus Aceria Keifer, 1944, would now be known as Eriophyes, and species of the genus Eriophyes as previously known would now be known as Phytoptus. Phytocoptella Newkirk and Keifer, 1971, was proposed as a new name for species previously placed in Phytoptus, and Phytoptus vitis Pagenstecher, 1857, which had been considered the type species of Eriophyes, was transferred to the newly proposed genus Colomerus Newkirk and Keifer, 1971. 2. Although these changes were in formal agreement with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, they were opposed by a number of acarologists internation- ally on the grounds that, as these were common and well known genera including a wide variety of economically important species, confusion would be caused and nomenclatural stability and universality upset. An application to the Commission, to use its plenary powers to designate type species so as to preserve the long established usage of Phytoptus, Eriophyes and Aceria, was made by V. G. Shevtchenko (1974; BZN 30: 196-197). Other acarologists opposing the changes instigated by Newkirk and Keifer included E. E. Lindquist, J. Boczek, S. I. Sukhareva, F. D. Sapozhnikova, R. E. Pononareva, Tz. I. Chubinishvili, D. C. M. Manson, M. K. P. Smith Meyer, G. W. Ramsay, E. Collyer, R. M. Emberson and G. P. Channabasavanna. Comments by some of them were published in the BZN (32: 17-18, 90 and 33: 147-148). Comments by Keifer, Newkirk and Jeppson in favour of the changes, and supported by 5 other American acarologists, were also published therein (32: 86-90), as were rebuttals by Shevtchenko (32: 91-94) and Lindquist and others (33: 146-148). 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 3. The international consensus was that these genera contain many of the most economically important and best known species of eriophyoid mites in the world, and the literature on their taxonomy, ecology and control is extensive, as was documented by Shevtchenko (BZN, 32: 91-94). In such a case, the strict application of the Code, involving the drastic changes proposed by Newkirk and Keifer, may not be in the best interests of stability and universality of nomenclature. 4. In 1977 the Commission voted on the case and overwhelmingly (by 18 votes to 3) supported the proposal by Shevtchenko and others. However, the Commission’s vote was never published as an Opinion because of problems left unresolved concerning available names for the type species of Phytoptus, four of which are unused senior synonyms of Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1889. The suppression of these synonyms is proposed here (see also BZN, 36: 63-64). 5. Both Shevtchenko and Lindquist predicted that confusion would occur in the literature as a result of the changes by Newkirk and Keifer, and this has certainly been borne out in the subsequent 15 years. Keifer and Newkirk (BZN, 32: 86-89) had dismissed this prediction as ‘speculative, exaggerated and not warranted’ when con- sidered in the light of the relatively brief period of confusion, lasting from 1898 to about 1905, that resulted from comparable nomenclatural changes made during Nalepa’sera. Yet the present period is already twice as long as that, rather than being the ‘much shorter time’ that they predicted, and confusion continues unabated. Nowhere is this confusion more evident than in the catalogue of eriophyoid mites by Davis et al. (1982), in which Aceria Keifer, 1944 is used for some species belonging in this genus yet not for others (including the type species of this genus, Eriophyes tulipae), and in which both the traditional and the changed concepts of Phytoptus and Eriophyes are used for assignment of species. 6. A further problem arose when Manson (1984a, b) pointed out that Eriophyes vitis (Pagenstecher, 1857) is quite distinct from, and not congeneric with, the vast majority of species in Eriophyes. This situation has to be resolved, either by leaving E. vitis in Eriophyes and transferring the majority of the species to another genus with a different type species, or by transferring vitis to another genus, i.e. Colomerus (as had already been done by Newkirk and Keifer (1971)), and selecting another type species for Eriophyes. The latter alternative was opted for, mainly because it abided by the principle of the I.C.Z.N. 1977 vote and created the least disturbance to the present classification. The new type species proposed for Eriophyes was Phytoptus pyri Pagenstecher, 1857. 7. In the light of the proposals, comments and vote referred to above the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its 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: (a) pseudogallarum Vallot, 1836, as published in the binomen Acarus pseudogallarum; (b) coryli Frauenfeld, 1865, as published in the binomen Phytoptus coryli; (c) coryligallarum Targioni-Tozzetti, 1885, as published in the binomen Phytoptus coryligallarum; (d) avellanae ‘Amerling’ (sic) Sorauer, 1886, as published in the binomen Calycophthora avellanae; . . | ‘ fh : | | (2) (3) (4) (5) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 43 to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous type species designations for the genera Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 and Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851, and to desig- nate Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1889 and Phytoptus pyri Pagenstecher, 1857 as the type species of those two genera respectively; to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following: (a) Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (2) above Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1889; (b) Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (2) above Phytoptus pyri Pagenstecher, 1857; (c) Aceria Keifer, 1944 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Eriophyes tulipae Keifer, 1938; (d) Colomerus Newkirk and Keifer, 1971 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Eriophyes gardeniella Keifer, 1964; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following: (a) avellanae Nalepa, 1889, as published in the binomen Phytoptus avellanae (specific name of the type species of Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851); (b) pyri Pagenstecher, 1857,.as published in the binomen Phytoptus pyri (specific name of the type species of Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851); (c) tulipae Keifer, 1938, as published in the binomen Eriophyes tulipae (specific name of the type species of Aceria Keifer, 1944); (d) gardeniella Keifer, 1964, as published in the binomen Eriophyes gardeniella (specific name of the type species of Colomerus Newkirk and Keifer, 1971); to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following, all as rejected in (1) above: (a) pseudogallarum Vallot, 1836, as published in the binomen Acarus pseudogallarum; (b) coryli Frauenfeld, 1865, as published in the binomen Phytoptus coryli; (c) coryligallarum Targioni—Tozzetti, 1885, as published in the binomen Phytoptus coryligallarum; (d) avellanae ‘Amerling’ (sic) Sorauer, 1886, as published in the binomen Calycophthora avellanae. References (An extensive bibliography may be found in the previous entries relating to this case published in the BZN, i.e. 30: 196-197; 32: 17-18 and 86-94; 33: 146-148 and 36: 63-64). Davis, R., Flechtmann, C. H. W., Boczek, J. H. & Barké, H. E. 1982. Catalogue of Eriophyid Mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea). 254 pp. Warsaw Agricultural University Press. Manson, D. C. M. 1984a. Eriophyoidea except Eriophyinae (Arachnida: Acari). Fauna of New Zealand, No. 4. 144 pp. DSIR, Wellington. Manson, D. C. M. 1984b. Eriophyinae (Arachnida: Acari: Eriophyoidea). Fauna of New Zealand, No. 5. 128 pp. DSIR, Wellington. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 List of avian family-group names to be proposed for conservation Walter J. Bock Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York NY 10026, U.S.A. The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON) of the Inter- national Ornithological Congress has prepared a list of established names of avian family-group taxa (subtribes to superfamilies) and their synonyms as the first step in the process of writing an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to stabilise use of these names. The SCON wishes to obtain input from all interested ornithologists and zoologists on this list of avian family-group names and its proposed application to the ICZN. The list is available to all interested ornithol- ogists and zoologists who are willing to examine it carefully and provide the SCON with corrections, additions, comments, and suggestions. This list of avian family-group names is unofficial and should not be used for any purposes other than that just mentioned. Copies of the list may be obtained by writing to Professor Walter J. Bock, Chairperson SCON, at the address above. Comment on the family name for the storm petrels (Aves) (Case 2024: see BZN 42: 398-400) Storrs L. Olson Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Melville (1985) has performed a good service in reviewing the complicated nomen- clatural history of the family names used for the storm petrels and dippers, but I am strongly opposed to his very lengthy and convoluted resolution of the problems involved. Melville proposes to validate HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912, which he correctly emphasises to be doubly invalid, because it is in ‘current usage’. His proposal also results in the extremely inconsistent situation wherein a given family includes a subfamily (OCEANITINAE Forbes, 1881) with an older name. My views concerning the undesirability of such practices have been aired recently in this Bulletin and need not be repeated (Olson et al., 1986). Contrary to Melville, HYDROBATIDAE Mathews is in many quarters not in current usage. Following Brodkorb (1963), many authors, including virtually all avian paleon- tologists, have adopted the older name OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1881, and discontinued the use of HYDROBATIDAE because it is clearly invalid (e.g. Condon, 1975; Clancey, 1980; Harrison, 1983; Maclean, 1985; Olson, 1985, and Beehler et al., 1986). Regardless of how ‘current’ one or the other name may be, there is still no real justification for sustaining the name HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912, with the curious date citation 1912 (1865), derived from THALASSIDROMIDAE J. W. von Miller, 1865, as Melville proposes in conformance with Article 40b of the Code. Because it is based on the always troublesome precept of ‘general acceptance’, I am not convinced of the wisdom of Article 40b; why should the Commission in the present case abrogate the much more basic principles established in Articles 23a (Priority) and 52a (Homonymy)? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 45 Melville’s proposals require an arbitrary selection of Articles to be followed and others to be ignored, and he sets forth a long and burdensome list of unnecessary Official and Rejected names as well. The use of the plenary powers to override the basic rules of the Code merely decreases the usefulness of those rules and only leads to ambiguity and uncertainty concerning their proper application. This particular case illustrates admirably the desirability of simply abiding by the Code, for if authors were only to continue to use OCEANITIDAE, as many do, no action would be required by the Commission, and the literature would not be taxed with additional Official and Rejected names. References Beehler, B. M., Pratt, T. K. & Zimmermann, D. A. 1986. Birds of New Guinea. 293 pp. Princeton University Press. Brodkorb, P. 1963. Catalogue of Fossil Birds. Part 1. (Archaeopterygiformes through Ardei- formes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences, 7(4): 179-293. Clancey, P. A. 1980 (Ed.) Checklist of Southern African Birds. 325 pp. Southern African Ornithological Society. Condon, H. T. 1975. Checklist of the birds of Australia, Part I. Non-passerines. 311 pp. Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union. Harrison, P. 1983. Seabirds, an identification guide. 448 pp. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Maclean, G. 1985. Roberts’ birds of Southern Africa. Sth ed., lii+ 848 pp. Johan Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. Melville, R. V. 1985. The family names for the storm petrels and the dippers. BZN 42(4): 398-400. Olson, S. L. 1985. Early Pliocene Procellariiformes (Aves) from Langebaanweg, South-western Cape Province, South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum, 95(3): 123-145. Olson, S. L., Rea, A. M. & Brodkorb, P. 1986. Comment on the proposed grant of precedence to THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 (Aves) over PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838. BZN 43(1): 12-13. 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Comments on the proposed conservation of Apanteles (currently Pholetesor) ornigis Weed, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) (Case 2506: see BZN 43: 96-98 and 324) (1) L. B. Holthuis Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands. As there seems no certainty that A. ornigis and Microgaster robiniae are the same species (the latter ‘is indistinguishable morphologically from many small [my italics] individuals’ of the former), and as the holotype of M. robiniae is extant, it might be better to give the name ornigis precedence over robiniae rather than to suppress the latter altogether. Later authors may feel that the two species are different. (2) C. van Achterberg Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Although I am not a specialist of the group, in my experience a slight difference of biology may indicate that more than one species or subspecies may be involved; with internal parasitic Hymenoptera (as in this case) one must be particularly careful. In my opinion Dr Whitfield should synonymise both names for the moment and take the older (robiniae Fitch, 1859), because /ong-term stability is best served by using the oldest available name except in a few very special cases. The change of the valid name of the type species of Pholetesor will not cause undue confusion. (3) Reply by J. B. Whitfield Department of Entomology, The Ohio State University, 1735 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1220, U.S.A. My reason for applying to the Commission was not simply a preference for the name ornigis. There is a problem in the practical application of the name robiniae: even if specimens are found from the type-host of robiniae that are not conspecific with ornigis, the type material of robiniae is in such poor condition that it would be unlikely that an absolutely certain identity with the new material could be established. Fitch’s descrip- tion is of no help; it is among the least informative descriptions I have seen, describing only the coloration of one sex (and it appears this coloration is an artifact of prep- aration) and generic characters (i.e. characters shared by essentially all Apanteles sensu lato) of the other. The only solution I see other than suppressing robiniae is to treat it as a nomen dubium — perhaps this is essentially equivalent to Holthuis’ suggestion. It seems to me preferable to take some sort of stand that will make it easier for future workers to havea definite name. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 47 Comment on the proposed designation of Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 as type species of Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) (Case 2397; see BZN 43: 173-174) James B. Whitfield Department of Entomology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, U.S.A. 1. I enthusiastically support the recent proposal by W. R. M. Mason (1986) to stabilise the nomenclature of the genera Microgaster Latreille, 1804 and Microplitis Foerster, 1862, by setting aside the designation of Jchneumon deprimator Fabricius, 1798 as type species of Microgaster and replacing it with Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895. This action would, as asserted by Mason, prevent confusion in the applied literature and would preserve the names and identities of two of the most familiar and easily identifiable genera of BRACONIDAE. 2. Despite the recent publication by Papp (1984) of a review of the European species of Microplitis (sensu Nixon 1965, 1970 & Mason, 1981) under the name Microgaster Latreille, 1804, following van Achterberg’s (1982) discovery of the identity of the Ichneumon deprimator \ectotype, the use of Microgaster for the genus traditionally known as Microplitis and the use of the name Lissogaster Bengtsson, 1926 for that traditionally known as Microgaster (sensu Nixon, 1968) have not caught on in the applied literature, nor have most braconid systematists accepted these changes. It would be most confusing if many had, since the name Microgaster could then refer to either of two large but biologically very different genera, depending on one’s interpretation. 3. It would be meaningless to supplement Mason’s (1986) case by citing voluminous references to these two genera from the entomological and agricutural literature. I hope that the International Commission will use its plenary powers to prevent nomen- clatural confusion between two economically and ecologically important groups of parasitic wasps. Additional references Mason, W. R. M. 1981. The polyphyletic nature of Apanteles Foerster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): a phylogeny and reclassification of Microgastrinae. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, no. 115, 147 pp. Papp, J. 1984. Palaearctic species of Microgaster Latreille (= Microplitis Forster) with descrip- tion of seven new species (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae). Entomologische Abhandlungen und Berichte aus dem Staatlichen Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 47: 95-140. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Comment on the proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca, Coleoidea) (Case 2571: see BZN 43: 355-359) C. W. Wright Old Rectory, Seaborough, Beaminster, Dorset DT8 3QY, U.K. I strongly support the application by Doyle and Riegraf to suppress the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799, on two grounds. The first is the unacceptable risk to the stability of generic names in current use by attempts to designate a recognisable type species for Belemnites from the apparent syntypes. The second and more general is similar to that in the analogous case of Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789 (Arkell, 1951: BZN 2: 200-203 and Opinion 305), namely the grave confusion that would result between the vernacular use of ‘belemnites’ on the one hand and on the other the validated use of Belemnites for a particular generic taxon. Doyle and Riegraf make no proposal regarding the family-group name BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845, which presumably needs to be conserved. Reply by P. Doyle British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. and W. Riegraf Hollandtstrasse 55, D-4400 Muenster-Gievenbeck, W. Germany We welcome Mr Wright’s comment, and support for our proposals. As we men- tioned therein, the family BELEMNITIDAE is in long-established use; there are already precedents for the selective retention of family names (see Article 40 of the Code), and in addition to our earlier requests (BZN 43: 357) we wish to ask the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to designate Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 as the type genus of BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845; (2) to place on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology the name BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 (type genus Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915); (3) to complete the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 by recording that this is the type genus of BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845, by designation in (1) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 49 OPINION 1420 Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari): designation of Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936 as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous descriptions of type species for the nominal genus Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 are hereby set aside and Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936 is designated as type species; (2) The name Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (gender: masculine), type species by desig- nation in (1) above, Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) The name rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936, as published in the binomen Humerobates rostrolamellatus (specific name of the type species of Humerobates Sellnick, 1928), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2374 An application for the designation of Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936 as type species of Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 was received from Dr R. A. Norton (State University of New York, U.S.A.) on 10 March 1981. After correspon- dence a revised draft was published in BZN 42: 54-56 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the BZN as well as to twelve general and three specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Professor L. S. Subias (University of Madrid). Decision of the Commission On | September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 55. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Alvarado, Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell, Starobogatov and Thompson. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: Humerobates Sellnick, 1928, Tierwelt Mitteleuropas 3: 11 rostrolamellatus, Humerobates, Grandjean, 1936, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 105: 77. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 OPINION 1421 Erigone Audouin, [1826] (Arachnidae, Araneae): Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830, designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Erigone Audouin, [1826] are hereby set aside and Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830 is designated as type species; (2) The name Erigone Audouin, [1826] (gender: feminine) type species, by desig- nation in (1) above, Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) The name Jongipalpis Sundevall, 1830, as published in the binomen Erigone longipalpis, (specific name of the type species of Erigone Audouin, [1826}), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2480 An application for the designation of Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830 as type species of Erigone Audouin, [1826], was received from Mr A. F. Millidge (Lyme Regis, Dorset, U.K.) on 19 June 1984. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 91-92 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and three specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Professor Dr O. Kraus. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 92. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Dr Lehtinen commented: ‘I strongly support the change of the type species of Erigone, but the timing of the proposal is unsatisfactory. My support for the application is given now only to avoid repeated handling of the case. ‘The application refers to an as yet undescribed and unnamed genus distinct from Erigone, including a few species, among them E. vagans Audouin, [1826]. This species is quite well known and it has been included in Erigone in all taxonomic works prior to this application. The sudden leaving of the previous type species of Erigone outside any named genus cannot be recommended. ‘The change of the type species of a genus is normally a good solution for nomencla- tural problems when the valid type species is dubious, poorly known or traditionally regarded as representative of another genus. It can also be done simultaneously with the description of a new genus, in which the previous type species is placed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 51 ‘I agree with the taxonomic views given by Millidge, but the description of the new taxon of the generic group (with an idea of its rank) should have preceded this appli- cation. If this kind of decision becomes a routine, the original role of the Commission would be altered. In my opinion, the main task of the Commission is to clear nomencla- tural problems in existing taxa, not to force taxonomists to create new taxa. A nomenclatural treatment of any taxon involved in the decisions should be possible without any further taxonomic work.’ Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: Erigone Audouin, [1826], Description de l’Egypte. Histoire Naturelle, vol. 1(4), p. 115 longipalpis, Erigone, Sundevall, 1830, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 1829: 212. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 OPINION 1422 Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia, Sauria): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) The name Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (gender: feminine) type species, by sub- sequent designation by FitzSimons, 1943, Ichnotropis macrolepidota Peters, 1854, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) The name capensis A. Smith, 1838, as published in the binomen Algyra capensis (the valid name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Ichnotropis Peters, 1854) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) The name Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of case 2377 An application for the conservation of Jchnotropis Peters, 1854 was received from Dr W.R. Branch (Port Elizabeth Museum, RSA) and Dr R. G. Broadly (National Museum, Zimbabwe) on 27 April 1981. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 89-90 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and five specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 90. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Kabata. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Dr Kabata commented: ‘The use of Ichnotropis clearly contravenes the Principle of Priority. The applicants claim that its preservation is necessary to preserve nomencla- tural stability. I believe they have failed to substantiate their claim. The number of publications in which Jchnotropis was used is not really great and the taxon itself is of only moderate interest. Hence a return to the original name would not cause any hardship or significant confusion.’ 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: capensis, Algyra, A. Smith, 1838, Magazine of Natural History and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy, Geology and Meteorology, 2: 94 Ichnotropis Peters, 1854, Monatsberichte der Kéniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften zu Berlin, 1854: 617 Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843, Systema Reptilium ...p.21. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 53 OPINION 1423 Olpium Koch, 1873 (Arachnida): Obisium pallipes Lucas, [1846] designated as type species; interpretation of the nominal species Olpium kochi Simon, 1881 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Olpium Koch, 1873 are hereby set aside and Obisium pallipes Lucas, [1846] is designated as type species; (b) it is hereby ruled that the specific name kochi Simon, 1881, as published in the binomen Olpium kochi and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Harvey & Mahnert, 1986 (BZN 42: 86), denotes a different nominal species from hermannii Audouin, 1826, as published in the binomen Chelifer hermannii; (2) The name Olpium L. Koch, 1873 (gender: neuter) type species, by designation in (1)(a) above, Obisium pallipes Lucas, [1846], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name pallipes Lucas, [1846], as published in the binomen Obisium pallipes (specific name of the type species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name kochi Simon, 1881, as published in the binomen Olpium kochi Simon, 1881 and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Harvey & Mahnert, 1986 (BZN 42: 86) and denoting a different nominal species from hermannii Audouin, 1826, as published in the binomen Chelifer hermannii, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (5) The name OLpmpAE Banks, 1895 (type genus Olpium L. Koch, 1873) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of case 2484 An application for the designation of Obisium pallipes Lucas, [1846] as type species of Olpium Koch, 1873 and an interpretation of the nominal species Olpium kocki Simon, 1881, was received from Dr M. S. Harvey (CSIRO, Australia) and V. Mahnert (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Genéve, Switzerland) on 1 August 1984. After corre- spondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 85-88 (April 1985). 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 twelve general and three specialist serials. A supportive comment from Professor Dr R. Schuster (Universitat Graz, Austria) was published in BZN 43: 118. Decision of the Commission On | September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 87. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. In a letter dated 4 July 1985 Dr M. S. Harvey pointed out that the date of Obisium pallipes Lucas should be cited as [1846] and this was mentioned on the voting paper. The date citations in the application (BZN 42: 85-88) should be corrected. With their votes Drs Lehtinen and Ride pointed out that the lectotype designation for Olpium kochi Simon, 1881 made by Harvey & Mahnert in the application (BZN 42: 86, para. 6) should be included in this ruling. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: kochi, Olpium, Simon, 1881, Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 6: 14 Olpium Koch, 1873, Uebersichtliche Darstellung der europaischen Chernetiden (Pseudo- scorpione), p. 33 OLPIDAE Banks, 1895, Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 3(1): 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 55 OPINION 1424 Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 are hereby set aside and Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834 is designated as type species. (2) It is hereby ruled that the name Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837 is an incorrect sub- sequent spelling of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (gender: feminine) type species, by monotypy, Alysia apii Curtis, 1826; (b) Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 (gender: masculine) type species, by designation under the plenary powers, Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834; (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) apii Curtis, 1826, as published in the binomen A/ysia apii (specific name of the type species of Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862); (b) pumilio Nees, 1834, as published in the binomen Bracon pumilio (specific name of the type species of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833). (5) The name Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of case 2312 An application for the conservation of Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 was first received from Dr C. van Achterberg (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) on 16 July 1979. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 41: 53-55 (March 1984). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to ten general and eight specialist serials. Comments were received from Dr G. C. D. Griffiths (University of Alberta, Canada) and Dr R. Wharton (Texas A&M University, U.S.A.) and published with a reply from Dr van Achterberg and a note from the Secretary in BZN 42: 101-103. Corrections to Dr Griffiths’ comment and to the Secretary’s note were published in BZN 43: 14. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals published in BZN 41: 51—53, modified in the light of the published comments and notes referred to above. These modifications are incorporated in this ruling. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: apii, Alysia Curtis, 1826, British Entomology, vol. 2, p. 141 Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862, Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins der Preussischen Rheinlande und Westfalens, 19: 267 Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833, Entomological Magazine, 1: 265 Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837, Entomological Magazine, 4: 220 pumilio, Bracon, Nees von Esenbeck, 1834, Hymenopterorum Ichneumonibus Affinium Mono- graph, vol. 1, p. 90. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 57 OPINION 1425 Suppressed: Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, 1855 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and specific names published in combination with them 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) Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800; (b) Stoa De Serres, 1855; (c) annulatus Daudin, 1800, as published in the binomen Spiroglyphus annulatus; and politus Daudin, 1800, as published in the binomen Spiroglyphus politus; (d) perforans De Serres, 1855, as published in the binomen Stoa perforans; ammoni- tiformis De Serres, 1855, as published in the binomen Stoa ammonitiformis; and spirulaeformis De Serres, 1855, as published in the binomen Stoa spirulaeformis; (2) The name Dendropoma Morch, 1861 (gender: neuter) type species, by sub- sequent designation by Keen (1961), Siphonium (Dendropoma) lituellum MOrch, 1861, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) The name /ituellum Morch, 1861, as published in the combination Siphonium (Dendropoma) lituella (specific name of the type species of Dendropoma Morch, 1861) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Stoa De Serres, 1855, as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) annulatus Daudin, 1800, as published in the binomen Spiroglyphus annulatus and as suppressed in (1)(c) above; (b) politus Daudin, 1800, as published in the binomen Spiroglyphus politus and as suppressed in (1)(c) above; (c) perforans De Serres, 1855, as published in the binomen Stoa perforans and as suppressed in (1)(d) above; (d) ammonitiformis De Serres, 1855, as published in the binomen Stoa ammoni- tiformis and as suppressed in (1)(d) above; (e) spirulaeformis De Serres, 1855, as published in the binomem Stoa spirulaeformis and as suppressed in (1)(d) above. History of case 2340 An application for the suppression of several equivocal vermetid names was received from Dr A. M. Keen (formerly of Stanford University, U.S.A.) and Dr M. G. Hadfield (University of Hawaii, U.S.A.) on 7 September 1983. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 46-49 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the BZN as well as to twelve general and thirteen specialist serials. No comment was received. 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 48. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Veno, Willink Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Alvarado, Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell, Starobogatov and Thompson. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling in the present Opinion: ammonitiformis, Stoa, De Serres, 1855, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris. Zoologie, ser. 4: 240 annulatus, Spiroglyphus, Daudin, 1800, Recueil de mémoires et de notes sur des espéces inédites ou peu connues de Mollusques, de Vers, et de Zoophytes, p. 50 Dendropoma Morch, 1861, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1861: 153 littuellum, Siphonium (Dendropoma), Mérch, 1861, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1861: 154 politus, Spiroglyphus, Daudin, 1800, Recueil de mémoires et de notes sur des espéces inédites ou peu connues de Mollusques, de Vers, et de Zoophytes, p. 49 perforans, Stoa, De Serres, 1855, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris. Zoologie, ser. 4: 241 Spiroglyphus, Daudin, 1800, Recueil de mémoires et de notes sur des espéces inédites ou peu connues de Mollusques, de Vers, et de Zoophytes, p. 39 spirulaeformis, Stoa, De Serres, 1855, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris. Zoologie, ser. 4: 241 Stoa De Serres, 1855, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris. Zoologie, ser. 4: 238 The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation of a type species for the nominal genus Dendropoma Morch, 1861: of Siphonium (Dendropoma) lituellum Morch, 1861 by Keen, 1961. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), 7, no. 3: 189. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 59 OPINION 1426 Argyrodes Simon, 1864 and Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 (Arachnida, Araneae): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the name Argyrodes Guénée, 1845, and all uses of that name prior to the publi- cation of Argyrodes Simon, 1864, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the name Ctenium Menge, 1871, 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: (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 O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879; (c) Eucarphia Hubner, [1825] type species, by subsequent designation by Ragonot, 1855, Tinea vitella Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841, as published in the binomen Linyphia argyrodes (specific name of the type species of Argyrodes Simon, 1864); (b) neglectus Pickard-Cambridge, 1871, as published in the binomen Neriene neglecta (valid name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879); (c) vinetella Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Tinea vinetella (specific name of the type species of Eucarphia Hubner, [1825}) (Lepidoptera). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Argyrodes Guénée, 1845; (b) Ctenium Menge, 1871. History of case 1481 An application for the conservation of Argyrodes Simon, 1864 and Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 was received from Dr H. W. Levi (Harvard University, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) on 25 May 1961. The case included two lesser used generic names (Dipoenura and Theonoe) and was published in BZN 19: 43-47. Due to procedural errors at the time, the voting paper issued in 1963 was cancelled and, under Article 80, the two names Argyrodes and Robertus have been protected since 1962. In September 1982, the Secretary wrote to Professor Levi to apologise for ths mis- handling of the case and to suggest ways by which the case could be concluded. Professor Levi rewrote the case completely and this was received on 5 November 1984. It was published in BZN 42: 81-84 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary power was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and three specialist serials. A comment from Professor Dr O. Kraus (Zoologisches Institute 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, BRD) was published in BZN 43: 7-8 with a note by the Executive Secretary on additional comments from Professor B. J. Kaston (San Diego State University, U.S.A.) and Professor K. Thaler (Universitat Innsbruck, Austria). Supportive comments were received from Dr K. Mikhailov (Moscow State University) and Dr B. Y. Main (University of Western Australia). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 83-84 as modified in 43: 7. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—17: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride (in part), Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin (in part), Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Savage. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Ride and Trjapitzin voted against giving Robertus Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 precedence over Ctenium Menge, 1871. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: Argyrodes Guénée, 1845, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, ser. 2, 3: 322 Argyrodes Simon, 1864, Histoire naturelle des Araignées, ed. 1, p. 253 argyrodes, Linyphia, Walckenaer, 1841, Roret’s Suites a Buffon, Aptéres II, p. 282 Eucarphia Hibner, [1825] Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge, p. 364 neglectus, Neriene, Pickard-Cambridge, 1871, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 27: 443 Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879, The Spiders of Dorset, p. 103 vinetella, Tinea, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum . . . p. 242. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 61 OPINION 1427 Taenia perfoliata Schrank, 1788 (Cestoda): conserved and confirmed as type species of Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name eguina Pallas, 1781, as published in the binomen Taenia equina, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) The entry for the name Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is hereby confirmed and completed as follows: Anoplo- cephala Blanchard, 1848 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Braun, 1900, Taenia perfoliata Schrank, 1788; (3) The name perfoliata Schrank, 1788, as published in the binomen Taenia perfoliata (specific name of the type species of Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1788) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) The name Anoplocephala Stal, 1870 (a junior homonym of Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) The name equina Pallas, 1781, as published in the binomen Taenia equina and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2498 An application for the conservation of Taenia perfoliata Schrank, 1788 with confir- mation of it as the nominal type species of Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 (see Opinion 77), was formulated in 1984 by the then Secretary, Mr R. V. Melville. After correspon- dence with specialists the case was published in BZN 42: 77 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and five specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 77. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling in the present Opinion: Anophocephala Blanchard, 1848, Annales Sciences naturelles, Paris (3) Zool. 10: 344. Anoplocephala Stal, 1870, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 9, no. 1: 88 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 equina, Taenia, Pallas, 1781, Neue nordische Beytraege ... vol. 1, p. 71 perfoliata, Taenia, Schrank, 1788, Ver Eingeweide wiirmer, p. 37 The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation of a type species for the nominal genus Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848: of Taenia perfoliata Schrank by Braun, 1900 in Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, vol. 4, Abt. Ib, lief. 59-62, p. 1657. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 63 OPINION 1428 Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda): Taenia diminuta Rudolphi, 1819 designated as type species Ruling (a) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 are hereby set aside and Taenia diminuta Rudolphi, 1819 is designated as type species; (2) The name Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (gender: feminine) type species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers, Taenia diminuta Rudolphi, 1819, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) The name diminuta Rudolphi, 1819, as published in the binomen Taenia diminuta, (specific name of the type species of Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) The name HYMENOLEPIDINAE Perrier, [1896] (type genus Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of case 1156 An application for the designation of Taenia diminuta Rudolphi, 1819 as type species of Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 was first formulated by the late Francis Hemming (then Secretary) in 1956 following the discovery of an error in Opinion 77, which had already placed Hymenolepis on the Official List. In 1984 the then Secretary (Mr R. V. Melville) reviewed the case and an application was published in BZN 42: 72-73 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and five specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 73. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows. Affirmative votes—17: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Kraus. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Original References The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: diminuta, Taenia, Rudolphi, 1819, Entozoorum Synopsis, cui accedunt mantissa duplex et indices locupletissimi, p. 689 HYMENOLEPIDINAE Perrier, [1896] Traité de Zoologie, part 2, Fasc, 4, p. 1852 Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858, Human Cestoides. An essay on the tapeworms of Man, p. 49. 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 OPINION 1429 A ruling on the authorship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral Conchology of Great Britain Ruling (1) Itis hereby ruled that the publication date of the pages and plates of the Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 1812—1845 are to be taken as set out by Cleevely (1974). (2) It is hereby ruled that the change of authorship from James to James de Carle Sowerby is to be taken as stated by Renevier (1855) and as indicated in the Appendix. All species described and figured in vols. 1 to 3 and vol. 4, pages 1-114 and plates 1 to 383 (parts 1-66) 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. History of case 2483 An application for a ruling on the authorship and dates of the Sowerby’s Mineral Conchology of Great Britain was received from Mr C. W. Wright (Seaborough, Dorset, U.K.) and Mr R. J. Cleevely (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 19 July 1984. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 64-72 (April 1985). No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 66. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Kabata. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Dr Kabata voted against the application because he did not consider the case as being appropriate for a ruling by the Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 APPENDIX TO OPINION Publication dates of the Mineral Conchology of Great Britain Vol. I: 18 Parts Part Plates Pages Date 1 1-3* i-vii, 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 » 22227 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). 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Vol. III: 18 Parts 36 204-209 1-16 Aug. Ist, 1818 37 210-215 17-28 Oct. Ist 38 216-221 29-40 Dec. Ist 39 222-227 41-48 Feb. Ist, 1819 40 228-233 49-58 Apr. Ist 41 234-239 59-68 June Ist 42 240-245 69-80 Aug. Ist 43 246-248* 81-88 Oct. Ist 44 249-253** 89-98 Dec. Ist 45 254-259 99-106 Feb. Ist, 1820 46 260-265 107-118 Apr. Ist 47 266-271 119-126 May Ist 48 372-977 127-138 May Ist, 1821 49 278-283 139-150 June Ist 50 284-289 151-162 July Ist 51 290-294** 163-166, 166*-167* 167-170 Aug. Ist 52 295-300 171-178 Sept. Ist 53 301-306 179-184 & Index to Vol. III: [185-186] Oct. Ist Supplementary Index to Vol. III published in No. 61 (June Ist, 1822): 187-194 Vol. IV: 17 Parts 54 307-312 1-8 Nov. Ist, 1821 55: 313-318 9-16 Dec. Ist 56 319-324 17-24 Jan. Ist, 1822 57 325-330 25-32 Feb. Ist 58 331-336 33-44 Mar. Ist 59 337-342 45-56 Apr. Ist 60 343-348 57-68 May Ist 61 349-354 69-76 June Ist 62 355—359** 771-82 July Ist 63 360-365 83-90 Aug. Ist 64 366-371 89b, 91-96 Sept. Ist 65).372-377 97-104 Oct. Ist 66 378-383 105-114 Nov. Ist Species described in the above parts are to be attributed to James Sowerby, and in those below to James de Carle Sowerby 67 384-388** 115-122 Jan. Ist, 1823 68 389-394 123-130 Feb. Ist 69 395-400 131-138 Apr. Ist 70 401-4079 139-148 & Index to Vol. IV: [149-151] May Ist Supplementary Index to Vol. IV published in No. 73 (Aug. Ist 1823): 153-160 Vol. V: 16 Parts 71 408-413 72 414419 73 420-425 74 426431 75 432-437 76 438-443 77 445-450 78 *444, 451-455 79 456461 80 462-467 81 468-473 82 474-479 83 480-485 84 486491 85 492-497 86 498-503 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 {12 13-20 21-32 33-40 41-48 49-64 65-72 63*-64*, 73-78 79-90 91-98 99-114 115-130 131-138 139-144 145-152 153-168 & Index to Vol. V: [169-171] 67 June Ist, 1823 July Ist Aug. Ist Sept. Ist Nov. Ist Dec. Ist Jan. Ist, 1824 Mar. Ist Apr. Ist May Ist Aug. Ist Nov. Ist Dec. Ist Mar. Ist, 1825 May Ist Sept. lst * 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 88 510-515 89 516-521 90 522-527 91 528-533 92 534-539 93 540-545 94 546-551 95 552-557 96 558-562** 97 563-568 98 569-574 99 575-580 100 581-586 101 587-591 102 592-597 103 598-603 104 604-609 201-214 215-230, Title & Index to Vol. VI: [231-235] Feb. Ist, 1826 Mar. Ist Apr. Ist May Ist July Ist Sept. Ist Nov. Ist Jan. Ist, 1827 Mar. Ist May Ist Aug. Ist Sept. Ist Nov. Ist Jan. Ist, 1828 June Ist Aug. Ist Jan. Ist, 1829 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 106 610-613+ 107 614~-618** Alphabetical Index to the first 6 vols: 1-11 57-80 March 1840 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, p=7, T=4 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 OPINION 1430 Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea, Copepoda): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) The name Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Clavella hippoglossi Guérin-Méneville, [1837], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) The name hippoglossi Guérin-Meéneville, [1837], as published in the binomen Clavella hippoglossi (specific name of the type species of Hatschekia Poche, 1902) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) The name Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of case 2390 An application for the conservation of Hatschekia Poche, 1902 was received from Dr J. B. Jones (Fisheries Research Division, New Zealand) on 24 August 1981. A revised case was published in BZN 42: 57-59 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary power was given to twelve general and thirteen specialist serials. A supportive comment from Dr Z. Kabata (Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, Canada) was received and published in BZN 43: 120. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 58. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 13: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 3: Hahn, Lehtinen, Mroczkowski. Holthuis was on leave. No votes were returned by Alvarado, Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell, Starobogatov and Thompson. Voting against the application, Lehtinen commented: “The type material of Pseudo- clavella ovalis Bassett-Smith, 1898, seems to have been continuously known to exist in one of the major museums, its description has been judged to be reasonably accurate, and the generic name Pseudoclavella has been repeatedly mentioned. ‘The use of Hatschekia since Pillai’s (1969) first revision of the group is not an argument in favour of Hatschekia, but a personal choice between a valid and an invalid name. Pseudoclavella cannot be classified as a forgotten name even though its correct status was not realised by a number of authors.’ Hahn also voted against the suppression of Pseudoclavella, although he did not object to precedence for Hatschekia. After the voting period it was realised that Poche (1902, p. 16) had attributed Clavella hippoglossi to ‘Cuvier’, following Guérin-Méneville [1837] and later Kroyer (1837; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 69 Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift 1: 196). No Cuvier reference seems to exist, and Guérin- Méneville [1837] should be cited as author. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: Hatschekia Poche, 1902, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 26: 16 hippoglossi, Clavella Guérin-Méneville, [1837]. Iconographie du Régne Animal de G. Cuvier, Tome 2, Zoophytes pl. 9, fig. 7. Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7) 2: 92 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 OPINION 1431 Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name cavicola Banks, 1897, as published in the binomen Entomobrya cavicola, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) The name Folsomia Willem, 1902 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) The name candida Willem, 1902, as published in the binomen Folsomia candida (specific name of the type species of Folsomia Willem, 1902) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2210 An application for the conservation of Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 was first received from Dr P. F. Bellinger (California State University, U.S.A.) in 1977. A revised case was published in BZN 42: 201-204 (June 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and ten specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 202-203. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: candida, Folsomia, Willem, 1902, Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 46: 280 Folsomia Willem, 1902, Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 46: 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 yf OPINION 1432 Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1838, designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 are hereby set aside and Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1838 is designated as type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine) type species, by designation in (1) above, Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1838; (b) Elfia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine) type species, by subsequent designation by Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863, Actia cingulata Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) lamia Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Roeselia lamia and as defined by the neotype designated in BZN 42: 95 (specific name of the type species of Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830); (b) cingulata Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Actia cingulata (specific name of the type species of E/fia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1850). History of case 2491 An application for the designation of Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1830, as type species of Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 was received from Dr J. E. O’Hara (University of Alberta, Canada) on 10 September 1984, and a revised case was published in BZN 42: 93-97 (April 1985). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and ten specialist serials. Supportive comments were received from Dr R. W. Crosskey (British Museum ( Natural History), London) and Dr C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. National Museum, U.S.A.). Decision of the Commission On | September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 96. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mémoires préséntés par divers Savants a l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, II: 85 cingulata, Actia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mémoires préséntés par divers Savants a l’Académie Royale des Sciences de I’ Institut de France, 11: 86 Elfia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1850, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (2) 8: 190 lamia, Roselia Meigen, 1838, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifligeli- gen Insekten, vol. 7, p. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 73 DIRECTION 119 Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Official List entry completed Ruling (1) The name Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (gender: feminine), type species, by sub- sequent designation by Gray, 1847 Tornatellina clausa Pfeiffer, 1842, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) The name bilamellatus Anton, 1839, as published in the binomen Clausilia (Strobilis) bilamellatus (valid name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 1147 An application for completion of the entry for Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 on the Official List (see Opinion 119) was first formulated in 1958 by the late Francis Hemming (then Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). In 1984 Mr R. V. Melville (then Secretary) completed a revised application, which was published in BZN 42: 199 (June 1985). No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 199. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: bilamellatus, Clausilia (Strobilis), Anton, 1839, Verzeichniss der Conchylien welch sich in der Sammlung von H. E. Anton befinden, p. 46 Tornatellina, Beck, 1838, Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi Musei Principis . . . p. 80 The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation of a type species for the nominal genus Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842: of Tornatellina clausa Pfeiffer, 1842 by Gray, 1847, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1847, p. 125. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 DIRECTION 120 Rhabditis Dujardin, [1844] (Nematoda): Official List entry completed Ruling (1) The entry in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is completed as follows: Rhabditis Dujardin, [1844] (gender: feminine) type species, by subsequent designation by Stiles & Hassall, 1905, Rhabditis terricola Dujardin, [1844]. (2) The name terricola Dujardin, [1844], as published in the binomen Rhabditis terricola (specific name of the type species of Rhabditis Dujardin, [1844]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 937 An application for the clarification of the entry concerning Rhabditis Dujardin on the Official List (see Opinion 104) was first formulated by the late Francis Hemming (then Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) in 1958. This was one of 21 other names temporarily deleted from the List pending further investigations into their nomenclatural status. In 1984, Mr R. V. Melville (then Secretary) completed a revised application aimed at confirming the type species of Rhabditis, and its date of publication. This was published in BZN 42: 197—198 (June 1985). Acomment from Dr W. G. Inglis (Office of the Chief Scientific Advisor, Adelaide, Australia) was published with a reply from Mr Melville, in BZN 43: 5—6. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 198. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes— 18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: Rhabditis Dujardin, [1844], Histoire naturelle des Helminthes, p. 239 terricola, Rhabditis, Dujardin, [1844], Histoire naturelle des Helminthes, p. 340 The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation of a type species for the nominal genus Rhabditis Dujardin, [1844]: of Rhabditis terricola Dujardin, [1844] by Stiles & Hassall, 1905, Bulletin of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 79: 134. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(1) March 1987 75 DIRECTION 121 Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda): Official List entry completed Ruling (1) The placing of the name Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is hereby confirmed, the entry to read: Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent monotypy Hydatigena granulosa Batsch, 1786. (2) The name granulosa Batsch, 1786, as published in the binomen Hydatigena granulosa, (specific name of the type species of Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 1157 An application for the completion of the entry concerning Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 was first formulated in 1958 by the late Francis Hemming (then Secretary of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature) following the discovery of an error in Opinion 84, relating to the validity of the accepted type species of Echinococcus. In 1984 the then Secretary (Mr R. V. Melville) reviewed the case and an application was published in BZN 42: 74-75 (April 1985). No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 72. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1986 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes— 18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Holthuis was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell and Starobogatov. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: granulosa, Hydatigena, Batsch, 1786, Naturgeschichte der Bandwurmgattung (Halle), p. 87 Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801, Archiv fiir Zoologie und Zootomie, 2(1): 52 Contents—continued Opinion 1429. A ruling on the authorship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral Conchology ofGreat Britain. . . . . . . . PR AME IN crit er di) cues 64 Opinion 1430. Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea,Copepoda). ....... 68 Opinion 1431. Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola) . 5... . 70 Opinion 1432. Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, PE A ae, 71 Direction 119. Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Official List entry I ee re Re ee a 73 Direction 120. Rhabditis Dujardin, [1844] (Nematoda): Official List entry completed . 74 Direction 121. Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda): Official List entry completed . 75 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Parts of the Bulletin since 44 (1) should be consulted as examples. Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current binomen in parentheses. Author's name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission Secretariat. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading toa final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described...’ References. These should be given for all authors cited. The titles of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of Pages, the publisher and the place of publication. Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to the address on the inside front cover. The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in the preparation of manuscripts. CONTENTS Notices . The International Commission and its publications . : Addresses and specialist fields of members of the Commission Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology General articles The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature . Applications Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia, Carnivora). R.M.Schoch . Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). G. Van Rossem . Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera). V. Svihla j Musca marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Chrysomya marginalis; Insecta, Diptera).L.E.O.Braack . . Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M. x " Alonso-Zarazaga & ae Dieckmann . Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum costulatum; Insecta, Hymenoptera). Yu.A.Pesenko . . Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). ‘i. A. ‘Rehder & R. E. Petit Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). W. O. Cernohorsky . Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 (Nematoda). M. W. Brzeski, E. Geraert & D. J. Raski LARIDAE Vigors, 1825 (Aves) and LARINI LeConte, 1861 (Insecta, Coleoptera). P. J. Spangler ; . Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea). E. P. F. Rose & J. ‘B. Ss. Olver. Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes). W.R. Taylor : f Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida). A. R. Loeblich, Ir. &H. Tappan 5,5 Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Leger 1851 Mesa ie. Acarina) . E.E. Lindquist & D.C. M. Manson . Comments List of avian family-group names to be proposed for conservation. W. J. Bock . On the family-name for the storm petrels (Aves). S. L. Olson. On the proposed conservation of Apanteles (currently Pholetesor) ornigis : Weed, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). L. B. Holthuis; C. van Achterberg; J. B. Whitfield . ; On Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 as type tame of Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). J. B. Whitfield . On the proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca, Coleoidea). C. W. Wright; P. Doyle ie OR Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1420. Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari) . Opinion 1421. Erigone Audouin, [1826] (Arachnidae, Araneae) . Opinion 1422. Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia, Sauria) . Opinion 1423. Olpium Koch, 1873 (Arachnida) . 3 Opinion 1424. Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). : Opinion 1425. Suppressed: Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and specific names published in combination withthem . . Opinion 1426. Argyrodes Simon, 1864 and Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge 1879 (Arachnida, Araneae). : ; Opinion 1427. Taenia perfoliata Schrank, 1788 (Cestoda) . Opinion 1428. Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda) . Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset The Bulletin | leg Sh MUSEO Zoological oes ie 1 Laas we Or * THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1987 is £53 or $102, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 01-589 6323 ext. 387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Vice-President Prof Dr R. Alvarado (Spain) Secretary-General Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Prof Dr R. Alvarado (Spain) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland) Dr G. Bernardi (France) Mr R. V. Melville (U.K.) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.) Prof C. Dupuis (France) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria) Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (U.S.S.R.) Prof Dr G. Hahn (Fed. Rep. Germany) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen (Norway) Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (U.S.S.R.) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan) Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Prof A. Willink (Argentina) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B. A. (Scientific Administrator) Mr M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Zoologist) Miss N. A. Erridge, B.Sc. (Assistant Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1987 = BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 44, part 2 (pp. 77-152) 25 June 1987 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 normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, 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) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments to the Code are also published for discussion. Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience wider than some small group of specialists. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for volume 44, part | (published on 23 March 1987): (1) Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 (Bivalvia): proposed conservation. (Case 2587). G. Lee. (2) Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830 (Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of original spelling. (Case 2588). R. Giannuzzi-Savelli. (3) Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 (Tardigrada): proposed designation of Macrobiotus dujardin Doyére, 1840 as type species. (Case 2589). M. G. Binda & G. Pilato. (4) Dacus parallelus Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Anastrepha parallela; Insecta, Diptera): proposed replacement of lectotype. (Case 2590). A. L. Norrbom. (5) Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoda): proposed conservation by the suppression of Discocephalum Linton, 1891. (Case 2591). J. N. Caira. (6) Cyclocyclicus Yeltysheva, 1955 (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): Proposed con- servation by suppression of Cyclocyclopa Moore, 1939. (Case 2592). S. K. Donovan. (7) Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2593). H. Silfverberg. (8) Sarotherodon melanotheron Riippell, 1852 (Osteichthyes): proposed conser- vation by the suppression of Labrus melagaster Bloch, 1792. (Case 2594). E. Trewavas. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 (9) Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 (currently Ctenopoma oxyrhynchum; Osteichthyes): proposed conservation by suppression of Crenopoma weeksii Boulenger, 1896. (Case 2595). S. M. Morris. (10) Climacograptus manitoulinensis Caley, 1936 (Graptolithina): proposed con- servation of specific name by the suppression of Diplograptus hudsonicus Nicholson, 1875. (Case 2596). J. F. Riva. (11) Climacograptus tridentatus Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina): proposed desig- nation of a lectotype to replace the neotype. (Case 2597). J. R. Riva. (12) Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes): proposed conservation by the sup- pression of Amblodon Rafinesque, 1820. (Case 2598). R. M. Bailey & W. N. Escheyer. (13) Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Orbitu- lites pratti Michelin, 1846 as type species. (Case 2599). A. R. Loeblich & H. Tappan. (14) Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Nautilus orbiculus Forskal, 1775 as type species. (Case 2600). A. R. Loeblich & H. Tappan. (15) Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of a replacement neotype. (Case 2602). G. N. Foster. (16) GRYLLACRIDIDAE Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed precedence over STENOPELMATIDAE Burmeister, 1838. (Case 2603). K. H. L. Key. (17) Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802 (Nematoda): proposed confirmation of spelling. (Case 2604). M. E. Tollitt. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration and Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology A revised and updated edition of the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology has now been published. For the first time all the names and works on which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has ruled since it was set up in 1895 are brought together in a single volume. Entries are arranged in four sections giving in alphabetical order the family-group names, generic names, specific names and titles of works which have been placed on the Official Lists or the Official Indexes. There are about 9,900 entries of which 134 are for works. In addition, there is a full systematic index and a reference list to all relevant Opinions and Directions. The volume is 366 pages, size A4, casebound. Copies can be ordered from: The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 or The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to members of A.A.Z.N.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 79 Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a solution for an old problem P. F. S. Cornelius Department of Zoology, British Museum ( Natural History), London, SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. Overlooked senior synonyms often threaten currently used names, and their reintroduction under the Principle of Priority can cause confusion. Familiar names are displaced, and expensive monographs can be made less useful despite having an unchallenged taxonomy. To halt this gradual erosion, the nomenclature in certain works might be formally ‘Protected’ by the Commission from application of the Principle of Priority. In taxonomic groups so covered, the onus for making formal nomenclatural submissions would fall on those wishing to upset established usage rather than, as at present, on those defending it. Several other advantages of the proposal are discussed. ‘When generic names have come into almost universal use, and are good in them- selves, it would save great confusion to allow them to remain. As in property, a certain number of years’ undisputed possession might be regarded as a right. It is hard to give up such because it is discovered that an obscure writer badly named an ill-defined group a short time in advance. The new (so-called old) name might itself have to be displaced when some other antiquary had unhappily disinterred some older and worse book which had been fortunately forgotten. Surely use is the most complete publication.’ (P. P. Carpenter, 1866). Introduction The binominal system of zoological nomenclature is somewhat over two hundred years old. It and the parallel system of botanical nomenclature perhaps form the oldest and most widely accepted ‘scientific language’. Mathematical, chemical and certain allied symbolisms excepted, biological nomenclature forms the oldest internationally accepted scientific notation. Its regulation is important. The use of zoological nomenclature is now governed by the third (1985) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which promotes stability of nomenclature through an accepted set of guidelines. If, in a particular case, existing nomenclature is threatened the Code empowers the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature [ICZN] to set its Articles aside and hence conserve familiar usage. But there remains a major obstacle to nomenclatural stability. This is identified below, and a possible solution proposed. The proposal is presented for discussion, to be amended as necessary, rather than as a polished solution. Most examples of the prob- lem that are cited come from the literature on one phylum of animals, but this does not imply a lack of general relevance: probably most taxonomists know relevant examples in their own fields. 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 The problem Perhaps the commonest, and yet the most intractable, problem in nomenclature is that posed when a little used senior synonym is recognised of a subsequently introduced name that is more familiar. The Code requires the commonly used name to be rejected, and in consequence all concerned must become familiar with a new name for the taxon. But the Code also permits an alternative procedure: the Commission may suppress the older name and hence ratify continued use of the younger one. Indeed, it is a tenet of the Code that priority should not necessarily upset existing usage (Article 23b). A case must be submitted to the Commission recommending conservation of the widely used junior synonym, which can then remain in use while the case is considered. But taxonomists often refrain from taking this formal action. This is perhaps partly due to the amount of labour involved in preparing a case and partly to the paucity of adequate libraries around the world. There is perhaps also a fear that refusal of an application might result in an unwanted name becoming ratified. Apparently taxonomists prefer to risk a proportion of the names used in their works becoming gradually superseded and made obsolete by the nomenclatural acts of subsequent workers, for whom the option of using older but unfamiliar names has remained open. This problem has repercussions in all biological disciplines. Paradoxically, taxonomists themselves may be among the least affected, since their very expertise may enable them to follow with little difficulty a changing nomenclature which would confuse a non-specialist. But many branches of biology of the greatest benefit to man are to an increasing extent in danger of being hampered by fluctuations in nomencla- ture. They comprise those disciplines in which consideration of numerous taxa forms the basis of the approach, and include forestry and agriculture, pollution monitoring, control of pests and diseases, conservation, education, and ecology. Yet, again para- doxically, such changes are actually required under the Code, unless applications are made to the ICZN. Thus in many fields strict adherence to the Principle of Priority not only fails to support scientific endeavour; it actually hinders it. One example will suffice. T. A. Stephenson’s (1928, 1935) Ray Society monograph on the British sea anemones was taxonomically of the highest standard and in addition was both beautifully illustrated and widely available. Yet a recent and less detailed, though excellent, synopsis (Manuel, 1981) covering the anemone fauna (45 species in 35 genera) of the same area, though recognizing nearly all of the specific taxa of Stephenson, employed only about 30 of the original binomina. In four species both genus and species names were changed, in three others the genus names alone, and in four more just the species names. Thus the names of 11 species in a fauna of 45 (or of 38 as recorded by Stephenson) underwent some change. Most of the changes resulted from the disinterment during detailed library work of senior, and therefore valid, synonyms. Several of the names changed were of commonly collected forms familiar to sub-littoral and intertidal biologists. A strong case might have been made for at least some of the names to be conserved by the Commission. Now, a student wishing to use the older and more detailed guide, and much subsequent literature, has to wrestle with some 15 name changes in this small yet well known fauna, in addition to the great problems of identification inherent in the particular group. In this case, nomenclatural usage has been upset to no apparent biological purpose and to the disadvantage of the user. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 81 A work need not introduce many name changes to be detrimental to established usage. Ten papers each introducing a single name change will be just as damaging as a single paper introducing all ten, or even more damaging, since the changes would be scattered and hence some might be overlooked. Such problems seem to be the norm in the nomenclature of many animal groups. Expensive and comprehensive taxonomic monographs, and many shorter revisionary works, continue to be threatened by relentless application of the Principle of Priority. The excellence of a piece of taxonomy, listing senior synonyms as it should, can cause its own undermining when subsequent workers use these very lists to derive unhelpful nomenclatural changes. Further, it is regrettable that editors of many biological journals and series evidently seldom question the wisdom of strict application of the Principle of Priority. Greater editorial involvement in these matters would be beneficial. Under the existing provisions of the Code, preparation of cases to protect all the threatened names in a monograph which it would be sensible to continue using will usually be too costly in scientists’ time to be considered, and would in any case swamp the International Commission. After cases are submitted for publication they are scrutinized, published for ‘public’ consideration and comment, and finally voted on by the Commission. Hence the cases have to be argued cogently, and must be water-tight. Anyone who has submitted a case, or has tried to follow one in detail, will appreciate the amount of time needed for its preparation. The dilemma for a taxonomist is that preparing cases takes him away from his main work. Tracking down the relevant references is usually time consuming, but is necessary since there is a risk that a crucial publication will have been missed and the entire case endangered. For those without access to major libraries these problems increase. An efficient inter-library loan system is not enough, since the nature of the necessary literature searching often takes the worker along a trail of publications and to wait days or even weeks between steps in the trail lengthens it inconveniently. Preparing several cases simultaneously is extremely tedious. By coincidence, another major work by T. A. Stephenson provides a convenient example of the reluctance of biologists to keep track of changes in nomenclature. Stephenson’s last book (Stephenson & Stephenson, 1972), on the ecology of rocky shores throughout the world, drew its biological nomenclature from the literature on a wide variety of animal and plant groups in many countries. Following Stephenson’s death in 1961 another eminent intertidal ecologist, the late Professor Sir Maurice Yonge, F.R.S., helped to prepare the text. But after some ten years he evidently felt it necessary to provide the following disclaimer in the Foreword: ‘The nomenclature was certainly valid when the original studies were made, but in certain cases it may now be outdated...’ (C. M. Yonge, in Stephenson & Stephenson, 1972: viii). Yonge was among the elite of invertebrate zoologists and marine biologists, yet even he felt it prohibitively difficult to keep track of the nomenclatural changes introduced little by little in the vast literature that Stephenson’s book drew upon. Yonge’s attitude seems commonplace among active biologists. The message is clear. The crucial question is whether the majority of name changes are necessary. Are they invoked in the service of biology or merely in that of some nomenclatural microcosm, in which the Principle of Priority is applied without regard for the primary purpose of assisting communication between biologists? 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 As suggested above, in practice few biologists attempt to conserve nomenclatural usage by presentation of cases to the Commission. Thus fewer than 50 formal appli- cations have been submitted to the ICZN each year. It is true that the authors of many more are advised by the Secretariat that their cases can be accommodated under the Code without rulings by the Commission. But the point that few formal cases are submitted is nevertheless indicative of a reluctance to prepare them. Many taxonomists abide by the Code and change the names, sometimes to the detriment of familiar usage. Others, perhaps the majority, simply continue to use the familiar but invalid, and therefore vulnerable, names. Possibly fear of refusal makes taxonomists reluctant to submit formal cases, but it would seem that the labour of their preparation is more usually the deterrent. If stability is not to be continually undermined a new, much less tedious, approach to conserving existing usage is essential. Many of the aspects touched upon, and some others, could be discussed at length — non-availability of libraries, the influence on nomenclatural practice of ‘bibliographic archaeologists’, the understandable pressure from some major employers of taxonomists not to indulge in seemingly unproductive nomenclatural activities, and so on. Each might in itself provide the basis for a relevant study. But the problems outlined are sufficiently understood that further elaboration seems unnecessary, and only a solution need be considered. A solution The need is to protect a nomenclature painstakingly derived after detailed and informed taxonomic study. The convention of the nomen oblitum, by which a senior synonym disused for 50 years could automatically be regarded as rejected, was tried but ultimately abandoned. A new solution is required. The nomenclature in certain taxonomic works of accepted scientific merit might be ‘Protected’ by specific designation by the Commission. The nomenclature of a work would be protected only from application of the Principle of Priority. The works to be Protected would be recommended by specialist panels of referees. Their recommen- dations would be published for discussion and, if accepted, would be ratified by the ICZN. This procedure might be adopted with many authoritative works and check- lists already published. An Official List of such ‘Protected Works’ would be compiled by the Commission. Many animal groups already have an authoritative work which could provide them with a nomenclature base (see Appendix). ‘Protection’ of a work would not be under- taken lightly, and adequate referral to the scientific community would be essential. Clearly, there could be problems arising with taxa occurring also in geographical regions outside the scope of individual works. Such cases could be covered by supple- mentary provisions. Nor need all works be accepted in their entirety, and any parts ofa work that are unacceptable could be excluded from the original Protection. This acknowledges that a synoptic work might be produced before the whole group to which it refers has been fully revised: and also that many regional faunal works do not include a complete range of taxa in all groups, making coverage inconsistent. Clearly the nomenclature in a Protected Work would not be protected from the effects of sub- sequent taxonomic reassessments. Allowance could be made also for names found to be unsoundly based due to original misidentification of type material, and for others Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 83 subsequently found to be invalidated through homonymy. These and other details could undoubtedly be worked out more fully. Advantages There are several. The problems caused by the scarcity of much old literature would be greatly diminished. Lengthy involvement of scientists in bibliographic activity would become less necessary. The variety of users mentioned above would benefit. But, more important still, designating Protected Works would make it difficult for a forgotten senior synonym to be given precedence over a widely accepted later name, in contrast to the present situation in which this is hard to prevent. In taxonomic groups covered by Protected Works, the onus for preparing cases would be on those proposing to change established usage, and not as at present on those wishing to conserve it. The taxonomist studying these groups would be freed from pursuing each nomenclatural case to its conclusion, merely to seek approval for the use of names that were widely used anyway. Pragmatism would reign. Another major advantage is that the proposed procedure would apply equally to cases concerning the names of both familiar taxa and less familiar ones. Hence the current necessity for the Commissioners to debate subjectively whether or not a name were widely-enough known to deserve protection would no longer exist. The risk of inconsistent treatment of cases would be eliminated. Conclusion Nomenclatural activities must be streamlined and be made more efficient if they are to serve both science and the communities which fund them. The Principle of Priority, when discussed at length in the 1840s, seemed to provide a straightforward route to a stable nomenclature (detailed account in Heppell, 1981). But the great volume of subsequent literature, and that which can be expected in the future, has made and will continue to make this simplistic approach unworkable. Today there is inadequate safeguard for existing usage. Partially abandoning the current Principle of Priority, as proposed here, can be argued against on certain grounds. Not least is that a sense of fair play might be compromised, in that the first author to name a taxon might have the name he proposed supplanted by a later one. But for this to occur would usually require that the earlier name will already have been largely overlooked, and that a specialist panel will have acknowledged this when recommending a Protected Work excluding it. Certain problems inherent in the proposal have been discussed. Doubtless more will be identified. But the Code we now have, being essentially a refinement of the ambition of the 1840s, has become cumbersome and outmoded in the important area outlined here, and hence fails to do its job. Hopefully proposals derived from those discussed will eventually become incorporated into taxonomic practice, and will contribute towards a more stable nomenclature. How this might operate in the nomenclature applied to part of one phylum of animals is discussed in the Appendix. Acknowledgements Some of the views incorporated here were formed over many years during discussion with colleagues, most notably Miss A. M. Clark [British Museum (Natural History)] 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 [BMNH]to whom I am particularly grateful. More recently, I have been indebted to Dr P. K. Tubbs, Secretary of the Commission, for helpful discussion when formulating the proposals; and to Dr D. R. Calder (Toronto), Major K. W. England (Reading), Dr R. B. Williams (Tring), and especially Dr R. W. Crosskey (BMNH), for constructive criticism of the draft. I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity of discussing the proposals briefly and informally with some dozen colleagues within the BMNH in addition to those already mentioned. Their informed opinions and support have given me confidence to set down these tentative views for wider debate. Appendix Examples of possible Protected Works on the phylum Cnidaria Maybe normally only revisions treating all the world’s known taxa of a group would be useful as Protected Works. Local revisions will so often have literature overlap with adjacent regions that nomenclatural problems will occur. Most countries of the world are smaller than the ranges of many of the species occurring in them, and so country- based revisions are usually too parochial for nomenclatural questions to be solved adequately. Exceptionally though, as in the last example given below, a regional work might be so far reaching and so potentially under-pinning of its group that it might nevertheless be selected, but such works are probably few. Hydrozoa and Scyphozoa For many years the generic nomenclature of hydroids and hydromedusae has been plagued by the difficulties of connecting the two stages collected separately from their respective habitats, named independently, and only subsequently linked by rearing. Often generic name changes have resulted, to the detriment of nomenclatural stability. But, as more and more life-cycles have become known, the possibility of deriving a unified nomenclature has increased. Thus recently a complete generic synopsis was proposed in which so far as possible such connections were accommodated. Although the nomenclatural consequences were not considered in detail, and the work set out to be taxonomic rather than nomenclatural, nevertheless the names were sensibly derived and Protection of the work might be pragmatic. The work is Bouillon, J., 1985. Essai de classification des hydropolypes-hydroméduses (Hydrozoa-Cnidaria), Indo-Malayan Zoology, 1: 29-243. Anthozoa J. E. N. Vernon and others, Scleractinia of eastern Australia, 5 vols., 1976-1982, Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series, Canberra. This monumental work is essentially an account of the corals of the important Great Barrier Reefs, but most of the world’s families and genera of reef-building corals are included. The descriptions are full, being based on long series of specimens, and the illustrations are lavish. Type specimens are usually indicated. Designation of the work as ‘Protected’ would promote nomenclatural stability throughout a much-studied group. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 85 References Carpenter, P. P. 1866. On the regard due to usage and utility, as well as mere priority in fixing zoological nomenclature. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1865, Birmingham) 35(2): 83. Heppell, D. 1981. The evolution of the code of zoological nomenclature. Jn Wheeler, A. C. & Price, J. H. (eds.) History in the service of systematics. Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, special publications, 1: 135-141. Manuel, R. L. 1981. British Anthozoa. Linnean Society synopses of the British fauna (New Series), Vol. 18, 241 pp. Stephenson, T. A. 1928, 1935. British sea anemones. Ray Society, London. Vol. 1 (1928), Vol. 2 (1935), 574 pp., 33 pls. Stephenson, T. A. & Stephenson, A. 1972. Life between tidemarks on rocky shores. 425 pp. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Note added in proof Dr R. W. Crosskey has drawn my attention to an article ‘A suggested revision of nomencla- tural procedure in animal taxonomy’ (Howden, H. F., Evans, H. E. & Wilson, E. O. (1968): Systematic Zoology, 17: 188-191), which contained proposals similar to my own. Unfortunately the suggestions were not adequately pursued. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Case 2457 Alcyonidium Lamouroux, 1813 (Bryozoa): proposed conservation by the suppression of Fucus Hudson, 1762 and Ulva Hudson, 1778 in their zoological sense J. P. Thorpe Department of Marine Biology, University of Liverpool, Port Erin, Isle of Man J. E. Winston Department of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to protect the name of the important bryozoan genus A/cyonidium Lamouroux, 1813 from the names Fucus and Ulva. When using these names for algae Hudson (1762 and 1778) included species now classified as Bryozoa, thereby inadvertently creating zoological genera. There appears no need to conserve the butterfly generic name Ulva Lindsey, 1925, now treated as a junior subjective synonym. 1. The name Alcyonidium Lamouroux, 1813 is used for a widespread genus of bryozoans, many of them very abundant. Potential confusion arises from the fact that in early work bryozoans were often classified as algae, and these listings in a formal sense (Article 10f of the Code) establish zoological genera, even though this was not the intention of the authors. 2. We consider that the use of the names Fucus and Ulva for Bryozoa should be suppressed to conserve Alcyonidium, and possibly other bryozoan genera. Fucus and Ulva are very important botanical genera of seaweeds, named before 1758, while vari- ous Alcyonidium species are amongst the most abundant epiphytes of marine algae. Clearly it would be confusing to have to refer to Fucus growing on Fucus or Ulva upon Ulva, despite the fact that under Article lc of the Code the zoological names are independent of botanical practice. 3. Alcyonidium Lamouroux, 1813 (p. 285) has been discussed in very many works over a long period, and a representative list has been given to the Commission Secretariat. In describing the genus Lamouroux said (p. 286) ‘...il n’y en a méme qu’une seule de bien connue, c’est /’ulva diaphana des auteurs . . . sur laquelle j’ai fait les observations que m’ont engagé a la considérer comme étant le type d’un ordre et d’un genre particulier . . .’ [‘.. . there is only one of these which is well known, this is the Ulva diaphana of authors... on which I have made observations which have persuaded me to consider it as being the type of a special order and genus . . .’]. The reference ‘F/. Dan. etc.’ given by Lamouroux for Ulva diaphana leads to Vahl (1799, fasc. 21, p. 7 and pl. 1245). Vahl in turn refers only to Ulva diaphana Hudson, 1778 (p. 570), which is angel Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 87 therefore by original designation the type species of Alcyonidium (see also Thorpe & Winston (1986)). U/va Hudson, 1778 is an ‘inadvertent’ zoological genus. 4. The name Ulva was apparently not used after 1813 for a bryozoan, and disappeared from zoology. Lindsey (1925, p. 105) noticed that the African skipper butterfly generic name Hyda Mabille, 1889 was a junior homonym, and proposed Ulva as a replacement; the nominal type species of Hyda, H. micacea, is by Article 67 h of the Code also the type species of Ulva Lindsey, 1925. This genus is now treated as a subjective synonym of Serangesa Moore, 1881, with Hyda micacea being regarded as a synonym of Serangesa tertullianus (Fabricius, 1793), and there is no obvious need to conserve Ulva Lindsey, 1925, which is in any case a junior homonym of Ulva Hudson. 5. Hudson (1762, p. 471) included in his ‘seaweed’ genus Fucus a species which he called gelatinosus, and it is clear from his work and the synonyms given that this was a bryozoan which would currently be placed in A/cyonidium. Fucus Hudson, 1762, like his Ulva, is a valid zoological genus by virtue of Article 10 f, but it appears never to have been used as such. Roth (1806, fasc. 3, p. 103) discussed Fucus, and Sherborn (1926, p. 2530) considered that some of Roth’s species may have been bryozoans. Neave (1940) did not list Fucus as an animal genus. 6. For the reasons above it is desirable to suppress the names Fucus and Ulva in their zoological sense. The earliest author known to have included bryozoa in these algal genera is Hudson, 1762 and 1778 respectively; however, it is possible that even earlier inadvertent ‘creations’ of the zoological genera may exist. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic names Fucus Hudson, 1762 and Ulva Hudson, 1778, and any other zoological use of those names, 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 name A/cyonidium Lamouroux, 1813 (gender: neuter), type species by original designation, Ulva diaphana Hudson, 1778; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name diaphana Hudson, 1778, as published in the binomen Ulva diaphana (specific name of the type species of Alcyonidium Lamouroux, 1813): (4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Fucus Hudson, 1762, and any other zoological use of Fucus, as suppressed in (1) above; and (b) Ulva Hudson, 1778, and any other zoological use of Ulva, as suppressed in (1) above. References Hudson, W. 1762. Flora Anglica exhibens plantas per regnum Angliae sponte crescentes . . . 506 pp. J. Nourse and C. Moran, London. Hudson, W. 1778. Flora Anglica exhibens plantas per regnum Britanniae sponte crescentes.... 690 pp. J. Nourse, London. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Lamouroux, J. V. 1813. Essai sur les genres de la famille des Thalassiophytes non articulées. Annales du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 20: 267-293. Lindsey, A. W. 1925. The types of hesperioid genera. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 18: 75-106. Neave, S. A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus. 4 vols. Zoological Society of London. Roth, A. W. 1806. Catalecta Botanica . . .2 vols. Lipsiae. Sherborn, C. D. 1926 Index animalium .. . Trustees of the British Museum, London. Thorpe, J. P. & Winston, J. E. 1986. On the identity of A/cyonidium diaphanum Lamouroux, 1813 (Bryozoa, Ctenostomata). Journal of Natural History, 20: 845-848. Vahl, M. H. 1799. (Ed.) Jcones Plantarum sponte nascentium in regnis Daniae et Norvegiae .. . Florae Danicae nomine inscriptum . . ., vol. 7, Havniae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 89 Case 2450 Proposed conservation of four sipunculan specific names J. I. Saiz Salinas Universidad del Pais Vasco, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Departamento de Biologia, Apartado 644, Bilbao, Spain Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the established sipunculan worm names Siphonosoma vastum, Phascolosoma stephensoni, Phascolosoma scolops and Phascolosoma pacificum. Examination of the type specimens of sipunculan species described by A. De Quatrefages in 1865 has shown that his unused names are senior subjective synonyms of the above. 1. For many years zoologists have used the specific names given below as the valid names for four distinctive species of sipunculans: (a) Sipunculus vastus Selenka, De Man and Bulow, 1884, (pp. 103-104). It was later transferred to the genus Siphonosoma Spengel, 1912 and is accordingly now known as Siphonosoma vastum; (b) Physcosoma stephensoni Stephen, 1942 (p. 250) was later transferred to the genus Phascolosoma Leuckart, 1828 and is now known as Phascolosoma stephensoni; (c) Phymosoma scolops Selenka, De Man and Bulow, 1884, (pp. 75—76), now known as Phascolosoma scolops; (d) Phascolosoma pacificum Keferstein, 1866 (pp. 221—222). 2. However, a re-investigation (Saiz Salinas, 1984) of certain poorly known species of sipunculans described by De Quatrefages in 1865, whose old type specimens were found in the collections of the Worms Laboratory in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, reveals that: (a) Sipunculus (Phascolosomum) violaceus De Quatrefages, 1865 (p. 619) is a senior synonym of Siphonosoma vastum; (b) Sipunculus (Phymosomum) spinicauda De Quatrefages, 1865 (p. 621) is a senior synonym of Phascolosoma stephensoni; (c) Sipunculus (Phymosomum) guttatus De Quatrefages, 1865 (p. 621) is a senior synonym of Phymosoma scolops; (d) a part of the syntype material of Sipunculus (Phymosomum) javanensis De Quatrefages, 1865 (p. 622) is a senior synonym of P. pacificum (another part is a junior synonym of Phascolosoma noduliferum Stimpson, 1855, and the remaining part is considered unidentifiable). 3. The usages of the senior synonyms are as follows: (a) The name violaceus was used as valid by Baird (1868, p. 85). It was used by Hérubel (1907, p. 226) with a question mark and also by Stephen & Edmonds (1972, p. 339) as a name of a species incertae sedis. (b) The name spinicauda was used as valid by Baird (1868, p. 93) and De Rochebrune (1881, p. 230), and as a junior synonym of Phascolosoma granulatum Leuckart, 1828 by Stephen & Edmonds in 1972 (p. 306); 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 (c) The name guttatus was used as valid by Baird (1868, p. 93) and as a name of a species incertae sedis by Stephen & Edmonds (1972, p. 339); (d) The name javanensis was used as valid by Baird (1868, p. 94) and as a name of a species incertae sedis by Stephen & Edmonds (1972, p. 339). 4. The four specific names given in Paragraph 1, S. vastum, P. stephensoni, P. scolops, and P. pacificum, have been used in the past 50 years by many authors. The usages before 1972 can be consulted in the Stephen & Edmonds’ monograph. A list of between 8—12 subsequent publications for each of the specific names has been given to the Commission Secretariat. 5. It can be stated without reservation that the four De Quatrefages specific names violaceus, spinicauda, guttatus and javanensis given in Paragraph 2 above have not been used as valid names during the past 50 years. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its 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: (a) violaceus De Quatrefages, 1865 as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phascolosomum ) violaceus; (b) spinicauda De Quatrefages, 1865 as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) spinicauda; (c) guttatus De Quatrefages, 1865 as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) guttatus; (d) javanensis De Quatrefages, 1865 as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) javanensis. (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) vastus Selenka, De Man & Biilow, 1884, as published in the binomen Sipunculus vastus; (b) stephensoni Stephen, 1942, as published in the binomen Physcosoma stephensoni; (c) scolops Selenka, De Man & Biilow, 1884, as published in the binomen Phymosoma scolops; (d) pacificum Keferstein, 1866, as published in the binomen Phascolosoma pacificum. (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) violaceus De Quatrefages, 1865 as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phascolosomum ) violaceus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) spinicauda De Quatrefages, 1865 as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum) spinicauda and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) guttatus De Quatrefages, 1865 as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) guttatus and as suppressed in (1)(c) above; (d) javanensis De Quatrefages, 1865 as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum) javanensis and as suppressed in (1)(d) above. References Baird, W. B. 1868. Monograph of the species of worms belonging to the subclass Gephyrea; with a notice of such species as are contained in the collection of the British Museum. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1868: 76—114. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 91 De Quatrefages, A. 1865. Histoire Naturelle des Annelés marins et d’eau douce. Annélides et Géphyriens, 2 vols, & atlas. Roret, Paris. De Rochebrune, A. T. 1881. Matériaux pour la faune de l’Archipel du Cap Vert. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, sér. 2, 4: 215-340. Hérubel, M. A. 1907. Recherches sur les sipunculides. Mémoires de la Société Zoologique de France, 20: 107-418. Keferstein, W. 1866. Untersuchungen tiber einige amerikanische Sipunculiden. Nachrichten von der Kéniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (und der Georg-Augusts-Universitdt ), 1866 (14): 215-228. Saiz Salinas, J. I. 1984. Los tipos de sipunciilidos de De Quatrefages del Museo de Paris. 258 pp. Servicio Editorial UPV/Argitarapen Zerbitzua EHU, Bilbao. Selenka, E., De Man, J. G. & Biilow, C. 1884. Die Sipunculiden. Reisen im Archipel der Phillippinen von Dr C. Semper. Zweiter Theil. Wissenschaftlichen Resultate (4. Band, 1. Abtheilung). 131 pp., pls 1-14. C. W. Kreidel, Wiesbaden. Stephen, A. C. 1942. The South African intertidal zone and its relation to ocean currents. Notes on the intertidal sipunculids of Cape Province and Natal. Annals of the Natal Museum, 10 (2): 245-256, pl. II. Stephen, A. C. & Edmonds, S. J. 1972. The phyla Sipuncula and Echiura. 528 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Case 2567 Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation K. Sakai Laboratory of Crustacea, Shikoku Women’s University, 771-11 Tokushima, Ohjincho-Furukawa, Japan L. B. Holthuis Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 for acosmopolitan mud shrimp genus. It is threatened by Jsea Guérin-Méneville, 1832, not used as a valid name since its inception because it was long regarded as a homonym of an older name, /saea (an amphipod genus). 1. The name Jsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830 (p. 380) was first established for an amphipod genus with the single included species /saea montagui Milne Edwards, 1830. 2. In 1832, Guérin-Méneville (p. 299) proposed the name Jsea for a monotypic decapod genus containing the new species /sea elongata. 3. H. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 321) considered Jsaea and Isea to be homonyms, and replaced the latter by the name Callianisea. In the same paper Milne Edwards described the new genus Callianidea with the single included species typa, and remarked under Callianisea that Guérin’s material was in very poor condition and that therefore the supposed differences between Callianidea and Callianisea might prove to be non-existent. Later authors have shared this view and synonymised the two genera. 4. The first author to do this was Guérin-Méneville himself (1856, p. xviii), who cited ‘Callianidea.-Edw., Crust., 1, 319 (1837).—Sin. Isea Guér. Ann. Soc. ent., t. I, p. 30 (1832) — Callianisea, Edw., Crust., 1, 321 (1837). The name Callianidea was preferred over Callianisea by Guérin-Méneville and all later authors, probably because (1) it had ‘page priority’ (being mentioned 2 pages earlier), and (2) Callianidea was based on complete material while the type material of Callianisea was in a very poor con- dition when described, so there was doubt about the identity of the species. Guérin- Méneville’s (1856) action was that of the first reviser (Art. 24) and it fixed the precedence of Callianidea over Callianisea, the two names having been published on the same date. 5. A further replacement name for Jsea Guérin-Méneville, 1832 was proposed by Dana (1852, p. 11), who suggested the name Caillisea because Callianisea ‘is so near Callianassa and Callianidea, a contraction to Callisea would be preferable’. Neither Callianisea nor Callisea found acceptance by zoologists. ~ ne ie) pairs. a <7 9 eee ee a il ' 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 93 6. According to Art. 56b of the Code the name J/sea is not a junior homonym of Isaea, as the names differ in one letter. Jsea Guérin-Méneville, 1832, being the oldest available name for its genus, should therefore be used and should replace Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837. 7. In the interests of stability the suppression of the generic name Jsea is requested for the following reasons: (1) since 1832 this name has never been used as valid, while Callianidea has been consistently used since 1852 in numerous papers, and (2) some confusion with /saea is likely to occur. The name /saea is currently used for an amphipod genus, which is the type genus of the family ISAEIDAE Dana, 1853. 8. We have consulted 28 authors using the specific names e/ongata and/or typa for Callianidea species. Of these 25 used the name typa, considering elongata either as a separate species or a species incertae sedis, or ignoring the name altogether. Seven authors used the name elongata, but only two treated elongata as a senior synonym of typa; four authors treated C. elongata and C. typa as distinct species, and one used the name elongata without referring to typa. As the name C. elongata is usually thought to be a nomen dubium based on a badly damaged specimen which seems to be no longer extant, and the name C. typais well known, it seems in the interest of stability to protect the latter name by giving it precedence over C. elongata. The status of the various (described and undescribed) species of Callianidea needs thorough revision and until that has been done there seems little sense in suppressing the name elongata altogether. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the generic name /sea Guérin-Méneville, 1832 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to rule that the specific name typa H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Callianidea typa, is to be given precedence over the specific name elongata Guérin-Meéneville, 1832, as published in the binomen Jsea elongata, whenever the two names are considered synomyms; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Callianidea typa H. Milne Edwards, 1837; (b) Jsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Isaea montagui H. Milne Edwards, 1830; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) elongata Guérin-Meéeneville, 1832, as published in the binomen Jsea elongata, with an endorsement that it is not to be given precedence over typa H. Milne-Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Callianidea typa, whenever the two names are considered synonyms; (b) montagui H. Milne Edwards, 1830, as published in the binomen J/saea montagui (specific name of the type species of Jsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830); (c) typa H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Callianidea typa (specific name of the type species of Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837) with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over elongata Guérin- Meneville, 1832, as published in the binomen Jsea elongata, whenever the two names are considered synonyms; 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) CALLIANIDEINAE De Man, 1928, (type genus Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837) (Crustacea, Decapoda); (b) ISAEINAE Dana, 1853 (type genus Jsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830) (Crustacea, Amphipoda); (5) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Callisea Dana, 1852 (a junior objective synonym of Callianisea H. Milne Edwards, 1837); (b) Jsaea Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Jsea Guérin-Meneville, 1832, and a junior homonym of Jsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830); (c) Isea Guérin-Méneville, 1832, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above. References Agassiz, J. L. R. 1846. Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis. viii+ 393 pp. Soloduri. Dana, J. D. 1852. Conspectus Crustaceorum &c. Conspectus of the Crustacea of the exploring expedition under Capt. Wilkes, U.S.N. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 6: 6-28. Dana, J. D. 1853. Crustacea. Part II. U.S. Exploring Expedition, 13(2): 691-1618. De Man, J. G. 1928. The Decapoda of the Siboga—Expedition. Part 7. The Thalassinidae and Callianassidae collected by the Siboga—Expedition with some remarks on the Laomediidae. Siboga Expeditions Monograph, 39(a6): 1-187. Guérin [-Méneville], F. E. 1832. Description d’un nouveau genre de crustacé macroure, formant le passage entre les Paguriens et les Thalassinites. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 1: 295-300. Guérin-Méneville, F. E. 1856. Crustaceos. Pp. V-X XXII in Sagra, R. de la. Historia fisica politica y natural de la Isla de Cuba, Historia natural, 7: v—xxxii. Milne Edwards, H. 1830. Extrait de recherches pour servir a l’histoire naturelle des crustacés amphipodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris, 20: 353-399. Milne Edwards, H. 1837. Histoire naturelle des crustacés, comprenant l’anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux. Vol. 2, 531 pp. Librairie encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Briss Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 95 Case 2542 TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Brachyura) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposal to remove homonymy G. J. Morgan Western Australia Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000 Abstract. The purpose of this application is to remove the homonymy between the two families TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca) by ruling that the stem of the molluscan generic name Trapezium Megerle von Miuhlfeld, 1811 is TRAPEZ-. 1. In 1886 Miers (p. 163) erected the brachyuran subfamily TRAPEZIINAE within the family CANCRIDAE Dana, 1852. The type genus is Trapezia Latreille, 1825. Ortmann (1893, p. 481) elevated the subfamily to family rank with the name TRAPEZIIDAE. 2. In 1920 Lamy (p. 265) erected the bivalve mollusc family TRAPEZIIDAE based on the type genus Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811. 3. This case of homonymy is referred to the Commission for a ruling under Art. 55. Both family-group names are correctly derived as specified by Art. 11f & 29 of the Code. It is requested here that the brachyuran family name be conserved on the basis of its priority and its greater number of extant genera (seven as opposed to three). 4. It is suggested that the spelling of the molluscan family name be altered to avoid the homonymy. The use of TRAPEZ- as the stem of Trapezium will result in the molluscan family name TRAPEZIDAE. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic name Trapezium Megerle von Mihlfeld, 1811 for the purposes of Art. 29 is TRAPEZ-; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Trapezia Latreille, 1825 (Crustacea), (gender: feminine), type species Trapezia ferruginea Latreille, 1825, by original designation; (b) Trapezium Megerle von Miihlfeld, 1811 (Mollusca), (gender: neuter), type species Trapezium perfectum Megerle von Mihlfeld, 1811 (= Chama oblonga Linnaeus, 1758) by subsequent designation (Stewart, 1930); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) ferruginea Latreille, 1825, as published in the binomen Trapezia ferruginea (specific name of the type species of Trapezia Latreille, 1825); (b) oblonga Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chama oblonga (= Trapezium perfectum Megerle von Mihlfeld, 1811), (specific name of the type species of Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811); 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886, type genus Trapezia Latreille, 1825 (Crustacea); (b) TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920, type genus Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811 (Mollusca) as emended by (1) above. Acknowledgement I thank Dr G. Storr for his advice. References Dana, J. D. 1852. Crustacea. United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838-42, vol. 13 (1). viiit+ 685 pp. Lamy, E. 1920. Révision des Cypricardiacea et des Isocardiacea vivants du Muséum d’Histoire naturelle de Paris. Journal de Conchyliologie, 64 (4): 259-307. Latreille, P. A. 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal, exposées succinctement et dans un ordre analytique, avec l'indication de leurs genres, ed. 2. 570 pp. Bailli¢re, Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10. vol. 1. iv+824 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. Miihlfeld, J. K. Megerle von. 1811. Entwurf eines Neuen Systems der Schaltiergehause. Magazin fiir die neusten Entdecklungen in der gesammten Naturkunde von Der Gesellschaft Naturforschaft Freunde zu Berlin, 5: 38-72. Miers, E. J. 1886. Report on the Brachyura collected by HMS Challenger during the years 1873— 16. Report of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of HMS Challenger, (Zoology, Part 49), vol. 17, 362 pp., London, Edinburgh and Dublin. Ortmann, A. 1893. Die Decapoden-Krebse des Strassburger Museums. VII Theil. Abtheilung: Brachyura (Brachyura genuina Boas) II. Zoologische Jahrbiicher. Abteilung fiir Systematik, 7: 411-495. Stewart, R. B. 1930. Gabb’s California Cretaceous and Tertiary Type Lamellibranchs. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Spec. pub. no. 3. PRM rss 2 : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 97 Case 2455 Chagrinichnites brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 and Chagrinichnites osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983 (Trace fossils): proposed conservation Rodney M. Feldmann Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242, U.S.A. Joseph T. Hannibal Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the trace fossil generic name Chagrinichnites Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978, and two associated specific names, brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978, and osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983. These fossils are considered to be of arthropod origin; their names are junior subjective synonyms of Physophycus bilobatus Lesquereux, 1891, a name unused since its proposal for fossils then supposed to be of plant origin. 1. In 1891, Lesquereux proposed the name Physophycus bilobatus (p. 9) for 36 specimens which he considered to be fossil plants. The specimens had been collected by the Reverend Herman Herzer from the Portage Group [Chagrin Shale] in ‘cliffs border- ing Lake Erie, near Cleveland, Ohio’ (Lesquereux, 1891, p. 11). Although six of the specimens were figured no type was designated and no indication was given of any depository. 2. In 1978, Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke (p. 288) described a new genus and species of trace fossil, Chagrinichnites brooksi, from the Chagrin Shale, which they attributed to the work of the arthropod Palaeopalaemon newberryi. 3. In 1983 Hannibal & Feldmann (p. 706) described a second Chagrin Shale species assignable to Chagrinichnites, C. osgoodi, to embrace trace fossils probably formed by the work of Echinocaris spp., an early malacostracan. During the course of this work, a specimen was found in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, bearing the name Physophycus bilobatus, which was clearly not representative of the plant genus Physo- phycus but did resemble C. osgoodi. We assumed it to have been a mislabeled specimen. 4. Weidner & Feldman (1985) demonstrated that Chagrinichnites was a component of the Chagrin Formation sufficiently distinctive to be used to characterise one major environment of deposition within the unit, and applied the name to an ichnofacies. 5. In September 1983 Dr Andrew K. Rindsberg wrote to one of us (R.M.F.) saying that he had discovered the reference to Lesquereux’s work and that, in the course of preparing an extensive bibliography of trace fossils, he had discovered no subsequent references to the binomen Physophycus bilobatus and considered the name a nomen oblitum. Rindsberg further recognized that P. bilobatus appeared to be synonymous with C. brooksi. Examination of Lesquereux’s illustrations and description has 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 confirmed that the specimens illustrated in plate 1, figs 4-7, represent forms named Chagrinichnites osgoodi and that those illustrated in plate 1, figs 8 and 9, represent Chagrinichnites brooksi. Physophycus bilobatus is, under Article 10f of the Code, an available name. 6. We are convinced that Lesquereux’s name has remained unused since its proposal. By contrast both Chagrinichnites brooksi and C. osgoodi have been widely used; a list of 10 papers by at least 5 different authors is held by the Commission Secretariat. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names: (a) Physophycus Lesquereux, 1891, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) bilobatus Lesquereux, 1891, as published in the binomen Physophycus bilo- batus, 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 name Chagrinich- nites Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy, Chagrinichnites brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978, as published in the binomen Chagrinichnites brooksi (specific name of the type species of Chagrinichnites Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978) and (b) osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983, as published in the binomen Chagrinichnites osgoodi; (4) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Physophycus Lesquereux, 1891, as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name bilobatus Lesquereux, 1891, as published in the binomen Physophycus bilobatus and as suppressed in (1) (b) above. References Feldmann, R. M., Osgood, R. G., Jr., Szmuc, E. J. & Meinke, D. W. 1978. Chagrinichnites brooksi, a new trace fossil of arthropod origin. Journal of Paleontology, 52: 287-294. Hannibal, J. T. & Feldmann, R. M. 1983. Arthropod trace fossils, interpreted as echinocarid escape burrows, from the Chagrin Shale (Late Devonian) of Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 57: 705-716. Lesquereux, L. 1891. Remarks on some fossil remains considered as peculiar kinds of marine plants. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 13: S—12. Weidner, W. E. & Feldmann, R. M. 1985. Paleoecological interpretation of echinocarid arthropod assemblages in the Late Devonian (Famennian) Chagrin Shale, northeastern Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 59: 986-1004. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 99 Case 2543 Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 (currently Arctocorisa germari; Insecta, Hemiptera): proposed designation of a neotype Antti Jansson Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate a European neotype for the waterboatman species Arctocorisa germari. The only supposed syntype remaining is from North America and is conspecific with Corisa planifrons Kirby, 1837 and designa- tion of this as lectotype would cause nomenclatural confusion. 1. Fieber (1848, p. 531) described Corisa germari from material listed as ‘Corisa irrorata und C. carinata. (Germ. in litt.) Aus Sachsen (Dresden, Hofrath v. Reichenbach.) Unalaschka. (Berlin Mus. u. Germar)’. The separate European and North American localities indicate that the material undoubtedly included two species. Of the European material no specimens are known to exist, but of the North American material the Germar collection in the University of L’vov includes one specimen, a pinned male with right hand tarsi missing, and a hand-written label indicates the name of the species as ‘irrorata m, carinata Sahlb, Germari Fieb’. The specimen is conspecific with Corixa planifrons Kirby, 1837 (p. 284) and selecting this specimen as the lectotype of Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 would cause the latter name to be a junior objective synonym of C. planifrons. Consequently, the European species now well known as Arctocorisa germari (Fieber, 1848) would become A. variegata (Wallengren, 1855, p. 148) (the next available synonym for A. germari (Fieber) sensu auct.). 2. The original description of C. germari by Fieber (1848) was not detailed enough by modern standards. Therefore, Kirkaldy (1898, p. 249) and Lundblad (1923, p. 67) presented long discussions about the identity of the species. Finally Lundblad (1925, p. 136) gave a detailed redescription and good drawings. His opinion on the identity of A. germari has been followed in all later investigations (a representative list is held by the Secretariat). 3. To stabilize the present use and to avoid future nomenclatural problems the following specimen is proposed for designation as the neotype of Corisa germari Fieber, 1848: Male, glued on card and labelled: *(1)¢, (2) 12.10.44, Adolfshiitte, Oberlausitz, Dr. Jordan, (3) Arctocorisa germari (Fieber) det. A. Jansson 1985, (4) Neotype Corisa germari Fieber, (5) Zool. Mus. Berlin’, deposited in the Zoological Museum, Humboldt University, Berlin, DDR. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the type status of any North American specimens referred to as Corisa germari Fieber, 1848, and to designate the speci- men referred to in paragraph 3 above as the neotype of Corisa germari Fieber, 1848; 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name germari Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa germari and as interpreted by the neotype designated in (1) above. References Fieber, F. X. 1848. Synopsis aller bisher in Europa entdeckten Arten der Gattung Corisa. Nouveaux Mémoires de la Sociéte Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 21: 505-539. Kirby, W. 1837. Entomology. Jn Richardson, J. (ed.) Fauna Boreali-Americana; Zoology of the northern parts of British America, vol. 4, 325 pp. Kirkaldy, G. W. 1898. On the specific distinctness of Corixa carinata and C. germari, and the restoration of the latter to the list of British Rhynchota. Entomologist, 31: 249-251. Lundblad, O. 1923. Anteckningar om vara vattenhemipterer. III Entomologisk Tidskrift, 44: 57-106. Lundblad, O. 1925. Studien tiber schwedische Corixiden. 1. Zur naheren Kenntniss der beiden nahverwandten Arten Arctocorisa carinata(C. Sahlb.) und A. germari(Fieb.). Entomologisk Tidskrift, 46: 127-142. Wallengren, H. D. J. 1855. Skandinaviens Corisae. Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandligar, 11: 140-151. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 101 Case 2544 Corisa distincta Fieber, 1848 (currently Sigara (Subsigara) distincta; Insecta, Hemiptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Antti Jansson Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the water- boatman species Corisa distincta Fieber, 1848 by the suppression of the unused senior subjective synonym Corixa schellembergii Spinola, 1837. 1. When illustrating what he thought to be ‘Sigara striata Fabricius’, Schellemberg (1800, Tab. XI) gave a drawing of a female specimen with hemelytral patterns typical of Sigara ( Subsigara). 2. Schellemberg’s material is not known to exist, but Spinola (1837, p. 57) [also Spinola (1840), which is a second printing of the same book with a slightly different title] noticed that the species illustrated was not what was generally thought to be Corixa striata (Linnaeus, 1758), and renamed the species as Corixa schellembergii. In the Spinola collection, Torino Museum, this name is applied to a damaged female specimen of Arctocorisa sp. and a female of Callicorixa praeusta (Fieber, 1848), neither one thus being from the correct taxon. 3. Fieber (1848, p. 524) described Corisa distincta from material originating from ‘Lappland, Russland, Preussen, Oesterreich, BOhmen, Sachsen, Transkaukasien’. None of the original material is said to exist, but the name has been adopted in the taxonomic literature (a list of ten representative works is held by the Secretariat) and Jansson (1986, p. 74) has designated a neotype for the species. 4. The obtuse lateral angles of the pronotum in Schellemberg’s (1800) drawing reveal that Corixa schellembergii Spinola, 1837 and Sigara (Subsigara) distincta (Fieber, 1848) are conspecific (cf. Jansson, 1986, p. 74) and the former would have priority over the latter. However the name given by Spinola seems to have remained unused ever since Fieber’s (1851) note about the insufficiency of the description. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name schellembergii Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Corixa schellembergii, 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 Specific Names in Zoology the name distincta Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa distincta and as interpreted by the neotype designated by Jansson (1986); (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the name schellembergii Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Corixa schellembergii and as suppressed in (1) above. 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 References Fieber, F. X. 1848. Synopsis aller bisher in Europa entdeckten Arten der Gattung Corisa. Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 21: 505-539. Fieber, F. X. 1851. [preprint, issue published 1852]. Species generis Corisa. Abhandlungen der Boéhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 7: 213-260. Jansson, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 47: \—94. Schellemberg, J. R. 1800. Das Geschlecht der Land und Wasserwanzen. 32 pp. Orell, Fussli & Co., Zurich. Spinola, M. 1837. Essai sur les genres d'insectes appartenants a l’ordre des Hémipteres, Lin. ou Rhyngotes, Fab. et a la section des Hétéroptéres, Dufour. 383 pp. Y. Gravier, Génes. Spinola, M. 1840. Essai sur les insectes Hémiptéres, Rhyngotes, ou Hétéropteéres. 383 pp. J.-B. Balliére, Paris. ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 103 Case 2360 Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838, as type species C. van Achterberg Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate the nominal species Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838 as the type species of the braconid genus Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (Braconidae). The oldest type selection is based on a misidentified type species, and the proposed designation is in accordance with the present usage and the original diagnosis. 1. In 1838 Wesmael (pp. 59-61) proposed the generic name Coeloides to include two species, Bracon initiator Fabricius, 1793 and Coeloides melanotus Wesmael, 1838. The most important character given in the original description is the equal length of the second and third segments of the antenna. In 1839 Haliday (p. 64) mentioned Bracon initiator Fabricius as the type species of Coeloides. 2. Wesmael was not certain about the correct identification of the material that he assigned to C. initiator, and in a note to the description of C. initiator he proposed the new name Coeloides scolyticida (p. 61) for his material in case his interpretation of Bracon initiator Fabricius should be incorrect. 3. This doubt was justified, and Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838 has become the generally accepted name for Bracon initiator sensu Wesmael 1838 nec Fabricius, 1793. Investigation of the type of B. initiator Fabricius has revealed that it belongs to the genus Atanycolus Foerster, 1862, as it has the scapus petiolate and the third antennal segment distinctly longer than the second segment. The discrepancy between the original diagnosis of the genus Coeloides and the type designation by Haliday may be solved by the designation of Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838 as the type species, as was done by Telenga (1936, p. 74). 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species made for the nominal genus Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 and to designate Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name scolyticida Wesmael, 1838, as published in the binomen Coeloides scolyticida, the specific name of the type species of Coeloides Wesmael, 1838. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 References Haliday, A. H. 1839. Braconides. Pp. 61-65, in Westwood, J. O., An introduction to the modern classification of Insects, Vol. 2, synopsis of the genera of British Insects, 158 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans, London. Telenga, N. A. 1936. Insectes Hyménoptéres. Fam. Braconidae. Fauna Rossii, 5 (2): 1402. Wesmael, C. 1838. Monographie des Braconides de Belgique. Nouveaux Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles, 11: 1-166. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 105 Case 2583 Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of Agathis caesa Klug, 1835 as type species C. van Achterberg Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Agathis caesa Klug, 1835 as the type species of the cosmopolitan braconid genus Disophrys; the original type species designation, of Jchneumon inculcator Linnaeus, 1758, was based on a misidentified specimen. 1. Disophrys was proposed by Foerster (1862, p. 246) with Jchneumon inculcator Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species by monotypy. He gave a clear definition placing it in the BRACONIDAE, subfamily AGATHIDINAE (named by him ‘Agathidoidae’). 2. The lectotype of Ichneumon inculcator Linnaeus, 1758 (from Sweden) belongs to the genus Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 (Roman, 1932, p. 7; Van Rossem, 1969, p. 345), which was transferred to the ICHNEUMONIDAE by Kriechbaumer (1898, p. 182). 3. The original diagnosis of Disophrys is based on Agathis caesa Klug, 1835 (= Ichneumon inculcator sensu Foerster, 1862 nec Linnaeus, 1758, and Disophrys caesa; Nixon, 1986, p. 190), which occurs in Central and Southern Europe, North Africa, West and Central Asia. 4. The holotype of Agathis caesa has been examined by Nixon (1986, p. 191) and belongs to the genus Disophrys Foerster, 1862 according to its original diagnosis, but not to its nominal type species J. incul/cator Linnaeus. 5. The group of species currently placed in the genus Disophrys has never been renamed since 1862, except for an unjustified emendation by Kriechbaumer (1898, p. 181) as Diophrys. 6. If the Code is strictly applied the name Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (type species Ichneumon inculcator Linnaeus, 1758) becomes a junior subjective synonym of Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 in the ICHNEUMONIDA4E, leaving the braconid species currently classified as Disophrys without a generic name. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for Disophrys Foerster, 1862 and to designate Agathis caesa Klug, 1835; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above, Agathis caesa Klug, 1835; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name caesa Klug, 1835 as published in the binomen Agathis caesa (specific name of the type species of Disophrys Foerster, 1862). 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 References Foerster, A. 1862. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Braconen. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins der Preussischen Rheinlande und Westfalens, 19: 225-288. Klug, F. 1835. Uber die Thiere Andalusiens. 120 pp. Jn Waltl, J. 1835 Reise durch Tyrol Oberitalien und Piermont nach den siidlichen Spanien, vol. 2. Passau. Kriechbaumer, J. 1898. Uber Disophrys caesa Klg. und inculcatrix Auct. nebst einer neuen Art dieser Gattung. Entomologische Nachrichten, 24: 181-185. Nixon, G. E. J. 1986. A revision of the European Agathidinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) ( Ent.) , 52 (3): 183-242. Roman, A. 1932. The Linnean types of Ichneumon flies. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 53: 1-16. Rossem, G. van, 1969. A revision of the genus Cryptus Fabricius s. str. in the western Palae- arctic region, with keys to genera of Cryptina and species of Cryptus (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 112: 299-374. a ee a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 107 Case 2532 Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation Maciej Mroczkowski Instytut Zoologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the currently used generic names Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867, which belong to the families CERAMBYCIDAE and TENEBRIONIDAE respectively. Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 is threatened as it is a junior objective synonym of Merium Kirby, 1837 and also a junior homonym of Phymatodes Dejean, 1834, both unused. Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 is a junior objective synonym of Phymatodes Dejean, 1834. 1. Dejean (1834, p. 203) introduced the generic name Phymatodes (family TENEBRIO- NIDAE) for Lagria tuberculata Fabricius, 1792 (p. 78) and a nomen nudum, Phymatodes brevicornis Dejean (described later by Lacordaire, 1859, p. 395, note 2). Neave (1940, p. 747) treated Phymatodes as a nomen nudum but according to Art. 12b (5) of the Code it is an available name and Lagria tuberculata Fabricius, 1792 is the type species by monotypy. 2. Blanchard (1845, p. 39) gave a description of Phymathodes [sic] Dejean, and mentioned (p. 45) ‘P. scabra Fabricius’ as the only species but without any reference to a Fabricius work. However, Fabricius described several species of Coleoptera under the name scabra, and thus ‘P. scabra Fabricius’ is a nomen nudum and cannot be the type species of a genus. In fact, Phymathodes Blanchard, 1845 is only an incorrect subsequent spelling of Phymatodes Dejean, 1834 (Blanchard cited Dejean after the name) and is hence unavailable. 3. Mulsant (1839, pp. 39 & 47) described a new genus Phymatodes in the family CERAMBYCIDAE; the type species Cerambyx variabilis Linnaeus, 1761 (p. 192) was desig- nated by LeConte (1850, p. 32). 4. Pascoe (1867, p. 142) introduced a replacement name, Phymatestes, for ‘Phyma- todes’ Blanchard, 1845 nec Mulsant, 1839. The name Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 is accepted by all TENEBRIONIDAE specialists and is still used at the present time. I know of no use of Phymatodes Dejean, 1834 (or Blanchard, 1845) after the work of Pascoe (1867). Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 is a little known South American genus with six species (see Gebien, 1911 in his World Catalogue). The type species is Lagria tubercu- lata by indication (Art. 67h of the Code). 5. The cerambycid genus Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 is a large (several dozen species) and very well known holarctic genus with many species of economic import- ance. In the 19th century this genus was treated by many authors as a subgenus of Callidium Fabricius, 1775 (p. 187). 6. Linsley (1957, p. 287) showed that Merium Kirby, 1837 (p. 172) is a senior objec- tive synonym of Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839, as the type species of Merium is Cerambyx 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 variabilis Linnaeus, 1761 by original designation (Kirby states that “Cerambyx variabilis may be considered as its type’). Inconsistently, Linsley used the name Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 asa valid name in his monograph (1964, p. 44) and cited Merium Kirby, 1837 in synonymy. I know of no use of Merium Kirby, 1837 as a valid name for Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839. 7. LeConte (1873, p. 296) designated Merium proteus Kirby, 1837 (p. 172) as the type species of Merium Kirby, but this is invalid (see above). Linsley (1957, p. 287) consis- tently treated Merium LeConte, 1873 as a junior homonym of Merium Kirby, 1837 and introduced a replacement name, Meriellum, for Merium LeConte, 1873 nec Kirby, 1837. 8. The application of the Code rules to both families would disrupt stability and cause confusion. In the TENEBRIONIDAE, according to the Principle of Priority the valid name is Phymatodes Dejean, 1834, unused for over 100 years. In the CERAMBYCIDAE Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 is invalid as a junior homonym of Phymatodes Dejean, 1834, although it is in common use, and it is also a junior objective synonym of the unused Merium Kirby, 1837. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names: (a) Phymatodes Dejean, 1834, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) Merium Kirby, 1837, 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 following names: (a) Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by LeConte (1850) Cerambyx variabilis Linnaeus, 1761; (b) Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 (gender: masculine), type species by indication Lagria tuberculata Fabricius, 1792; (c) Meriellum Linsley, 1957 (gender: neuter), type species by indication Merium proteus Kirby, 1837; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) variabilis Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Cerambyx variabilis (specific name of the type species of Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839); (b) tuberculata Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Lagria tuberculata (specific name of the type species of Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867); (c) proteus Kirby, 1837, as published in the binomen Merium proteus (specific name of the type species of Merie//um Linsley, 1957); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Phymatodes Dejean, 1834 as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) Merium Kirby, 1837 as suppressed in (1) (b) above. References Blanchard, C. E. 1845. Histoire des Insectes, vol. 2, iv + 524 pp. Paris. Dejean, P. F. 1834. Catalogue des Coléopteéres, ed. 2 (3): 177-256. Paris. Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, 32 & 832 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae. ines Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 109 Fabricius, J. C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. | (2), 538 pp. Hafniae. Gebien, H. 1911. Genera des Coleopterorum Catalogus, Tenebrionidae III, vol. 18 (28): 355-585. Berlin. Kirby, W. 1837. Fauna Boreali Americana, The Insects. Part 4, xxxix + 327 pp. Norwich. LeConte, J. L. 1850. An attempt to classify the longicorn Coleoptera of the part of America north of Mexico. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, ser. 2, 12: 311—340. LeConte, J. L. 1873. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America, part 2. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 11 (265): 279-348. Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Svecica. Editio altera, etc. xlvi+ 578 pp. Stockholmiae. Linsley, E. G. 1957. Some new genera and species of North American Cerambycidae (Coleop- tera). Canadian Entomologist, 89: 283-287. Linsley, E. G. 1964. The Cerambycidae of North America. Part 5. University of California Publications in Entomology, 22: 1-197. Mulsant, E. 1839. Histoire Naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. Vol. 1 Longicornes. xii + 304 pp. Paris. Neave, S. A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 3, M—P, 1065 pp. Zoological Society of London. Pascoe, F. P. 1867. On the Longicornia of Australia, with a list of all the described species, etc. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 9: 113-142. 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Case 2218 Chlorophanus Sahlberg, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation Hans Silfverberg Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Entomologiska Avdelningen, N. Jarnvdgsgatan 13, SF-00100, Helsingfors 10, Finland Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Chlorophanus Sahlberg, 1823 for an important genus of curculionid beetles. The name is threatened by Chlorima Germar, 1817, a senior subjective synonym, virtually unused since its inception. 1. Germar (1817, p. 341) established the name Chlorima for two included species, Curculio viridis Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 384) and Rhynchites curculionoides Herbst, 1797 (p. 136). No type species was designated. 2. Sahlberg (June 1823, p. 4) established the genus Ch/orophanus with the single new species, and hence type species by monotypy, C. fallax. Although Sahlberg compared his new species with Curculio viridis, he did not explicitly state that the two species were congeneric. Many years later Faust (1897, p. 79) synonymized Chlorophanus fallax with Curculio excisus Fabricius, 1801 (p. 531). 3. Sch6nherr (October 1823, col. 1136) synonymized Chlorophanus with Chlorima. He ignored the earlier type fixation of Chlorophanus fallax and cited Curculio viridis as type. Although this designation is clearly invalid, Chlorophanus (containing both excisus and viridis) has been used as the valid name ever since, with Chlorima completely unused except in a few cases when listed as a synonym. By contrast Chlorophanus is well known in many different works, including textbooks of applied entomology. Ten references to this fact by at least five different authors are held by the Commission Secretariat. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Chlorima Germar, 1817, 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 name Chlorophanus Sahlberg, 1823 (gender: masculine) type species by monotypy, Chlorophanus fallax Sahlberg, 1823; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name excisus Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Curculio excisus (valid name at the time of this application for the type species of Chlorophanus Sahlberg, 1823); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Chlorima Germar, 1817 as suppressed in (1) above. ak ta Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 111 References Fabricius, J. C. 1801. Systema Eleutheratorum, vol. 2. 687 pp. Kiliae. Faust, J. 1897. Uebersicht der Chlorophanus-Arten. Stettiner entomologische Zeitung, 58: 77-95. Germar, E. F, 1817. Neue Curculioniden-Gattungen. Magazin der Entomologie, 2: 339-341. Herbst, J. F. W. 1797. Natursystem aller bekannten Insekten, vol. VIII. 346 pp. Berlin. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10. vol. 1, iv+-824 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. Sahlberg, C. R. 1823. Periculi entomographici, species insectorum nondum descriptas proposituri, fasciculus. 82 pp. Aboae. Schonherr, C. J. 1823. Curculionides. Jsis, Jena, 1823, Heft 10, cols. 1132-1146. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Case 1731 Polyommatus emolus Godart, [1824] (currently Anthene emolus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of specific name G-E. Tite 96 Dundale Road, Tring, Herts, HP23 5BZ, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name emolus Godart, [1824], for a common Oriental lycaenid butterfly. It is threatened by balliston Hubner, [1823], a name unused for at least 70 years and previously thought to be junior to emolus but now shown to be a senior synonym. 1. Godart ([1824], p. 656) established the name Polyommatus emolus for a dark violet male specimen collected from Bengal, India. 2. Hiibner ({1823], p. 11) established the name Lampides balliston for a violet- coloured butterfly from ‘Georgien in Florida’. This locality is undoubtedly an error, as Hiibner’s figure is clearly that of the Indian species currently known as Anthene emolus (Godart, [1824]). 3. The dates of publication of Hiibner’s work have been the subject of much investi- gation, and the conclusions of Hemming (1937) are generally accepted. According to Hemming (p. 460) Lampides balliston may be dated as 1823. 4. Sherborn & Woodward (1899, p. 595; 1906, p. 578) concluded that pages 329 to 828 of the Encyclopédie Méthodique (vol. 9) were actually published in 1824. This conclusion has been overlooked by authors, who have given the date for emolus as either 1819 or 1823 and therefore accorded the name priority over balliston Hubner. As a result balliston has not been used as the valid name for the species for at least 70 years. A list of ten representative references to the use of emolus is held in the offices of the Secretariat. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name balliston Hubner, [1823], as published in the binomen Lampides balliston, 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 Specific Names in Zoology the name emolus Godart, [1824], as published in the binomen Polyommatus emolus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name balliston Hiibner, [1823] as published in the binomen Lampides balliston and as suppressed in (1) above. References Godart, J. B. [1824] Jn Latreille, M. & Godart, M. Encyclopédie Méthodique, vol. 9(2) : 329-828. Paris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 113 Hemming, F. 1937. Hiibner. A bibliographical and systematic account of the entomological works of Jacob Hiibner, and the supplements thereto by Carl Geyer, Gottfried Franz von Frolich and Gottfried August Wilhelm Herrich-Schaffer. Vol. 1. xxxiv+605 pp. Royal Entomological Society of London. Hiibner, J. [1823]. Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge... Hundert 2, 40 pp. Augsburg. Sherborn, C. D. & Woodward, B. B. 1899. On the dates of the ‘Encyclopédie Méthodique’: Additional note. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899: 595. Sherborn, C. D. & Woodward, B. B. 1906. On the dates of publication of the natural history portions of the ‘Encyclopédie Méthodique’. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 7, 17: 577-582. 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Case 2415 Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868 (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea): proposed conservation of the specific name David L. Pawson National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. John E. Miller Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida, 33450 U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the well established name Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868, for a burrowing holothurian, by the suppression of the senior synonym Holothuria humilis Selenka, 1867. 1. Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868 (p. 81) was originally described from the Philippines. This distinctive burrowing holothurian is very common throughout the tropical regions of the world, and it is one of the best known tropical shallow water species. The specific name arenicola Semper, 1868 is universally accepted, and has been used in a large number of systematic and ecological publications. A list of ten representative works is held in the Secretariat offices. 2. Holothuria maculata Brandt, 1835 is a senior synonym of H. arenicola but it is also a junior primary homonym of H. maculata Chamisso & Eysenhardt, 1821 and H. maculata Lesueur, 1824. It is therefore invalid and has been replaced by the oldest available synonym, which is H. humilis Selenka, 1867. 3. Selenka (1867, p. 339) briefly described Holothuria humilis from Hawaii. Lampert (1885, p. 70), Théel (1886, p. 640) and Fisher (1907, p. 640) based their diagnoses of H. humilis on Selenka’s original (1867) description; none of these authors examined Selenka’s type specimens, and, as far as we have been able to determine, only they seemed to regard H. humilis as a distinct species. Fisher (1907) noted that Hawaii constituted the only recorded locality for H. humilis, and in the same paper recorded H. arenicola from Hawaii for the first time. 4. Deichmann (1930, p. 68), in her revision of the western Atlantic holothurians, noted that ‘synonymous with this species [H. arenicola] are H. humilis Selenka from Hawaii. . .. She made no further comment on this topic. 5. We have examined the holotype of H. humilis Selenka, 1867 (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Catalogue No. 632), and we agree with Deichmann that it is synonymous with H. arenicola Semper, 1868. In all currently accepted systematic characters, Selenka’s holotype falls within the range of variation of H. arenicola. Thus, Selenka’s (1867) name Holothuria humilis threatens the well- established name H. arenicola Semper, 1868. Aida Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Il is) 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name humilis Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Holothuria humilis, 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 Specific Names in Zoology the name arenicola Semper, 1868, as published in the binomen Holothuria arenicola; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name humilis Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Holothuria humilis, and as suppressed in (1) above. References Deichmann, E. 1930. The holothurians of the western part of the Atlantic Ocean. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, 71(3): 41-266. Fisher, W. K. 1907. The holothurians of the Hawaiian Islands. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 32: 637-744. Lampert, K. 1885. Die Seewalzen (Holothuroidea), part 3,i+312 pp, in Semper, C. G. Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen IT, vol. 4. Leipzig and Wiesbaden. Selenka, E. 1867. Beitrage zur Anatomie und Systematik der Holothurien. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 17: 291-250. Semper, C. G. 1868. Holothurien. Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen IT, vol. 1,i1+288 pp. Leipzig and Wiesbaden. Théel, H. 1886. Report on the Holothuroidea. Part III. Report of the scientific results of the voyage of HMS Challenger (Zoology, Part 39), vol. 14. London, Edinburgh and Dublin. Contribution No. 538 of the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc., and Contribution 113 of the Smithsonian Marine Station at Link Port. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Case 2531 Three works by Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington: proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes The President, Australian Society of Herpetologists Department of Herpetology, Museum of Victoria, Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, Australia Abstract. It is proposed that A Synopsis of the Class Reptilia in Australia (1984), A Classification of the Amphibia and Reptilia of Australia (1985) and A Synopsis of the Amphibia and Reptilia of New Zealand (1985), all published in a journal controlled by the authors named above and entitled Australian Journal of Herpetology, should be suppressed for nomenclatural purposes in order to avoid destabilisation and confusion. 1. It is proposed to suppress for nomenclatural purposes three papers which appeared in the ‘Australian Journal of Herpetology’. The Managing Editor of this is listed (inside front cover, 1 (3—4)) as Richard Wells and its Advertising Sales Manager as Ross Wellington. Subscriptions are payable to ‘Australian Biological Services’ at Wells’ address. Wells and Wellington are the authors of the papers in question. The second paper is stated (p. 61) to have been ‘submitted’ on 30 September 1984 and been ‘accepted’ on 20 February 1985, giving the false impression that it had been subject to some form of independent referee or editorial consideration. 2. In the first half of this century there was relatively little research into the systematics of the Australian herpetofauna, and the composition, classification and nomenclature remained much as G. A. Boulenger of the British Museum left it in the 1880’s and 1890s. In the last thirty years there has been a resurgence of work and consequently there are not only many more described species than Boulenger knew, but the binomina of the older ones have often been changed. 3. These changes, however, have generally been gradual, orderly and carefully founded, so that the classification and nomenclature (see Cogger, Cameron & Cogger, 1983) has been widely accepted. In the single area where opinions were diverse, namely the genera of elapid snakes, there was nevertheless optimism that consensus would follow. 4. This taxonomic and nomenclatural stability has been shattered by the three recent publications by Wells and Wellington in their own journal, which together constitute over 700 nomenclatural acts. In a total herpetofauna of less than 900 species, as generally interpreted, this represents destabilisation of nomenclature on a massive scale. 5. For reasons which are outlined below for each publication, the Australian Society of Herpetologists requests the Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress each of these works for nomenclatural purposes. Unless this is done names introduced by Wells & Wellington will often be senior synonyms (objective or subjective) of names proposed as a result of future proper scientific work. It is the contention of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 117 Society that these works of Wells & Wellington are in many respects not based on sound taxonomic research; despite this, some (but by no means all) of their names are nomenclaturally available and so present a serious threat to zoological communication. 6. Paper !. Wells, R. W. & Wellington, C. R. (1984). A Synopsis of the Class Reptilia in Australia. Australian Journal of Herpetology, 1 (3-4): 73-129. In this paper the authors carry out 282 taxonomic and nomenclatural actions by: (1) elevating 105 subspecies to full species, (2) reviving 100 nominal species from synonymy, (3) describing 13 new species, (4) proposing 5 substitute names for species, (5) reviving 17 nominal genera from synonymy, (6) describing 33 new genera, and (7) synonymising 9 currently used genera. At first sight it might be thought that these numerous actions were based on many years of research. But there is little in the paper to support the authors’ claim (p. 73) that they have examined nearly 40,000 specimens (i.e. over ten a day for a decade). 7. Of these 282 actions, only the descriptions of the 13 new species require the examination of specimens. For the remaining 269 actions the authors did not need specimens at all: the revisions (published and unpublished) of other workers, and a word-processor would suffice (several generic assignments in the first paper are, in the second, ascribed to ‘computer error’). 8. The 105 subspecies could be found in Cogger et al. (1983). They were automati- cally raised to full species merely by declaring ‘herein formally elevated to specific status’. There is no discussion. Far from examining critical material, there is no evidence that Wells and Wellington even read the papers in which these subspecies were described; had they done so they would often have found good reasons, such as inter- gradation and hybridization, for not elevating them. These elevations of subspecies have no formal nomenclatural implications, but are mentioned to indicate the nature and scale of the Wells & Wellington activities. 9. Similarly the 100 nominal species restored from synonymy could be found in Cogger et al. (1983). They were revived merely by declaring ‘herein formally resur- rected from the synonymy of... and considered confined to [some region]’, or some such formula. Again there is no discussion, and we are not told how these ‘species’ differ from those with which they were previously synonymized. For example, on pp. 76-77 the wide-ranging gecko Heteronotia binoei (Gray, 1845) is split into several species thus: *H. anomalus (Peters, 1867): herein resurrected from the synonymy of H. binoei for the population of north-eastern Queensland.’ ‘H. australis (Steindachner, 1867) herein resurrected from the synonymy of H. binoei for the population in New South Wales and eastern South Australia. Note: there are several undescribed Heteronotia in central and south-western Australia.’ 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 ‘H. binoei (Gray, 1845) herein regarded as confined to Houtman’s Abrolhos, W.A.’ ‘H. derbianus (Gray, 1845) herein resurrected from the synonymy of H. binoei for the population in the Torresian subregion of the Northern Territory.” We do not know how the populations from north-eastern Queensland etc. differ from each other, or why they should be treated as full species. 10. Proposal of the five substitute species-names did not require examination of specimens. Moreover, there is no need for any of these names. For example, on p. 76 Wells & Wellington merge without explanation the gecko genus Rhynchoedura Gunther, 1867 in Diplodactylus Gray, 1832, causing R. ornata to become a junior secondary homonym of D. ornatus; a new name is proposed for the first species but in their next work (p. 15) a year later Rhynchoedura is restored. 11. The 59 generic changes are not based on phylogenetic research but are largely piecemeal tamperings with the current classification. For example, on p. 75 a new genus Christinus is proposed for the two Australian species of the cosmopolitan gecko genus Phyllodactylus (which is not mentioned). Wells & Wellington fail to state how Christinus differs from Phyllodactylus or any of its synonyms. All the ‘diagnoses’ of the new genera (like the restored genera) suffer from this defect, which casts doubt on the validity of the new names. Incidentally, Christinus was divided into two genera by Wells & Wellington a year later, without any comment. 12. We believe that this paper very seriously destabilizes the nomenclature of Australian reptiles. Some taxonomists might accept a name, believing that it met the requirements of the International Code; others might reject it, considering the name invalid because of, for instance, the absence of a real diagnosis or proper description. Worse still, ecologists, physiologists and other non-taxonomists, urgently requiring a name for an undescribed taxon, might be tempted to use names that no taxonomist would accept. If this paper is not suppressed, many taxonomic and nomenclatural acts will have to be adopted or be formally refuted. After years of confusion, stability would only return after numerous rulings by the International Commission. 13. Paper 2. Wells, R. W. & Wellington, C. R. (1985a). A Classification of the Amphibia and Reptilia of Australia. Australian Journal of Herpetology, Suppl. Ser. No. (1): 1-61. In the Australian amphibia, as in reptiles, new discoveries have been gradually absorbed and there has been little disagreement among workers as to the limits of species and genera. The prevailing stability in nomenclature came to an end when Wells & Wellington took the following 65 actions: (1) elevating 8 subspecies to full species, (2) reviving 26 nominal species from synonymy, (3) proposing a substitute species-name, (4) describing 2 new species, (5) reviving 9 generic names from synonymy, and (6) describing 19 new genera. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 119 14. These actions do not require the examination of specimens, let alone the carrying out of taxonomic revisions or phylogenetic research. As in the previous paper the sub- species are automatically promoted by declaring ‘herein formally elevated to specific status’. Similarly the nominal species are revived simply by declaring ‘herein formally resurrected from the synonomy of...’ As examples of these procedures one may cite just two instances. When proposing Pseudophryne pengilleyi sp. nov. Wells & Wellington (p. 3) provide no description or diagnosis but say that it can be ‘readily identified from its close relative P. corroboree by consulting the morphological and distributional data in Woodruff (1975)’. When separating Rawlinsonia corbeni sp. nov. from Rawlinsonia [ = Litoria] revelata they only state (p. 6) its distribution and the fact that its call is higher-pitched; this fact was gleaned from Ingram, Corben, and Hosmer’s original description of L. revelata. Such blatantly nude names as these should not cause much difficulty, for they will doubtless be universally rejected. It is the names which have some semblance of legality that will cause most trouble, for they will be variously accepted or rejected. 15. Coming to the reptiles, one could hardly expect Wells & Wellington to have made many discoveries in the nine months or so following the publication of their Synopsis, especially in view of their preoccupation with Australian amphibians and the herpetofauna of New Zealand. Nevertheless they have taken a further 382 taxonomic and nomenclatural actions. (1) elevating 4 subspecies to full species, (2) reviving 91 nominal species from synonymy, (3) describing 142 new species, (4) designating lectotypes for 104 species, (5) reviving 6 nominal genera from synonymy, (6) describing 33 new genera, and (7) proposing 2 new generic names for older names considered not available. The same verbal formulae used in the first paper are again employed. 16. We find among the ‘References’ (although they are not cited) 502 papers, ostensibly published in 1983—4 by Wells, alone or in collaboration with Wellington, and find it quite inconceivable that papers could be produced at the rate of one per day. These were allegedly published in ‘Australian Herpetologist’, a journal unknown to any members of the executive committee of our Society. The Australian Bibliographic Network, which lists the holdings of most of the major libraries in Australia, does not have any records of any publication named ‘Australian Herpetologist’. Separate checks with all of the mainland Australian museum libraries also failed to locate these ‘publications’ and their existence cannot therefore be verified. 17. Most of the 33 new genera are ‘diagnosed’ by briefly describing their included species. Concerning the description of Tropiochelmys (p. 9), an expert on chelid turtles informs us that ‘there is nothing in the diagnosis that is diagnostic either alone or in combination; the diagnosis could apply to at least 60% of the known chelonians of the world.’ As another example of a new genus one may mention Panacedechis (p. 47): the ‘diagnosis’ refers to the anal scales as being divided and there being 45—70 subcaudals, yet the new species P. worrelli has an entire anal and 27 subcaudals. Actions such as these have resulted in us coming to the conservative conclusion that there are no fewer than two generic and 74 specific nomina nuda contained in this Paper. 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 18. Wells & Wellington could not have seen many of the 104 specimens which they gratuitously designated as lectotypes; for example (p. 8), the specimens of the chelid turtles Chelodina novaeguineae and Elseya dentata in the British Museum (Natural History). Staff of that Museum inform us that they have never loaned specimens to Wells & Wellington or shown them specimens in the Museum. A similar assurance was received from the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, which likewise houses many types of Australian reptiles named last century. Evidently Wells & Wellington obtained their information on the types in these and other museums from Cogger et al. (1983). Hence there is little excuse for their ignoring earlier designations of lectotypes, e.g. for the skinks Ablepharus adelaidensis, Lygosoma graciloides and Tropidolopisma dumerilii. Additional evidence that type series were not examined by the authors is the continual use for lectotype designations of terms such as ‘the largest of the syntypes...’ (e.g. Tropidolopisma dumerilii (p. 40) and Dactyloperus variegatus (p. 12)). 19. Paper 3. Wells, R. W. & Wellington, C. R. (1985b). A Synopsis of the Amphibia and Reptilia of New Zealand. Australian Journal of Herpetology, Suppl. Ser. No. (1): 62-64. The authors carry out ten taxonomic and nomenclatural actions: (1) elevating 3 subspecies to full species, (2) reviving | nominal species from synonymy, (3) describing 2 new species, and (4) describing 4 new genera. 20. This paper has the same format, and the same defects, as the others. One example may suffice: apparently Wells and Wellington noticed in the literature that New Zealand workers considered the frogs Liopelma archeyi and L. hamiltoni some- what closer to each other than to L. hochstetteri. They thereupon propose (p. 62) a new genus for the first two species but provide no diagnosis; instead we are told to consult certain references. The same applies to the other genera. The two new ‘species’ are based on minor geographic variants reported in the literature: no new data are presented. 21. As shown above, the taxonomic practices displayed by Wells & Wellington in these three publications are completely inadequate as a basis for their massive destabilisation of the nomenclature of the entire Australasian herpetofauna. If their three papers in their own Australian Journal of Herpetology are not suppressed, the effects on Australian herpetology will be devastating and the nomenclature destabilised for decades. The merits of Wells & Wellington’s proposed changes in status for old species-group and genus-group names would, eventually, be judged by the herpetologi- cal community and some changes might remain. However, leaving this to take its course will, for years, commit workers writing in refereed journals to the sterile tasks of defending well-established usage and to refuting most of Wells & Wellington taxo- nomic and nomenclatural actions one by one. 22. Finally, we note that the bibliography of the third paper mentions (p. 64) two ‘in press’ works by Wells: A synopsis of the amphibia and reptilia of New Guinea, and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 121 The Herpetology of Australia trouble. 23. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked by the Australian Society of Herpetologists: (1) to use its plenary powers to su following publications: (a) Wells, R. W. & Wellington, C. R. (1984). A Synopsis of the Class Reptilia in Australia. Australian Journal of Herpetology, 1 (3-4): 73-129. (b) Wells, R. W. & Wellington, C. R. (1985a). A Classification of the Amphibia and Reptilia of Australia. Australian Journal of Herpetology, Supplement Series. No. (1): 1-61. (c) Wells, R. W. & Wellington, C. R. (1985b). A Synopsis of the Amphibia and Reptilia of New Zealand. Australian Journal of Herpetology, Supplement Series. No. (1): 62-64. (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology the publications suppressed in (1) above. (in 10 volumes). These will presumably cause further ppress, for nomenclatural purposes, the Reference Cogger, H. G., Cameron, E. E. & Cogger, H. M. 1983. Zoological C, atalogue of Australia, vol. 1, Amphibia and Reptilia. vi +313 pp. Austral ian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Case 2569 Halianassa studeri von Meyer, 1838 (Mammalia, Sirenia): proposed designation of a neotype, and proposed conservation of Halitherium Kaup, 1838 by designation of a type species Daryl P. Domning Department of Anatomy, Howard University, Washington, D.C. 20059, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of the holotype of Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 as the neotype for the fossil sirenian Halianassa studeri von Meyer, 1838. In addition, it is proposed that P. schinzii be designated as the type species of Halitherium Kaup, 1838. This makes the troublesome nominal species Halianassa studeri a junior objective synonym of Halitherium schinzii. 1. In 1837, H. von Meyer (p. 677) proposed the name Manatus studerifor a left maxilla with four teeth of a sirenian from the Miocene (Burdigalian) ‘Molassen-Sandstein’ of Maggenwyl bei Lenzberg, Canton Aargau, Switzerland. Since no description was provided, the name is a nomen nudum, as pointed out by Kellogg (1966, p. 68). 2. The following year, von Meyer (September 1838, p. 667) proposed the binomen Halianassa studeri, to include the Maggenwy] specimen and several other fossil sirenians (see below). 3. Because the Maggenwy]l specimen was not described or illustrated until the work of Studer, 1887 (who called it Halianassa studeri), Kellogg (1966, p. 69) concluded that Halianassa von Meyer, 1838 was also a nomen nudum and that the genus should be properly cited as Halianassa Studer, 1887 (type species Halianassa studeri Studer, 1887). This is incorrect, and the use of these names by Studer (1887) is now considered as a citation of Halianassa and H. studeri von Meyer (1838). 4. Von Meyer (1838, p. 667) originally applied the name Halianassa studeri to the following: (a) ‘Das weit verbreitete fossile Cetaceum von Flonheim’ from the Oligocene (Rupelian) of the Mainz Basin, Germany, specimens which Kaup ((May) 1838a, p. 319, pl. 2) had previously called Halytherium dubium (Cuvier, 1824; spelling of generic name later altered to Halitherium by Kaup (1838b, p. 536)) and Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838a. The generic name Pugmeodon was dropped by Kaup (1855; see also Lepsius, 1882, p. 161) in favour of Hali- therium and has never since been used as the valid name. This Flonheim form has universally been referred to as Halitherium schinzii (Kaup, 1838). The name Hippopotamus dubius Cuvier, 1824 was wrongly applied by Kaup (as Halytherium dubium) to the Oligocene material from the Mainz Basin; it properly refers to Eocene specimens from France (see below). (b) a postcranial skeleton from Rédersdorf in the Strasbourg Museum, described by Duvernoy (1835) but not named by him. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 123 (c) Halicore cuvierii de Christol, 1832, which in turn was thought to include both Hippopotamus medius Desmarest, 1822 (Miocene, Maine-et-Loire, France) and Hippopotamus dubius Cuvier, 1824 (Eocene, Gironde, France). The earliest available name for the latter form is Hippopotamus minimus Desmarest, 1822 (see Hooijer, 1952). (d) Manatus studeri von Meyer, 1837 (a nomen nudum, i.e. the Maggenwyl specimen mentioned in para. 1). 5. These forms (a)-(d) which von Meyer (1838) assigned to Halianassa studeri have had at least six specific names and under Art. 12b(5), which states that a genus group name becomes available if ‘one or more available species group names’ are ‘clearly included under it’, Halianassa von Meyer, 1838 is an available name, with H. studeri von Meyer, 1838 as the type species, by monotypy. Its syntypes are the various specimens referred to under (a)—(d) above. 6. Kellogg (1966) and Thenius (1952, p. 110-111) regarded Halianassa von Meyer, 1838 as having been based on the Flonheim form now known as Halitherium schinzii (Kaup, 1838); but Kellogg (1966, p. 69 and caption to plate 43) referred to the maxilla from Maggenwyl as the ‘type’ of Halianassa studeri. Under Art. 74a of the Code this is sufficient to designate a syntype as the lectotype. 7. The binomen Halianassa studeri causes confusion in a number of ways. The generic name Halianassa von Meyer, 1838 has priority over the well-established name Metaxytherium de Christol, 1840 (type species Hippopotamus medius Desmarest, 1822). Some authors, notably Simpson (1945) and Reinhart (1959), have used Halianassaasa valid senior synonym of Metaxytherium, but more recent authors (a list of ten represen- tative works is held by the Secretariat) have followed Kellogg (1966) in rejecting its priority over Metaxytherium. Resurrection of Halianassa von Meyer, 1838 at this time and in this usage would be a blow to nomenclatural stability. 8. The problem also extends to the species level. Although the Maggenwy] maxilla is not certainly diagnostic even generically, it and another specimen from the same region referred to Halianassa studeri by Studer (1887) are most likely referable to Metaxy- therium krahuletzi Depéret, 1895 (Depéret & Roman, 1920, p. 33). M. krahuletzi, though a junior name, is unambiguous in its reference and is supported by much more abundant (albeit largely unpublished) fossil material. Therefore, it is in the interest of stability to protect it from displacement by the older but less well-founded name H. studeri. 9. In addition, if the Swiss specimens described by Studer (1887) prove referable to Thalattosiren Sickenberg, 1928, as Thenius (1952) believed, then this name is threatened and the suppression of H. studeri von Meyer, 1838 is desirable. 10. In short, the names Halianassa and studeri have had a destabilizing influence on nomenclature since the moment of their proposal. Because the continuing problems described above arise in part from Kellogg’s apparently inadvertent and unfortunate choice of a lectotype for H. studeri, it is in the interests of stability to set aside this lectotype and to designate a neotype. 11. I propose to select as neotype the holotype premolar of Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838a (Hessisches Landesmuseum [Darmstadt] no. Az 48), which is one of the original Flonheim syntypes of H. studeri. If Pugmeodon schinzii is designated as the type species of Halitherium as proposed below, this will have a stabilizing effect by making Halianassa studeri von Meyer, (September) 1838 a junior objective synonym 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 of Halitherium schinzii Kaup, (May) 1838. This choice of a type specimen for Halianassa studeri is the most desirable because, of the forms originally included in Halianassa von Meyer, 1838, Halitherium schinzii is the best illustrated and described and is represented by the most abundant, complete and easily obtained material. 12. Halitherium Kaup, 1838b is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Halytherium Kaup, 1838a. However, all workers, including Kaup himself in subsequent works, have used the spelling Halitherium (a representative list is held by the Secretariat). In the interest of stability, Halitherium should be ruled to be the correct original spelling. 13. Kaup (1838a) clearly founded his new genus Halytherium on a lower molar from Flonheim which, in his opinion, ‘gehért zu Hippopotamus dubius Cuv.’ However, Hippopotamus dubius had been based on an Eocene form which is at present referred to the genus Protosiren Abel, 1907 and is completely different from the Oligocene sirenian from Flonheim that Kaup studied. Therefore, Halitherium was originally based on a misidentified species and the name Halitherium dubium cannot be used for that species (Art. 49). Fortunately, by 1855 Kaup had placed Pugmeodon schinziiin synonymy with Halitherium and as the first reviser was using the combination Halitherium schinzii for the Flonheim sirenian, as have all later authors. Therefore, Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 is the earliest available name for the Flonheim sirenian and hence for the type species of Halitherium Kaup, 1838. I propose that the Commission designate Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 as the type species of Halitherium Kaup, 1838. 14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the correct original spelling of the generic name Halytherium Kaup, 1838 is deemed to be Halitherium; (2) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type specimens of the nominal species Halianassa studeri von Meyer, 1838 and to designate as the neotype the fossil premolar from Flonheim. West Germany, bearing the number Az 48 in the Hessisches Landesmuseum, Darmstadt (the holotype of Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838); (3) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Halitherium Kaup, 1838 (spelling confirmed in (1) above), and to designate Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 as the type species; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Halitherium (emendation of Halytherium) Kaup, 1838 (gender: neuter), type species, by, designation in (3) above, Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838; (5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name schinzii Kaup, 1838, as published in the binomen Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 (specific name of the type species of Halitherium Kaup, 1838); (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Halianassa von Meyer, 1838, a junior objective synonym of Halitherium Kaup, 1838; (b) Halytherium Kaup, 1838 (spelling emended to Halitherium as ruled in (1) above); (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name studeri von Meyer, 1838, as interpreted by the neotype designated in (2) above, as a junior objective synonym of schinzii Kaup, 1838, as published in the binomen Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838. ad ill Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 125 References Abel, O. 1907. Die Stammesgeschichte der Meeressdugethiere. Meereskunde, 1 (4): 1-36. Christol, J. de. 1832. Mémoire sur le moyen hippopotame fossile de Cuvier, replacé au genre des dugongs. Annales des Sciences et de l’Industrie du Midi de la France, 2: 161-176, 241-253. Christol, J. de. 1840. Recherches sur divers ossements fossiles attribués par Cuvier a4 deux phoques, au lamantin, et a deux espéces d’hippopotames, et rapportés au Metaxytherium, nouveau genre de cétacé de la famille des dugongs. L’Jnstitut, 8(1) 352: 322-323 Cuvier, G. 1824. Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles, ou l’on rétablit les caractéres de plusieurs animaux dont les révolutions du Globe détruit les espéces, ed. 2, vol. 5, pt. 2, 547 pp. Paris. Depeéret, C. 1895. Ueber die Fauna von miocanen Wirbelthieren aus der ersten Mediterranstufe von Eggenburg. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 104(1): 395-416. Depéret, C. & Roman, F. 1920. Le Felsinotherium Serresi des sables pliocénes de Montpellier et les rameaux phylétiques des siréniens fossiles de ‘Ancien Monde. Archives du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle de Lyon, 12(4): 1-56. Desmarest, A. G. 1822. Mammalogie ou description des espéces de Mammiferes. Pt. 2, pp. 277-556, in Encyclopédie Méthodique, 556 pp. Paris. Duvernoy, G. L. 1835. Plusieurs notes sur quelques ossemens fossiles de |’Alsace et du Jura. Memoires de la Société du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Strasbourg, 2 Mem. GG: 1-12. Hooijer, D. A. 1952. Fact and fiction in hippopotamology (sampling the history of scientific error). Osiris, 10: 109-116. Kaup, J. J. 14 May 1838a. [Uber Zahnen von Halytherium und Pugmeodon aus Flonheim.] Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1838: 318-320. Kaup, J. J. 1838b. [Uber Zahnen von Halitherium und Dugong.] Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie, und Paldontologie, 1838: 536. Kaup, J. J. 1855. Beitraege zur naeheren Kenntniss der urweltlichen Saeugethiere, vol. 2, 1-23 pp. Darmstadt. Kellogg, R. 1966. Fossil marine mammals from the Miocene Calvert Formation of Maryland and Virginia. 3. New species of extinct Miocene Sirenia. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 247(3): 65-98. Lepsius, G. R. 1882. Halitherium schinzi, die fossile Sirene des Mainzer Beckens. Abhandlungen des Mittelrheinischen Geologischen Vereins, 1: 1-200. Meyer, H. von. 1837. [Letter to H. G. Bronn.] Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1837: 674-677. Meyer, H. von. 1838. [Letter to H. G. Bronn.] Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1838: 667-669. Reinhart, R. H. 1959. A review of the Sirenia and Desmostylia. University of California Publi- cations in Geological Sciences, 36(1): 1-146. Simpson, G. G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1-350. Studer, T. 1887. Ueber den Steinkern des Gehirnraumes einer Sirenoide aus dem Muschelsand- stein von Wiirenlos (Kanton Aargau), nebst Bemerkungen iiber die Gattung Halianassa H. von Meyer und die Bildung des Muschelsandsteins. Abhandlungen der Schweizerischen Paldontologischen Gesellschaft, 14(3): 1-20. Thenius, E. 1952. Die Saugetierfauna aus dem Torton von Neudorf an der March (CSSR). Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie. Stuttgart. Abhandlungen. 96(1): 27-136. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Comment on the proposed conservation of Ammonites (currently Pachydiscus) neubergicus Hauer, 1858 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea) (Case 2460: see BZN 43: 277-278) Gerhard Hahn Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet Lahnberge, 355 Marburg (Lahn), W. Germany In this application Henderson & Kennedy seek the suppression of the specific name chrishna because (para. 2) ‘our current research has shown that neubergicus is a junior subjective synonym of Ammonites chrishna Forbes, 1846’. They go on to say that chrishna has had some recent usage. I understand (although the application does not say so) that A. chrishna is based on an extant single specimen from India; A. neubergicus derives from W. Europe. The synonymy is a matter of subjective opinion only, and later authors (perhaps with more material) may wish to separate the species. I do not object to giving neubergicus precedence over chrishna, but in the present circumstances the suppression of the latter name is not justified. Comments on the proposed suppression of Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 and Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 (Aves). (Cases 2276 and 2277; see BZN 40: 249-251 and 42: 50-53). (1) Storrs L. Olson National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. David W. Steadman New York State Museum, 3140 Cultural Education Center, Albany, New York 12230, U.S.A. 1. In these very similar instances, Bruce, Holyoak & Thibault have proposed the suppression of early but recondite names for two species of Tahitian birds. In each case their arguments are based upon the assumption that the earlier names apply to species now occurring on Tahiti, rather than to extinct species or those now restricted to distant archipelagos. However, our recent paleontological and archeological studies have shown that pervasive man-caused extinctions have greatly altered the natural distributions of most species of birds in Polynesia in the past 200 years (Olson & James 1982: Steadman, 1985; Steadman & Olson, 1985), with the result that zoogeographical assumptions (e.g. about insular endemism) based on present or very recent distributions are often erroneous. ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 127 2. In applying to suppress the name Rallus nigra Miller, 1784, based on a painting of a bird by Georg Forster made on Cook’s second voyage, Bruce et al. (BZN 40: 249-251) followed Lysaght (1956) in assuming that this name must apply to the wide- spread species Porzana tabuensis because ‘it is extremely improbable that nigra could apply to some form other than the nominate tabuensis’. However, the fossil record shows (Steadman, 1985, and unpublished work) that P. tabuensis was sympatric with flightless forms of Porzana (similar to P. atra of Henderson Island) that were probably widespread in Polynesia before human contact. Thus the name Rallus nigra may well pertain to an extinct form of Porzana rather than to P. tabuensis. In a similar instance Rallus pacificus Gmelin is also known only from a Forster painting and has been accepted (e.g. Ripley, 1977) as a valid name for an extinct species of Tahitian rail. 3. In the case of the pigeons now placed in the genus Ducula, Bruce et al. (BZN 42: 50-53) propose the suppression of Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829, also based on a bird from Tahiti described by Forster, and to place on the Official Lists both Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848, the name of a species known historically from Tahiti and from Makatea in the Tuamotus, and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855, that of a very different species now confined to Nuku Hiva in the Marquesas. While we believe that the original description of C. R. Forsteri clearly fits D. galeata more closely than D. aurorae (Lysaght, 1957), fossil evidence shows that galeata and other very large forms of Ducula were widespread in the Pacific before being exterminated by man (Steadman & Olson, 1985, and unpublished work), so that the name Columba R. Forsteri, as with Rallus nigra, could apply to a separate but extinct taxon. 4. Weshould like to correct two bibliographic errors introduced by Bruce et al. Gray (1859) did not consider C. R. Forsteri to be a senior synonym of Serresius galeatus but listed both as separate species. Salvadori (1893) did not consider C. R. Forsteri to be a senior synonym of Carpophaga aurorae, but discussed it in a footnote under the heading ‘Carpophaga ?forsteri’, stating that ‘I should have thought the two the same species if it were not for the under-tail coverts being ferruginous, as mentioned by Forster.” 5. Weare very strongly opposed to the suppression of the names Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 and Columba R. Forsteri (or reinholdforsteri) Wagler, 1829, and consider that both should remain available pending further paleontological and archeological investigation of Tahitian material and its correlation with Forster’s descriptions and illustrations. Even if at present they are regarded as nomina dubia they should not be suppressed, in accordance with usual nomenclatural practices. Additional References Olson, S. L. & James, H. F. 1982. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 365: 1-59. Steadman, D. W. 1985. Fossil birds from Mangaia, southern Cook Islands. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 105(2): 58-66. Steadman, D. W. & Olson, S. L. 1985. Bird remains from an archaeological site on Henderson Island, South Pacific: man-caused extinctions on an ‘uninhabited’ island. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 82: 6191-6195. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 (2) Murray D. Bruce 8 Spurwood Road, Turramurra, N.S.W. 2074. Australia, D. T. Holyoak College of St. Paul & St. Mary, The Park, Cheltenham, Glos., GL50 2RH, England J.-C. Thibault Parc Natural Régional de Corse, Rue Général Fiorella, B.P. No. 417, 20184 Ajaccio Cédex Corse, France 1. In the above comment Olson & Steadman object to our proposals for suppression of Rallus nigra Miller and Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, because in their view both names may represent extinct species rather than being senior synonyms of living species. It is not surprising that the first studies of avian palaeontology from Polynesia have revealed the occurrence there of extinct taxa. However, species-level taxonomy in many avian genera relies heavily on interpretation of plumage coloration and of vocalisations (cf. discussion of Polynesian Ducula by Holyoak & Thibault, (1984, pp. 119-122)) not available from fossils. 2. There are no detailed published accounts of avian fossil remains from Tahiti (although J. Pichon (unpublished) is studying material from the Papenoo Valley), and because of the high incidence of insular endemism in the surviving Polynesian landbirds the fossils from other islands are of uncertain relevance to interpretation of the Tahitian avifauna. We therefore question Olson & Steadman’s arguments about relationships and species-limits in Polynesian Porzana and Ducula as a whole, as well as their applicability to Tahitian forms. 3. We continue to hold the opinion that the names Rallus nigra and Columba R. Forsteri are unlikely to represent extinct species from Tahiti, and in any case we argue that both names were accompanied by such poor descriptions that indisputable proof of what species were involved is unlikely ever to be obtained. It is thus only by suppression of these names that stability and universality of usage will be maintained. 4. Besides achieving those vital aims, another advantage of suppressing these names is that new palaeontological findings (such as those promised for the future by Olson & Steadman) will lead to adequate description of new taxa and the pro- vision of proper type material. We regard this as preferable to the controversial associ- ation of species based on osteological material with names based on very incomplete and unverifiable early descriptions, and we therefore wish our application to proceed. Reference Holyoak, D. T. & Thibault J.-C. 1984. Contribution a l'étude des oiseaux de Polynésie orientale. Mémoires, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Nouvelle Série, Série A (Zoologie) 127: 1-209. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 129 Comment on the proposed precedence of PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda) over CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 (Case 2557: see BZN 43: 297-299) Thomas E. Bowman Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The application of Andronov & Vyshkvartzeva asking the Commission to conserve the calanoid copepod family name PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 in preference to the older CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892, while well intended, should be rejected by the Commission. No serious taxonomic or nomenclatural problems are involved, and there is little likelihood that any confusion will result from following the principle of priority and using CLAUSOCALANIDAE, even though PSEUDOCALANIDAE has been used more frequently in the past. In fact, as Andronov & Vyshkvartzeva mention, since the priority of CLAUSOCALANIDAE was pointed out by Bowman & Abele (1982) several leading students of the Calanoida have already adopted it. I expect this trend will continue, and that in a relatively short time CLAUSOCALANIDAE will be used universally. Stability will be served best if this occurs, and I urge the Commission to reject the application of Andronov & Vyshkvartzeva. Comment on the proposed precedence of Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 over Simulium posticatum Meigen, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 2560: see BZN 43: 350-351) R. W. Crosskey Department of Entomology, British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, England Heide Zwick Schwarzer Stock 9, D-6407 Schlitz, West Germany We ask the Commission not to grant Dr Rubtsov’s request to set aside the senior name Simulium posticatum (originally published as ‘Simulia posticata’) Meigen, 1838 and give precedence to the junior name Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915. To do so would create unnecessary confusion because it is the senior synonym (posticatum) that is now in general use. Rubtsov bases his application on the premise that the name austeni ‘is in general current use’, but this is no longer the case. It is true to say that it ‘was’ in use until 1980, but that was only because its junior synonymy had not previously been discovered and made known (Zwick & Crosskey, 1981, p. 240). Since then, workers other than Rubtsov & Yankovsky (1984) have used the name posticatum, all of them for new data that extend knowledge of the distribution or biology of the species concerned; on the other hand, the one post-1981 use of austeni(p. 153 in Rubtsov & Yankovsky), consists 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 merely of its inclusion in an inventory of the Palaearctic species of Simulium s. str. accompanied by a footnote referring to its synonymy with posticatum. From our contacts with interested colleagues we have found no evidence that anyone except Rubtsov wishes to use the junior synonym, and we think that the following list of users of posticatum since 1981 proves our point: Car (1981): taxonomic description and biology, Austria Jensen (1984): aquatic faunal distribution, Denmark Riihm & Prochnow (1984): faunistics, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany Ladle et al. (1985): egg-laying habits Timm & Piper (1985): biology and morphology, Germany Vincon (1987): riverine ecology, France Bass & Armitage (in press): reservoir hydrobiology, Britain Welton er a/. (in press): ovipositional biology, Britain The species concerned has a localized distribution in northern and central Europe, and the above references (in the literature of five countries) are clear evidence that it is the name posticatum, not austeni, that ‘is in general current use’. It is the name that has actually been adopted in the 1980’s by simuliid specialists with varied interests. Simulium posticatum is under active research because of its unexplained periodic outbreaks. The research body in Britain dealing with this problem (Freshwater Biologi- cal Association) has adopted the change of name from austeni to posticatum, as have other workers. An important discovery of this recent research is that the species has an egg-laying behaviour unknown in any other simuliid: this finding (which is likely often to be cited in general works on the sIMULIIDAE because of its unique character) was reported under the name posticatum (by Ladle et al., 1985). We mention this as an example — to indicate that it would now be a retrograde step if the Commission decided in favour of Rubtsov’s application and thereby obliged everyone to revert to austeni. This would be damaging to the new stability using posticatum, and we therefore ask the Commission to rule against Rubtsov’s proposal. References Bass, J. A. B. & Armitage, P. D. (In press). Observed and predicted occurrence of blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae) at fifty reservoir outlets in Britain. Regulated Rivers. Car, M. 1981. Die Simuliiden-Fauna (Diptera) Osterreichs und ihre veterindérmedizinische Bedeutung. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Vienna. Jensen, F. 1984. A revision of the taxonomy and distribution of the Danish black-flies (Diptera: Simuliidae), with keys to the larval and pupal stages. Natura Jutlandica, 21: 69-116. Ladle, M., Bass, J. A. B. & Cannicott, L. J. 1985. A unique strategy of blackfly oviposition (Diptera: Simuliidae). Entomologist’s Gazette, 36: 147-149. Rubtsov, I. A. & Yankovsky, A. V. 1984. Key to the genera of Palaearctic blackflies. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 142: 1-175. [In Russian]. Riihm, W. & Prochnow, H. 1984. Die Kriebelmiickenfauna im siidlichen Schleswig-Holstein (Diptera, Simuliidae). Entomologische Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum Hamburg, 7: 495-518. Timm, T. & Piper, W. 1985. Simulium posticatum Meigen, 1838, die “Blandford-Mucke’ in Norddeutschland (Diptera: Simuliidae). Entomologische Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum Hamburg, 8: 109-117. Vincon, G. 1987. Comparaison de la faune benthique des Vallées d’Aure et d’Ossau, en vue de l'élaboration d’une méthodologie de surveillance des cours d’eau de montagne. Doctoral Diploma thesis, Universite Paul Sabatier, Toulouse. aaa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 131 Welton, J.S., Bass, J. A. B., Ladle, M. & Merret, W. J. [In press]. Distribution of oviposition sites and characteristics of egg development in the ‘Blandford fly’, Simulium posticatum (Diptera: Simuliidae). Journal of Applied Ecology. Zwick, H. & Crosskey, R. W. 1981. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae) described by J. W. Meigen. Aquatic Insects, 2 (1980): 225—247. Comment on the suggested introduction into the Code of the term ‘nomenclaturally valid’ (Case 2513: see BZN 43: 308-309) L. B. Holthuis Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Mr Melville’s proposal to introduce the expression ‘nomenclaturally valid’ could be useful, as it defines a stage between ‘available’ and ‘valid’. Available is an objective term: with the help of the Code anyone can find whether a name is available or not. However, valid is a subjective term: an available name that one taxonomist considers valid may not be so for another, so that the Commission cannot rule a name valid, for that is the task of the individual zoologist. However, there are two objective nomen- clatural criteria which can prevent an available name being used as valid, namely if it is a junior primary homonym or a junior objective synonym. It is for available names which do not have these failings that Mr Melville has coined the term ‘nomenclaturally valid’. The expression ‘nomenclaturally valid’ thus indicates names that are given a clean bill of (objective) health by the Code, and whose validity depends only on the taxonomic views of the zoologist using them. Nomenclaturally valid names remain so despite the taxonomic views of individual zoologists. The actions of first revisers (cf. Mr Melville’s proposals) do not confer nomencla- tural validity, but only govern the precedence of two or more names of equal priority. Personally I would suggest the following changes in the Code: Glossary: nomenclaturally valid name: an available name that, in either the family group or the genus group is neither a junior homonym nor a junior synonym, or in the species group is neither a junior primary homonym nor a junior objective synonym valid name: a nomenclaturally valid name which under the the provisions of the Code is considered the correct name for a taxon conserved name: add ‘nomenclaturally’ before ‘invalid’ Article 79a: add ‘or nomenclaturally valid’ after ‘available’ in line 10. There may well be other places in the Code (e.g. Article 23) where the expression could be added for clarification. Mr Melville has kindly informed me that he accepts the points I have made here. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1433 Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 (Trilobita): conserved 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) Calymena Desmarest, 1817; (b) tuberculatus Briinnich, 1781, as published in the binomen Trilobus tuberculatus. (2) The name Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 (gender: femi- nine), type species, by subsequent designation by Milne Edwards (1844), Calymena blumenbachii Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name blumenbachii Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817, as published in the bino- men Calymena blumenbachii (specific name of the type species of Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name CALYMENIDAE Milne Edwards, 1840 (type genus Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmgarest, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name Calymena Desmarest, 1817 as suppressed in (1) (a) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (6) The name tuberculatus Briinnich, 1781, as published in the binomen Trilobus tuberculatus and as suppressed in (1) (b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 637 An application to resolve the spelling of several trilobite generic names, due for inclusion in the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology, was first received from Dr J. M. Weller (Walker Museum, University of Chicago, U.S.A) on 6 December 1951. Sub- sequent correspondence with the author was not answered and the case lapsed. The trilobite section of the Treatise appeared in 1959. In 1960 the then Secretary, Mr R. V. Melville, approached Professor H. B. Whittington (then of Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, U.S.A., and one of the main authors of the trilobite section of the Treatise). Prof Whittington favoured conservation of Calymene Brongniart, 1822 rather than the re-introduction of Calymena Desmarest, 1817, i.e. the opposite to Dr Weller’s original suggestion. The case was not proceeded with until 1983 when Prof Whittington (University of Cambridge, U.K.) raised the question, and after correspondence an application was published in BZN 40: 176-178 (October 1983). Notice of the case was given to ten general and two specialist serials. A complication arose over Calymena blumenbachii— the nominal type species of both Calymena and Calymene — and a rider to the case was prepared by Prof Whittington and Dr D. J. Siveter (University of Hull, U.K.) This was published in BZN 43: 105-106 (April 1986). eo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 133 Notice of the case was given to twelve general and three specialist serials. Dr Holthuis pointed out that Milne Edwards had designated a type species for Cal/ymene in 1844, and this has been included in the ruling. Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals published in BZN 43: 177-178 and the additional proposal (2) published in BZN 43: 106. Attention was drawn to the type species designation by Milne Edwards. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink. Negative votes — 2: Alvarado, Schuster. Dupuis abstained, suggesting that Calymene could be regarded as a justified emenda- tion of Calymena Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: blumenbachii, Calymena, Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817, Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire Naturelle, ed. 2, vol. 8, p. 517 Calymena Desmarest, 1817, Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, ed. 2, vol. 8, p. 517 Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés fossiles, p. ll CALYMENIDAE Milne Edwards, 1840, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, in Roret’s Suites a Buffon, vol. 3, p. 293 tuberculatus, Trilobus, Brimnich, 1781, Nye Samling, af det Kongelige Danske Videnskabers Selskabs Skrifter, 1: 389. The following is the original reference to the designation of a type species for the nominal genus Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822: Calymene blumenbachii Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817 by Milne Edwards, 1844 in Cuvier, Le régne animal, Disciples edition, vol. 18, pl. 80, fig. 1. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1434 Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (Trilobita): Phacops ceratophthalmus Goldfuss 1843, designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843, are hereby set aside, and Phacops ceratoph- thalmus Goldfuss, 1843 is designated as type species. (2) The name Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Phacops ceratophthalmus Goldfuss, 1843, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name ceratophthalmus Goldfuss, 1843, as published in the binomen Phacops ceratophthalmus (specific name of the type species of Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Cyrtometopus Angelin, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Calymene clavifrons Dalman, 1827, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (5) The name clavifrons Dalman, 1827, as published in the binomen Calymene clavi- frons (specific name of the type species of Cyrtometopus Angelin, 1854) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2257 An application for the designation of Phacops ceratophthalmus Goldfuss, 1843, as type species of Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 was received from Dr A. T. Thomas (The University of Aston in Birmingham, U.K.) and Dr R. M. Owens (National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, U.K.) on 20 March 1978. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 37: 122-123 (June 1980).Notice of the case was given to nine general and two specialist serials. A comment was received from Prof Dr G. Hahn (Universitat Lahnberge, Marburg, BRD) enquiring into the status of the type material for Phacops ceratophthalmus Goldfuss and Otarion diffractum Zenker, 1833, and the possible need for a neotype to stabilize Cyphaspis. Thomas & Owens replied by stating that the type material of both species was untraced but that the identity of both species has never been in doubt, and that the absence of type specimens did not materially affect the substance of their application. This was accepted by Prof Dr Hahn. Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 37: 123. At the close of the voting period on | March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — 2: Alvarado, Schuster. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. alt Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 135 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: ceratophthalmus, Phacops, Goldfuss, 1834, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1834: 564 clavifrons, Calymene, Dalman, 1827, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 1826: 75 Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843, Organisation und Ubersicht Trilobiten, p. 103 Cyrtometopus Angelin, 1854, Palaeontologica Scandinavica, p. 32. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1435 Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita): Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 1845 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845, before that of C. insignis Beyrich, 1845 by Barton (1913) are hereby set aside. (2) The name Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (gender: masculine), type species, by sub- sequent designation by Barton (1913), Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 1845, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name insignis Beyrich, 1845, as published in the binomen Cheirurus insignis (specific name of the type species of Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2337 An application for the designation of Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 1845 as type species of Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 was received from Dr P. D. Lane (Keele University, U.K.) on 10 March 1980. A revised case was published in BZN 42: 379-381 (December 1985). Notice of the case was given to thirteen general and two specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Professor H. B. Whittington (University of Cambridge, U.K.) and published in BZN 43: 118. Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 379-381. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: insignis, Cheirurus, Beyrich, 1845, Ueber einige b6hmischen Trilobiten, p. 12 Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845, Ueber einige b6hmischen Trilobiten, p. 5. Bie Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 137 OPINION 1436 HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) and HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): a ruling to remove the homonymy Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that, for the purposes of Article 29, the stem of the generic name Harpes Goldfuss, 1839 is HARPET-. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Harpes Goldfuss, 1839 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Harpes macrocephalus Goldfuss, 1839 (Trilobita); (b) Harpa[Roding], 1798, (gender: feminine), type species by tautonymy Buccinum harpa Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda); (c) Harpides Beyrich, 1846 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Harpides hospes Beyrich, 1846 (Trilobita); (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) macrocephalus Goldfuss, 1839, as published in the binomen Harpes macro- cephalus (specific name of the type species of Harpes Goldfuss, 1839); (b) harpa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buccinum harpa (specific name of the type species of Harpa [R6ding], 1798); (c) hospes Beyrich, 1846, as published in the binomen Harpides hospes (specific name of the type species of Harpides Beyrich, 1846). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) HARPETIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (an emendation under the plenary powers of ‘Harpides’), type genus Harpes Goldfuss, 1839 (Trilobita); (b) HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 (type genus Harpa [Rdding], 1798 (Gastropoda); (c) HARPIDIDAE Raw, 1949 (type genus Harpides Beyrich, 1846 (Trilobita). History of case 2331 In 1971 Dr A. G. Beu (BZN 28: 56-58) drew attention to the homonymy between the family name HARPIDAE in Mollusca (based on Harpa [R6ding], 1798, and published (as ‘Harpina’) by Bronn, 1849 [see BZN 30: 3]) and in Trilobita (based on Harpes Goldfuss, 1839, and published (as ‘Harpides’) by Hawle & Corda, 1847). Beu proposed that the molluscan name remain as HARPIDAE; acting on the advice of L. W. Grensted, sometime Classical Advisor to the Commission, he suggested that the trilobite family be named, under the plenary powers, as HARPETIDAE, a spelling which had had recent use. In 1974 the Commission voted on Beu’s proposals and approved them by 20 votes to one (see BZN 31: 127-128). The single dissentient (Prof Dr H. K. Erben) mentioned that the trilobite family based on Harpes has sometimes been spelt as ‘“HARPEDIDAE’; publication of an Opinion was therefore deferred, and did not take place. In 1984 the case was re-opened, and following correspondence with Dr J. G. M. Raven (Binnenweg 46, 2264 MK Leidschendam, The Netherlands) his proposal that HARPIDAE remain in Trilobita (from Harpes) and that the molluscan genus be changed to HARPAIDAE (from Harpa) was published in BZN 42: 79-80 (April 1985). 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 In May 1985 Dr W. O. Cernohorsky wrote supporting the original Beu proposals, as previously approved by the Commission. Dr Cernohorsky’s letter was copied to Dr Raven, but because the latter did not reply it remained unpublished. In May 1986 Prof H. B. Whittington wrote supporting the Raven proposals, and for additional clarification requested that another trilobite family-group name, HARPIDINAE Raw, 1949 (p. 514; based on Harpides Beyrich, 1846) be placed on the Official List. In June 1986, on becoming aware of the Commission’s 1974 vote and Dr Cernohorsky’s letter, Prof Whittington said he would, with reluctance, accept the original Beu proposals, since further delay was very undesirable. Dr Raven and Prof Dr. G. Hahn (who in November 1986 had written in support of Dr Raven’s proposals) have also said that, in view of the history above, they would not object to the original Beu proposals. Decision of the Commission On 30 January 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to confirm the 1974 vote (BZN 31: 127-128) on the HARPIDAE homonymy, and also to place the name HARPIDIDAE Raw, 1949 on the Official List (see above). At the close of the voting period on 28 February 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Trjapitzin. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: harpa, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 738 Harpa [Réding], 1798, Museum Boltenianum (2), p. 149 Harpes Goldfuss, 1839, Nova Acta Academiae Caesarea Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicum Naturae Curiosorum, 19 (1): 358 HARPETIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847, Prodrom einer Monographie der béhmischen Trilobiten, Abh. 5, p. 161 HARPIDAE, Bronn, 1849, Handbuch der Geschichte der Natur, 3(3), Index Palaeontologicus, p. 469 Harpides Beyrich, H. E. 1846. Untersuchungen tiber Trilobiten, p. 34 HARPIDINAE Raw, F. 1949. Journal of Palaeontology, 23: 514 hospes, Harpides, Beyrich, 1846, Untersuchungen iiber Trilobiten, p. 34 macrocephalus, Harpes, Goldfuss, 1839, Nova Acta Academiae Caesarea Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicum Naturae Curiosorum, 19(1): 359. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 139 OPINION 1437 Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 are hereby set aside, and Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798 is designated as type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (a) Dorippoides Serene & 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 in (1) above, Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798. (3) The following names are hereby placed 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 Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969); (b) facchino Herbst, 1785, as published in the binomen Cancer facchino (specific name of the type species of Dorippoides Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969). History of case 2467 An application for the designation of Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798 as type species of Neodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) and Dr R. B. Manning (Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., U.S.A.) on 20 February 1984. After correspondence, a revised case was published in BZN 42: 304-305 (September 1985). Notice of the case was given to ten general and four specialist serials. No comment was received. The entry for DoRIPPIDAE on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology has been corrected as suggested by Drs Holthuis and Manning (BZN 42: 305). Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 305. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: callida, Dorippe, Fabricius, 1798, Entomologia systematica ... Supplementum, p. 362 Dorippoides Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969, Marine Research in Indonesia, no. 9: 3 facchino, Cancer, Herbst, 1785, Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse, vol. 1(6), p. 190 Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969, Marine Research in Indonesia, no. 9: 3. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 141 OPINION 1438 Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes): Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nom- inal genus Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 are hereby set aside, and Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833 is designated as type species. (2) The name Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (gender: masculine), type species by designa- tion in (1) above Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name bergeri Agassiz, 1833, as published in the binomen Semionotus bergeri (specific name of the type species of Semionotus Agassiz, 1832) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2434 An application for the designation of Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833 as type species of Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 was received from Dr A. R. McCune (Cornell University, New York, U.S.A.) on 8 February 1983. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 371-373 (December 1985). Notice of the case was given to thirteen general and six specialist serials. No comment was received. Note: the date of S. bergeri Agassiz, 1833 was wrongly printed as ‘1834’ in the application, except in the title and proposals. Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals published in BZN 42: 372. At the close of the voting period on | March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: bergeri, Semionotus, Agassiz, 1833, Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, W1(i), p. 8 Semionotus Agassiz, 1832, Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1832 (3): 144. 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1439 Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Serranus sexmaculatus (currently Cephalopholis sexmaculata) Riippell, 1830 (Osteichthyes): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name argus Bloch, 1792, as published in the binomen Anthias argus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) Under the plenary powers the name zanana Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828, as published in the binomen Serranus zanana, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) argus Schneider, 1801, as published in the binomen Cephalopholis argus; (b) sexmaculatus Ruppell, 1830, as published in the binomen Serranus sexmaculatus. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) guttatus Bloch, 1790, as published in the binomen Bodianus guttatus (having been rejected as a junior homonym of guttata Linnaeus, 1758 when both Perca guttata L. and B. guttatus were included in Serranus or Epinephelus); (b) argus Bloch, 1792, as published in the binomen Anthias argus and as suppressed in (1) above; (c) zanana Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828, as published in the binomen Serranus zanana and as suppressed in (2) above. History of case 2470 An application for the conservation of Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Serranus sexmaculatus Ruppell, 1830 was received from Dr J. E. Randall (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.), Dr M.-L. Bauchot (Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France), Dr A. Ben-Tuvia (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) and Dr P. C. Heemstra (J. L. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, RSA) on 19 March 1984. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 374-378 (December 1985). Notice of the case was given to thirteen general and nine specialist serials. A comment from Dr G. F. Mees (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) was received and published in BZN 43: 227 (October 1986). This pointed out that a senior synonym of argus Schneider, 1801, namely guttatus Bloch, 1790 (published as Bodianus guttatus) was permanently invalid under Article 59b because it had been rejected as being a junior homonym, and therefore it did not require suppression. As a consequence of this comment the authors agreed to with- draw part A of the application, as well as proposals (1) (a) and (4) (a) listed in BZN 42: 376. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 143 Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 376 as modified in the light of the published comment and with the proposal that guttatus Bloch, 1790, as published in the binomen Bodianus guttatus, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as a junior secondary homonym of guttata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Perca guttata. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — none. Dupuis abstained because the voting paper was insufficiently clear. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. 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: argus, Anthias, Bloch, 1792, Naturgeschichte der Ausliindischen Fische, part 6, p. 111 argus, Cephalopholis, Schneider, in Bloch & Schneider, 1801, Systema ichthyologiae, p. 311 guttatus, Bodianus, Bloch, 1790, Naturgeschichte der Auslindischen Fische, part 4, p. 36 sexmaculatus, Serranus, Riippell, 1830, Atlas zu der Reise im nordlichen Afrika. Fische des rothen Meers, p. 107 zanana, Serranus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828, Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 2, p. 339. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1440 Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823 and Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Thylacites Germar, 1817, 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: (a) Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Curculio incanus Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Cycloderes Sahlberg, [June] 1823 (gender: masculine), type species, by mono- typy, Cycloderes catarractus Sahlberg, 1823. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) incanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio incanus (specific name of the type species of Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823); (b) catarractus Sahlberg, 1823, as published in the binomen Cycloderes catarractus (specific name of the type species of Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823). (4) The name BRACHYDERINAE Schonherr, 1837 (type genus Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name Thylacites Germar, 1817, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (6) The name THYLACITINAE Kirby, 1837 (type genus Thylacites Germar, 1817) (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. History of case 2490 An application for the conservation of Brachyderes Sch6nherr, 1823, and Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823 was received from Dr A. T. Howden (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada) on 10 September 1984. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 296-301 (September 1985). Notice of the case was given to ten general and eight specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr C. Bordon (Jnsti- tuto Zoologia Agricola, Maracay, Venezuela) and published in BZN 43: 226 (October 1986). Further unpublished support was received from Dr M. A. Alonso—Zarazaga (Malaga, Spain). Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals published in BZN 42: 298-299. At the close of the voting period on | March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Smee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 145 Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were received from Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling in the present Opinion: BRACHYDERINAE Schonherr, 1826, Curculionidum dispositio methodica. . ., p. 10 Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823, Isis, Jena, 7: 1140 catarractus, Cycloderes, Sahlberg, [June] 1823, Periculi entomographici. . ., pp. 21 and 83 Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823, Periculi entomographici. . ., pp. 21 and 83. incanus, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 385 Thylacites Germar, 1817, Magazin der Entomologie, 2: 341 THYLACITINAE Kirby, 1837, Fauna Boreali-Americana. . ., vol. 4, p. 207. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1441 Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 1790 (currently Drasterius bimaculatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name bimaculatus Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Elater bimaculatus and all uses of this binomen prior to the publication of Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 1790 are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name bimaculatus Rossi, 1790, as published in the binomen Elater bimacula- tus (specific name of the type species of Drasterius Eschholz, 1829) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name bimaculatus Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Elater bimaculatus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Drasterius Eschholz [= Eschscholtz], 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Westwood (1840), Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 1790, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. History of case 2345 An application for the conservation of Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 1790 was received from Dr M. Mroczkowski (Polska Akademia Nauk, Warsaw, Poland) on 22 May 1980. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 391-392 (December 1985). Notice of the case was given to twelve general and eleven specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals in BZN 42: 391, with the addition of Drasterius Eschholz, 1829 to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were received from Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: Drasterius Eschholz [= Eschscholtz], 1790, in Thon, Entomologisches Archiv, vol. 2(1), p. 33 bimaculatus, Elater, Fourcroy, 1785, Entomologia parisiensis. . ., (1), p. 38 bimaculatus, Elater Rossi, 1790, Fauna etrusca. . ., vol. 1, p. 182. The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation of a type species for the nominal genus Drasterius Eschholz, 1829: Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 1790 by Westwood, 1840, Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects, p. 26. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 147 OPINION 1442 Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 (Insecta, Thysanoptera): Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 are hereby set aside and Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913 is designated as type species. (2) The name Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name conocephali Karny, 1913, as published in the binomen Cryptothrips conocephali (specific name of the type species of Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2503 An application for the designation of Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913 as type species of Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 was received from Dr D. J. Brothers (University of Natal, RSA) and Dr L. A. Mound (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 3 December 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 42: 382-384 (December 1985) and, notice was given to thirteen general and ten general serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals published in BZN 42: 384. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and UVéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion: conocephali, Cryptothrips, Karny, 1913, Bulletin du Jardin Botanique de Buitenzorg, 2: 98 Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926, Treubia, 8 (Supplement): 157. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1443 Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Musca polita Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name polita Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca polita (specific name of the type species of Microchrysa Loew, 1855) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of case 2453 An application for the conservation of Microchrysa Loew, 1855 was received from Dr E. P. Nartshuk (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) and Dr R. Rozkosny (J. E. Purkyné University, Brno, C.S.S.R.) on 6 October 1983. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 393-394 (9 December 1985). Notice was given to thirteen general and ten specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 393-394. At the close of the voting period on | March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. Professor Dupuis abstained because the name Chrysomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 was not entered on the Official List. The status of this name was mentioned. in the application (BZN 42: 393), and is not affected by the present ruling. Original references The following are the original references to the names piaced on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834, Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Dipteéres, vol. 2, p. 262 Microchrysa Loew, 1855, Verhandlungen des zoologisch-botanischen Vereins in Wien, 5: 146 polita, Microchrysa, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 598. Theda elie ww Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 149 OPINION 1444 Musca trilineata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Oxycera trilineata; Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name graeca Pontoppidan, 1763, as published in the binomen Musca graeca, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name trilineata Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Musca trilineata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name graeca Pontoppidan, 1763, as published in the binomen Musca graeca and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2454 An application for the conservation of Musca (currently Oxycera) trilineata Linnaeus, 1767, was received from Dr E. P. Nartshuk (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) and Dr R. Rozkosny (J. E. Purkyné University, Brno, C.S.S.R.) on 6 October 1983. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 395-397 (December 1985). Notice of the case was given to thirteen general and ten specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 396. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Willink Negative votes — 1: Dupuis. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Uéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: graeca, Musca, Pontoppidan, 1763, Den Danske Atlas, vol. 1, p. 696 trilineata, Musca, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, ed. 12, vol. 1(2), p. 980. 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1445 HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) and HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): a ruling to remove the homonymy Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic name Heterogyna Nagy, 1969 (Hymenoptera) is HETEROGYNA-. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Heterogynis Rambur, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Kirby (1892), Heterogynis paradoxa Rambur, 1837 (Insecta, Lepidoptera); (b) Heterogyna Nagy, 1969 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Heterogyna protea Nagy, 1969 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) paradoxa Rambur, 1837, as published in the binomen Heterogynis paradoxa (specific name of the type species of Heterogynis Rambur, 1837); (b) protea Nagy, 1969, as published in the binomen Heterogyna protea (specific name of the type species of Heterogyna Nagy, 1969). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (type genus Heterogynis Rambur, 1837) (Insecta, Lepidoptera); (b) HETEROGYNAIDAE Nagy, 1969 (emendation, under the plenary powers, of HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969) (type genus Heterogyna Nagy, 1969) (Insecta, Hymenoptera); (5) The name HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (a junior homonym of HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. History of case 2496 An application for a ruling to remove the homonymy between HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 and HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 was received from Mr M. C. Day (British Museum ( Natural History), London) on 9 October 1984. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 385-386 (December 1985). Notice of the case was given to thirteen general and ten specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr J. B. Heppner (Center for Arthropod Systematics, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, U.S.A.). Decision of the Commission : On | December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or _ against the proposals set out in BZN 42: 385-386. At the close of the voting period on ; 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 151 Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Ueno. Professor Dupuis drew attention to the expression ‘Heterogynidae Latreille’ in the title of the reference by Nagy (1969) listed in BZN 42: 386. However, as pointed out by Day (1984; Systematic Entomology, 9: 301), ‘Heterogyna’ (Latreille, 1825) was a descriptive category (referring to strong sexual dimorphism) not including an eponymous genus, and has no nomenclatural status. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: Heterogyna Nagy, 1969, Entomologische Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum, Hamburg. No. 64: 8 HETEROGYNAIDAE Nagy, 1969, Entomologische Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum, Hamburg. No. 64: 7 HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969, Entomologische Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum, Hamburg. No. 64:7 HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866, Catalogue systématique des Lépidopteéres de |’Andalousie, vol. 2, p. 316 Heterogynis Rambur, 1866, Catalogue systématique des Lépidopteéres de |’ Andalousie, vol. 2, p. 316 paradoxa, Heterogynis, Rambur, 1866, Catalogue systématique des Lépidopteéres de |’ Andalousie, vol. 2, p. 318 protea, Heterogyna, Nagy, 1969, Entomologische Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinsti- tut und Zoologischen Museum, Hamburg. No. 64: 8. 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(2) June 1987 OPINION 1446 Stenoderma tolteca Saussure, 1860 (Mammalia, Chiroptera): neotype designation set aside Ruling (1) The neotype designation of USNM No. 38954/6981 for Artibeus toltecus toltecus (Saussure, 1860) made by Davis (1969) is hereby set aside. (2) The name folteca Saussure, 1860, as published in the binomen Stenoderma tolteca, and as defined by the holotype, MHNG No. 516.13, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2466 An application for the suppression of the neotype designation made for Stenoderma tolteca Saussure, 1860 was received from Drs L. de Roguin & C. Weber (Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Genéve, Switzerland) on 30 January 1984. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 42: 302-303 (September 1985). Notice of the case was given to ten general and four specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals in BZN 42: 303. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — none. Gruchy and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Thompson and Ueno. Original references The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling in the present Opinion: tolteca, Stenoderma, Saussure, 1860, Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliquée, (2)12: 427. Contents—continued Opinion 1437. Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Crustacea, Decapoda). . 139 Opinion 1438. Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes) . . . . ...... 141 Opinion 1439. Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Serranus sexmaculatus (currently Cephalopholis sexmaculata) Riippell, 1830(Osteichthyes) . . . . . 142 Opinion 1440. Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823 and Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823 (Insecta, Rare gh Diet ee ee SS 144 Opinion 1441. Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 1790 (currently Drasterius bimaculatus; on ET COPIERS OUTST RR a eRe ay i no We ie Te i 146 Opinion 1442. Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 (Insecta, Thysanoptera) . . . . . . 147 Opinion 1443. Microchrysa Loew, 1855(Insecta, Diptera) . . . . ..... 148 Opinion 1444, Musca trilineata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Oxyceta trilineata; Insecta, Diptera) . . 149 Opinion 1445. HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) and HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta; Hymenoptera) . ar et ae eae 150 Opinion 1446. Stenoderma tolteca Saussure, 1860 (Mammalia, Chiroptera). . . . 152 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Parts of the Bulletin since 44 (1) should be consulted as examples. Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current binomen in parentheses. Author's name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission Secretariat. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described ...’. References. These should be given for all authors cited. The titles of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages, the publisher and the place of publication. Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to the address on the inside front cover. The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in the preparation of manuscripts. CONTENTS Notices: 7" Publication of, Official Lists and eis Names and Works i in 1 Zoology alge ree Gag a) yee ¢ ae at ame) We ive noinenclature: a solution for an old problem. Applications: ° ‘ ab ee ae Aleyonidiwit'Lamourgux?1813, Geodake. J.P. Thorpe & J. E. Winston . Proposed. conservation of four sipiinculan specific names. J. I. Saiz Salinas . Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837(Crustacea, Decapoda). L. B. Holthuis & K. Sakai TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Brachyura) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). G. J. Morgan : Chagrinichnites brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 and Chagrinich: é nites osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983 (Trace Fossils). R. M. Feldmann & J.T. Hannibal . the Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 (currently Arctocorisa germari: Insecta, Hemiptera). A. Jansson Corisa distincta Fieber, 1848 (currently Sigara ( Subsigara) distinct; Insect, ae Hemiptera). A. Jansson . Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). C. van Achterberg . Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). C. van Achterberg . tg Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 rag Si Coleoptera) M. Mroczkowski . : ; Chlorophanus Sahlberg, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Silfverberg . d Polyommatus emolus Godart, [1824] (currently Anthene emolus; Insecta, Lepidoptera). eh, ite: Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868 (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea). D. a Pawson & TBS Miller a: : Three works by R. W. Wells & C. R. Wellington: proposed suppression for nomen- clatural purposes. The President, Australian Society of Herpetologists . ; Halianassa studeri von Meyer, 1838 (Mammalia, Sirenia). D. P. Domning General article Use versus pri FP: F. S. Say Comments On the proposed conservation of Ammonites (currently Pachydiscus) neubergicus — Hauer, 1858 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea).G.Hahn . . On the proposed suppression of Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 and Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 (Aves). S. L. Olson & D. W. Steadman; M. D. oer: T. Holyoak& — J.-C. Thibault . On the proposed precedence of PSEUDOCALANIDAE ‘Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda) over CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892. T. E. Bowman . ; On the proposed precedence of Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 over Simulium posticatum Meigen, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey & H. Zwick . On the suggested introduction into the Code of the term ‘nomenclaturally valid’. L. B. Holthuis . sinensis eg diam Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1433. Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 “ Bee: Opinion 1434. Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (Trilobita) . Opinion 1435. Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita) . . . Opinion 1436. HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 ritobita) and HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). : Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset The Bulletin = sical |: [zootosy a4 Nomenclature 2 ie No me 2 Ga oer + THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1987 is £53 or $102, postage included; the rates for 1988 will be £57 or $110. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 01-589 6323 ext. 387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Vice-President Prof Dr R. Alvarado (Spain) Secretary-General Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Prof Dr R. Alvarado (Spain) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland) Dr G. Bernardi (France) Mr R. V. Melville (U.K.) Dr. KR: M. Cocks (U.K) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.) Prof C. Dupuis (France) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria) Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (U.S.S.R.) Prof Dr G. Hahn (Fed. Rep. Germany) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen (Norway) Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (U.S.S.R.) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan) Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Prof A. Willink (Argentina) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B. A. (Scientific Administrator) Mr M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Zoologist) Miss N. A. Erridge, B.Sc. (Assistant Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1987 [ ‘ 153° ( f 1 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATU RE ; : Volume 44, part 3 (pp. 153-220) 25 September 1987 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to vote on appli- cations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. This period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, 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) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments to the Code are also published for discussion. Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience wider than some small group of specialists. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for volume 44, part 2 (published on 25 June 1987): (1) Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii; Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation of specific name. (Case 2605). L. C. Rookmaaker & J. Meester. (2) Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed adoption as the correct spelling of ‘Megalocerus’ and rejection of Megaceros Owen, 1844. (Case 2606). A. M. Lister. (3) Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera): pro- posed validation of currently accepted type species. (Case 2607). M. Hansen. (4) Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2608). W. J. Pulawski. (5) Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and M. talpina Lamarck, 1810 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2609). B. W. Hoeksema. (6) Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation. (Case 2610). G. J. Morgan & L. B. Holthuis. (7) Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed designation of type species. (Case 2611). P. K. L. Ng & L. B. Holthuis. 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 (8) Palaemon longirostris, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation of specific name. (Case 2612). L. B. Holthuis. (9) Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation. (Case 2613). B. M. Jacobs & L. B. Holthuis. (10) Vipio Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of Ichneumon nominator Fabricius, 1793 as type species, (Case 2614). R. A. Wharton. (11) ICHTHYOPHIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): proposed conser- vation. (Case 2616). M. Wilkinson & R. A. Nussbaum. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration and Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The following members of the Commission reach the end of their terms of service at the close of the XXIII General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences to be held in Canberra in October 1988: Prof Dr R. Alvarado (Spain; specialist field Echinodermata); Dr G. Bernardi (France; Lepidoptera); Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) and Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands; Crustacea). A further vacancy arises from the death of Prof B. S. Zheng (People’s Republic of China; Ichthyology). The addresses and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may be found in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 44(1): 2-3 (March 1987). Under Article 3b of the Commission’s Constitution a member whose term of service has terminated is not eligible for immediate re-election unless the Council of the Commission has decided to the contrary. The Commission now invites nominations, by any person or institution, of candidates for membership. Article 2b of the Constitution prescribes that: ‘The members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature’. (It should be noted that ‘zoology’ here includes the applied biological sciences (medicine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names). Nominations, giving the date of birth, nationality and qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each candidate should be sent by 31 March 1988 to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 155 Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology A revised and updated edition of the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology has now been published. For the first time all the names and works on which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has ruled since it was set up in 1895 are brought together in a single volume. Entries are arranged in four sections giving in alphabetical order the family-group names, generic names, specific names and titles of works which have been placed on the Official Lists or the Official Indexes. There are about 9,900 entries of which 134 are for works. In addition, there is a full systematic index and a reference list to all relevant Opinions and Directions. The volume is 366 pages, size A4, casebound. Copies can be ordered from: The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 or The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to members of A.A.Z.N.) 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 On the introduction of the term ‘pragmatype’, and some comments on the role of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature R.H. L. Disney & Y. Z. Erzinclioglu University Department of Zoology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, U.K. In a note published in Nature (Disney, 1987) it was suggested that there is a need for a freedom to designate replacement types when the existing holotype or lectotype is no longer useful in the recognition of the species. Such replacement types were termed pragmatypes. The problem arises when the state of preservation of the original type is such that it is not possible to assign it with certainty to the correct species of a sibling species complex which was previously treated as a single species under the name attached to the old type specimen in question. Comments were invited. Only one in opposition has been published (Endrédy—Younga, 1987). However, several comments were received in correspondence. All supported the idea unequivocally with the exception of Dr P. K. Tubbs, Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. His principal point is discussed below. In addition to this correspondence several taxonomists have commented orally. Most of these welcomed the suggestion. Some, all based in the British Museum (Natural History), expressed reservations. However, even the latter recognised the absurdity of the present situation. Indeed several confessed, on con- dition we did not quote them by name, to a number of subterfuges being practised in order to cope with the problem highlighted in the original note in Nature. These subterfuges, in order of frequency with which they seem to be practised at present, are as follows: (1) To assert, without qualification, that sibling species x is the same as the holotype of the ‘species’ now known to be more than one species, even when this is known to be only a probability statement and not a certainty. (2) To state, untruthfully, that an application is being prepared for the ICZN for the conservation of a particular name for the commonest of the currently recognised species, after declaring that the original holotype cannot be assigned with cer- tainty to any species of the complex. This satisfies the editor of the journal to which the paper has been submitted. The fact that no such application is ever received by the ICZN passes unnoticed because of the time-lag involved with the processing of such applications that has come to be accepted as the norm. (3) To state that the holotype was accidentally destroyed or irreparably damaged and then to designate a neotype. The author omits to mention that he or she was responsible for destroying the holotype or else blames it on a third party (the postal service being the most favoured scapegoat!). Returning to the letters of Dr Tubbs, of the ICZN, he has kindly pointed out that Recommendation 75E of the Code allows for replacement types. It reads‘. . . if, despite the existence of a holotype, or a lectotype, or syntypes, it is not possible to resolve a complex zoological problem, a zoologist should refer the case to the Commission which may, by the use of the plenary powers, set aside the existing type material and designate a neotype’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 157 We find this totally unacceptable. Indeed, we consider this to be the most unfortu- nate recommendation in its wording, whatever the intention behind it. Taken at its face value we criticise it as follows: (1) Taxonomists are free to designate lectotypes or neotypes without having to apply to the Commission, and we see no reason why a taxonomist should have to apply for permission to designate replacement types (pragmatypes) if he or she deems it necessary. (2) The use of the word ‘neotype’ in Recommendation 75E is confusing. A neotype, by definition, is a type specimen designated to replace a type which has been lost or destroyed. What we are proposing is a replacement type for an existing type specimen which has outlived its taxonomic usefulness. (3) Our final, and most important, criticisms have to do with the ICZN’s view of its role, as revealed in the wording of Recommendation 75E. These are as follows: (a) The ICZN clearly sees itself as an adjudicating body which ‘may’ (or may not) permit this or that. We contend that the ICZN is an advisory, not a quasi-legal, body. (b) The ICZN now appears to pronounce upon matters which are not of a purely nomenclatural nature, since it is zoological, not nomenclatural, prob- lems that are the subject matter of Recommendation 75E. The ICZN, as a body, is not competent to deal with such matters, which must remain the province of the practising zoologist. (c) The ICZN is not a democratically elected body. It has no basis for claiming ‘plenary powers’ because it is not accountable. It is, in effect, a self-appointed body which cannot, under any circumstances, claim to have ‘powers’ of any kind, or to make ‘mandatory recommendations’ (a curious self- contradictory term) on any subject. The seriousness of the situation can best be illustrated by a hypothetical example. Let us say that there exists an insect species that is of some agricultural or medical importance. A taxonomist studying this insect may discover evidence (morphological, physiological, genetic, ecological or whatever) that, in reality, this form represents two distinct, reproductively isolated species, and that the features that distinguish them are not evident in the original type specimen. These important results cannot, according to the rules of the Commission, be properly published without its consent: in other words, without the consent of a body which is not qualified to have an opinion, since it is highly unlikely that any member of the Commission will be a specialist on the group of insects concerned. In conclusion, we feel very strongly that the role of the ICZN shoud be re-examined. The ICZN provides a very useful advisory service by producing guidelines to assist zoologists in their work, but, for the reasons cited above, we cannot accept that these guidelines are in any way binding. Guidelines from the ICZN on the criteria that justify the designation of pragmatypes would be useful in order to discourage the irresponsible setting aside of existing types. References Disney, R. H. L. 1987. Are ‘pragmatypes’ acceptable? Nature, 326: 251. Endroédy-Younga, S. 1987. Against ‘pragmatype’. Nature, 327: 664. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Reply by P. K. Tubbs Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature These comments by Drs Disney and Erzinclioglu raise some important points, some more or less specific to the problems posed by the recognition of morphologically similar sibling species and some relating to the role and constitution of the ICZN, and I should like to make some observations on them. With regard to the three ‘subterfuges’ said to be used when a type specimen may be inadequate in the light of new knowledge: the first (assignation of the type specimen to a particular one of the new species, without any justification) should be eliminated by competent ‘peer review’ and if not may later embarrass the authors. The second (‘stating untruthfully’ that an application to the ICZN is being submitted), ‘passing unnoticed because of the time-lag involved with the processing of such applications that has come to be accepted as the norm’, leads me to point out that the time for publication for new applications is now only a very few months, depending on the timing of receipt and the production schedule of the quarterly Bulletin; in any case receipt of the application is always published immediately. One can only hope that the third subterfuge (deliberate destruction of the holotype) is rarely committed, and never in major museums! Turning to the more general observations listed by Drs Disney and Erzinclioglu: (1) Itisclear that ifeveryone felt free to designate replacements when type specimens already exist, without reference to the Commission (or any other body), then the whole concept of name—bearing types would collapse. Any number of people could designate neotypes (or ‘pragmatypes’) for a species, with absurd results. If a type specimen exists but has outlived its taxonomic usefulness it should indeed be set aside, but surely this should be done not by an individual but only by the Commission on behalf of all zoologists, after publication of the suggestion and adequate time for consideration by specialists in the particular group. The Commission only acts on such advice as it receives. While an application is being discussed a zoologist may of course follow the course he or she considers best: it is not the case, as suggested by Drs Disney and Erzinclioglu, that ‘important results cannot, according to the rules of the Commission, be properly published without its consent’! The Introduction and Preamble to the Code both clearly state this. Formally designated type specimens accompanying descriptions are in any event not necessary, and in the case of sibling species may even be an impedi- ment, since names may be wanted before the taxonomic situation is sufficiently clear for the designation of name-bearing types. This is the situation referred to by Dr Endrédy-Younga. (2) The definition of ‘neotype’ in the Glossary of the Code does not mention replace- ments of extant types, but this usage is explicitly covered in Recommendation TSE. (3) Although, purely for reasons of clarity, the Code is written in legalistic style it is of course true that its provisions (like the ‘rules’ of any scientific notation) are not binding in a forceful sense: anyone can do whatever he or she likes without the imposition of a material penalty. However, the Code is accepted by most scien- tists as the foundation of the practices to be followed in forming and using Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 159 zoological names, and as being morally binding in the sense that unilateral departure from it would be widely regarded as a recipe for chaos. Incidentally the self-contradicting expression ‘mandatory recommendation’ mentioned by Drs Disney and Erzinclioglu does not appear in the Code; it may well be, however, that the matter dealt with in 75E should be in the formal Article 75. The Commission members do not see themselves as having self-granted powers; insofar as they have ‘authority’ it stems exclusively from the acceptance by zoologists of the need for some international stabilizing influence on zoological nomenclature. The phrase ‘plenary powers’ derives from a resolution of the International Congress of Zoology, meeting in Monaco in 1913; itis simply a convenient shorthand indicating the procedure, specified by the Congress, whereby the Commission can only endorse the setting aside of a Code provision after public notice and a two-thirds majority vote of its members. The election of Commission members and their accountability have presented prob- lems since the demise of the International Congresses of Zoology. Candidates for membership may be nominated by anyone, and in fact are now being solicited (see p. 154). Except for occasional casual vacancies, members are elected by open meetings held in conjunction with assemblies of the International Union of Biological Sciences, and in the future the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology and perhaps other Congresses. The Commission is answerable to the scientific community at large and it is to be hoped that others will make general or specific comments and suggestions. 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2600 Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Nautilus orbiculus Forskal, 1775 as type species Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr and Helen Tappan Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1567, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Nautilus orbiculus Forskal, 1775 as type species of Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839, an important foraminiferan genus. This is in place of Sorites dominicensis Ehrenberg, 1839, for which there is no extant type and whose identity is in doubt, although it has been considered a junior synonym of orbiculus Forskal. 1. Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839 (p. 134) was first described as the type genus of the family Soritina and originally included two nominal species, Nautilus orbiculus Forskal, 1775 (p. 125) and Ehrenberg’s new species Sorites dominicensis. Neither was indicated as type species. 2. The family name ‘Soritina’ was first proposed by Ehrenberg in 1838 (p. 200) but was then not available as Sorites was not proposed until 1839 (Article 29a); both names date from 1839. A subfamily soRITINAE was described by Wiesner (1931, p. 60, 74, 111) and the family name was spelled as SORITIDAE by Galloway (1933, p. 132). The super- family ‘Soritinidea’ described by Saidova (1981, p. 34) was spelled as Soritacea by Haynes (1981, p. 168). 3. Of the two originally included species, Sorites orbiculus (Forskal) was illustrated by Ehrenberg, and said to occur in the Red Sea and off the coast of Libya; it has since been reported as widely distributed in the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific regions (Cole, 1965, p. 21). Sorites dominicensis was briefly described as from ‘San Domingo’ by Ehrenberg but was not figured, and has not been reported as a recognised living species since the original description, although it has been placed in synonymy with various other species. 4. Although its true identity was in doubt, Sorites dominicensis was designated as the type species of Sorites by Cushman (1927, p. 190). Smout (1963, p. 259) regarded it asa nomen dubium. Loeblich & Tappan (1964, p. C496) considered it to be a synonym of Orbulites marginalis Lamarck, 1816 (p. 196), but Cole (1965, p. 20) stated that identifi- cations of S. marginalis from the Caribbean were incorrect, and that ‘Sorites dominicen- sis Ehrenberg from the Recent Caribbean can be equated reasonably with Sorites orbiculus Forskal, 1775, ... it appears that Sorites dominicensis is a junior synonym of Sorites orbiculus, thus S. orbiculus would be the type of Sorites’. This opinion appears to be generally accepted, and Sorites regarded as a genus typified by S. orbiculus. 5. A neotype was designated for Nautilus orbiculus (Smout, 1963, p. 259), but illus- trated only by two poorly reproduced photographs of the exterior; nothing can be determined of the inner structure, and the aperture cannot be resolved in the edge view. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 161 However, the species has been well described and illustrated by others, both externally and internally. 6. Thus, of the two originally included species, Nautilus orbiculus is a well known and widely distributed species, for which a neotype has been designated, whereas Sorites dominicensis is generally regarded as conspecific with N. orbiculus. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species made for the nominal genus Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839 and to designate Nautilus orbiculus Forskal, 1775; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation in (1) above, Nautilus orbiculus Forskal, 1775; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name orbiculus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Nautilus orbiculus (specific name of the type species of Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name SORITIDAE Ehrenberg, 1839 (type genus Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839). References Cole, W. S. 1965. Structure and classification of some Recent peneroplids. Bulletin of American Paleontology, 49: 1-37. Cushman, J. A. 1927. The designation of some genotypes in the Foraminifera. Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory of Foraminiferal Research, 3(4): 188-190. Ehrenberg, C. G. 1838. Uber dem blossen Auge unsichtbare Kalkthierchen und Kieselthierchen als Hauptbestandtheile der Kreidegebirge. Bericht tiber die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der K6niglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1838, 3: 192-200. Ehrenberg, C. G. 1839. Uber die Bildung der Kreidefelsen und des Kreidemergels durch unsichtbare Organismen. Physikalische Abhandlungen der Kéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1838 (1840) [1839]: 59-147. Forskal, P. 1775. Descriptiones animalium . .. 164 pp. Hauniae, Carsten Niebuhr, Copenhagen. Galloway, J. J. 1933. A Manual of Foraminifera. 483 pp. Principia Press, Bloomington, Indiana. Haynes, J. R. 1981. Foraminifera. xii+ 433 pp. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. de 1816. Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans vertébres ... vol. 2, 568 pp. Verdiéres, Paris. Loeblich, A. R. Jr & Tappan, H. 1964. Sarcodina, chiefly ‘Thecamoebians’ and Foraminiferida. Pp. Cl—C510a in Moore, R. C. (Ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part C, Protista 2. 900 pp. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A. Saidova, Kh. M. 1981. O sovremennon sostoyanii sistemy nadvidovykh taksonov Kaynozoyskikh bentosnykh foraminifer [On the up-to-date system of supraspecific taxonomy of Cenozoic benthic foraminiferida] Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 73 pp. Institut Okeanologii im P. P. Shirshova, Moscow. Smout, A. H. 1963. The genus Pseudedomia and its phyletic relationships, with remarks on Orbitolites and other complex foraminifera. Pp. 224-281, in von Koenigswald, G. H. R., Emeis, J. D., Buning, W. L. & Wagner, C. W. (Eds.) Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera. 355 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam etc. Wiesner, H. 1931. Die Foraminiferen der deutschen Siidpolar-Expedition 1901-1903. Deutsche Stidpolar-Expedition 20, Zoologie 12: 53-165. 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2599 Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847 as type species Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr and Helen Tappan Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1567, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847, previously misidentified as Orbitoides papyracea (Boubée, 1832), as the type species of the foraminiferan genus Discocyclina Gumbel, 1870. 1. Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870 (p. 687) was described as a subgenus of Orbitoides d’Orbigny in Lyell, 1848 (p. 12), elevated to generic rank by H. Douvillé (1922, p. 61, 64), and made type genus of the subfamily DIsCOCYCLININAE by Galloway (1928, p. 55). This was later elevated to family rank as DISCOCYCLINIDAE (Vaughan & Cole in Cushman, 1940, p. 327). 2. Orbitoides (Discocyclina) Giimbel (1870, p. 687-688) was described with six originally included nominal species, in order given as ‘D. papyracea Boubée, D. ephippium Schloth., D. tenella Giimb., D. aspera Giimb., D. applanata Gumb., and D. dispansa J. de Sow.’, but none was indicated as type species. 3. The first of these species, Nummulites papyracea Boubée, 1832 (p. 445), was originally described from the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of Boulogne, France, but was wrongly given the name Orbitolites gensacica by Leymerie (1851, p. 190), who stated that he preferred to use the specific name papyracea for a new Eocene species that he was describing from Biarritz, France. In this incorrect usage, he was apparently followed by Giimbel (1870), who illustrated as Orbitoides papyracea (plate III, figs. 3-6) some Paleocene—Eocene specimens from the north Alpine Nummulitenkalk; other figures he gave for Orbitoides papyracea (plate III, figs 7, 8) were of the original specimens of ‘Orbitoides pratti Michelin and Orbitoides fortisii d Arch.’ respectively, both from Biarritz and of Eocene age. 4. Also following Leymerie in the incorrect usage of the name for an Eocene species, Dollfus (1889, p. 1226) designated ‘Orbitoides papyracea Boub.’ as type species of Discocyclina. As a misidentified type species this designation requires action by the Commission under Art. 70 b of the Code. 5. Galloway (1928, p. 56), recognizing the misidentification, stated for Discocyclina: ‘Genotype (first species, here designated) Discocyclina pratti (Michelin) = Orbitulites pratti Michelin, Icon. Zoophytol., 1846, p. 278, pl. 63, fig. 14 (Upper Eocene, Biarritz, France) = Orbitoides (Discocyclina) papyracea Giimbel, 1870 (not Nummulites papyracea Boubée, 1832, which is Simplorbites).’ 6. Discocyclina and the family DIscoCcyCLINIDAE as generally recognised are restric- ted to the Paleocene and Eocene, as is D. papyracea sensu Leymerie (1851), Dollfus (1889) and Giimbel (1870), although the original Nummulites papyracea Boubée was from the late Cretaceous. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 163 7. The two nominal species that have been indicated as type species of Discocyclina, Orbitoides papyracea sensu Leymerie (1851) and Dollfus (1889), non Boubée (1832) and Orbitolites pratti sensu Galloway (1928) in fact represent a single species, mis- identified by Giimbel (following Leymerie), and are not congeneric with Nummulites papyracea Boubée. Although Orbitolites prattii was not included as a nominal species when the genus was described, the holotype was included and refigured as Orbitoides papyracea by Giimbel (1870). Its designation as type species by Galloway (1928) was not in accord with the Code but is the appropriate choice. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for Discocyclina Gimbel, 1870 and to designate Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847, as designated in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name prattii Michelin, 1847, as published in the binomen Orbitolites prattii (specific name of the type species of Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name DISCOCYCLININAE Galloway, 1928 (type genus Discocyclina Gimbel, 1970). References Boubée, N. 1832. Présentation a la Société de deux nouvelles espéces de Nummulites. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, ser. 1, 2: 444—445. Cushman, J. A. 1940. Foraminifera, their classification and economic use. 3rd Edition, 535 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Dollfus, G. F. 1889. Foraminiféres. Annuaire Géologique Universel, 5: 1217-1231. Douvillé, H. 1922. Révision des Orbitoides: Deuxiéme partie. Orbitoides du Danien et l’Eocéne. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, ser. 4, 22: 55—100. Galloway, J. J. 1928. A revision of the family ORBITOIDIDAE. Journal of Paleontology, 2: 45—69. Giimbel, C. W. von 1870. Beitrage zur Foraminiferenfauna der nordalpinen Eocangebilde. Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physikalischen Classe der K6niglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 10 (2): 581-730. Leymerie, A. 1851. Mémoire sur un nouveau type pyrénéen paralléle a la Craie proprement dite. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, ser. 2, 4 (1) (3): 177-202. Lyell, C. 1848. On the relative age and position of the so-called Nummulite Limestone of Alabama. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 4: 10-16. Michelin, H. 1841-1848. Jconographie zoophytologique. 348 pp. Bertrand, Paris. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2587 Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation Gloria Lee Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name of a fossil bivalve Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 by the suppression of the unused senior primary homonym Avicula gryphaeoides Sedgwick, 1829. 1. Sedgwick (1829, p. 119) described (without illustration) a bivalve species of Permian age from the Magnesian Limestone of Humbleton (Durham, England) thus, ‘This small species (which in external character resembles a gryphite) abounds at Humbleton. The convex valve has many very small slightly tuberculate ribs. The other valve is discoid and nearly smooth. There are several imperfect specimens of other striated species which resemble Gervillia’. This species he called Avicula gryphaeoides. Logan (1967, p. 18) cited J. de C. Sowerby (in Sedgwick, 1829) as author of A. gryphaeoides although there is no indication in Sedgwick’s (1829) publication of any person other than Sedgwick himself naming this species. 2. Taxonomic opinion has long been that A. gryphaeoides Sedgwick is a junior subjective synonym of Pseudomonotis speluncaria Schlotheim, 1816, (e.g. Morris, 1843, p. 107 and Logan, 1967, p. 24). 3. J. de C. Sowerby (in Fitton, 1836, p. 156, p. 335) described a bivalve: ‘The convex valve is nearly orbicular, with a projecting incurved beak, with two small unequal ears; when alone it may easily be mistaken for Inoceramus concentricus, but the parts about the beak, especially the ears, show the difference. The other valve is nearly flat, orbicu- lar and has one small and one large ear’. This he identified as Avicula gryphaeoides. The left valve is from the Upper Greensand, Nursted, Hampshire and the right valve from the Upper Greensand, Cambridgeshire; the material from Nursted may be that identified by J. de C. Sowerby in Murchison’s paper (1829, p. 99) as ‘Avicula. New species not yet figured’. A. gryphaeoides J, de C. Sowerby, 1836 is a junior primary homonym of A. gryphaeoides Sedgwick, 1829. 4. However, in all the consulted works referring to the binomen A. gryphaeoides subsequent to 1829, with the exception of Phillips (1839, p. 190, caption to fig. 3 attributes authorship to Sedgwick) and Phillips & Daubeny (1834, p. 617, where the text reference gives the author as J. de C. Sowerby although the text accompanying pl. 3, p. 806 attributes authorship to Sedgwick), the authorship of Avicula gryphaeoides is attributed to J. de C. Sowerby (1836). 5. Howse (1848) and Morris (1843, 1854) were aware of the dual usage of A. gryphaeoides. Howse (p. 249) comments in his description of Monotis gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby (Magnesian Limestone, Durham), ‘though that gentleman [Sowerby] had subsequently applied the same name to another very different shell, probably an Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 165 Inoceramus from the Greensand; see Geol. Trans, 2nd ser., vol. 4’. Morris (1843 & 1854) gives J. de C. Sowerby’s species two entries; one (1843, p. 106) associated with the reference Geol. Trans, sers. 2, vol. 3, p. 119, in which he lists it as a synonym of Avicula speluncaria; the other (1843, p. 106 & 1854, p. 163) refers to Geol. Trans., sers 2, vol. 4, from the Upper Greensand near Petersfield. 6. Since the time of Roemer (1841, p. 64, pl. 8) the binomen has been used in the J. de C. Sowerby sense. This concept of the species is deeply entrenched in both taxonomic and stratigraphic world literature (a representative list is held by the Commission Secretariat). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name gryphaeoides Sedgwick, 1829 as published in the binomen Avicula gryphaeoides for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836, as published in the binomen A vicula gryphaeoides; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name gryphaeoides, Sedgwick, 1829, as published in the binomen Avicula gryphaeoides and as suppressed in (1) above. References Fitton, H. 1836. Observations on some strata between the chalk of the Oxford Oolite in South East England. Transactions of the Geological Society, London, ser. 2, 4: 103-378. Howse, R. 1848. A Catalogue of the fossils of the Permian System of the Counties of Northumberland and Durham. Transactions of the Tyneside Naturalists’ field club, 1: 219-264. Logan, A. 1967. Permian Bivalves of Northern England. Palaeontographical Society (Mono- graph) 72 pp. Palaeontographical Society of London. Morris, J. 1843. Catalogue of British Fossils. Edition 1, 222 pp. J. van Voorst, London. Morris, J. 1854. Catalogue of British Fossils. Edition 2, 372 pp. J. Morris, London. Murchison, R. I. 1829. Geological sketches of the North-Eastern extremity of Sussex, and the adjoining parts of Hants. and Surrey. Transactions of the Geological Society, London, ser. 2, 2: 97-108. Phillips, J. 1839-41. D. Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopedia, Treatise on Geology. Vol. 1, edition 2, 334 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman, London. Phillips, J. & Daubeny, C. G. B. 1834. Encyclopedia Metropolitana. Vol. 4 (Geology) 800 pp. Baldwin & Craddock, London. Roemer, F. A. 1841. Die Versteinerungen des nord—deutschen Kreidegebirges. 145 pp. E. Lieferung, Hannover. Schlotheim, E. F. von. 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte durch die Beschriebung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler uberreste des Thier-und Pflanzer- reichs der Vorwelt erlautert. 437 pp. Sedgwick, A. 1829. On the geological relations and internal structure of the Magnesian Lime- stone, and the lower positions of the New Red Sandstone Series in their range through Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Durham. Transactions of the Geological Society, London, ser. 2, 3: 35-124. 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2588 Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of original spelling Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli Via Mater Dolorosa 54, 90146 Palermo, Italy Abstract. The purpose of this application is the confirmation of the original spelling of Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830. Throughout the literature both this generic name and the incorrect subsequent spellings Haminaea Leach, 1847 and Haminea Gray, 1847 have been used, causing nomenclatural confusion. 1. Turton & Kingston in Carrington (1830) described the genus Haminoea, type species Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 by monotypy. 2. Leach (1847, (Sept.) p. 268) listed the genus Haminaea. This name is not a nomen nudum as stated by Sherborn (1927, p. 2907) and Neave (1939, p. 560), because it had several specific names, validly described, attributed to it (e.g. B. hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 and B. elegans Gray, 1825). 3. Gray (ex Leach ms) (1847, (Nov.) p. 161) mentioned the genus Haminea and designated B. hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. 4. Itisclear that Haminaea and Haminea are incorrect subsequent spellings and are therefore unavailable names. However, the present usage of all these names seems to be random e.g. Haminea: Edlinger, 1982, p. 593; Giusti & Selmi, 1982, p. 172; Haminoea: Terreni, 1981, p. 43; Vitturi et al., 1985, p. 701; Haminaea: D’ Angelo & Gargiullo, 1978, p. 159; Van Aartsen et al., 1984, p. 47 (a more complete representative list is held by the Secretariat), and I suggest that in the interest of nomenclatural stability the generic name Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830 be placed on the Official List. 5. In addition, the family-group name HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (p. 351) is founded on an incorrect spelling and should be corrected to HAMINOEIDAE (Art. 35d (i)). Like the generic name this has also been spelt in various ways. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 by monotypy; (2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name HAMINOEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (correction of HAMINEIDAE), type genus Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the names Haminaea Leach, 1847 and Haminea Gray, 1847 (incorrect subsequent spellings of Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (an incorrect spelling of HAMINOEIDAE). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 167 References D’Angelo, G. & Gargiullo, S. 1978. Guida alle Conchiglie Mediterranee conoscerle cercarle collezionarle. 223 pp. Fabbri Editori, S.p.A., Milano. Edlinger, K. 1982. Colour adaption in Haminea navicula. Malacologia, 22 (1-2): 593-600. Giusti, F. & Selmi, M. G. 1982. The atypical sperm in the prosobranch molluscs. Malacologia, 22 (1-2): 171-181. Gray, J. E. 1847 (Nov.). A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyms and types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-242. Leach, W. E. 1847 (Sept.), The classification of the British Mollusca. Annals and Magazine of the Natural History Society, ser. 1, 20: 267-273. Neave, S. A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus. Vol. 2, D—L, 1025 pp. Zoological Society of London. Pilsbry, H. A. (1895) Tryon’s manual of Conchology; structural and systematic. Vol. 15, 436 pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Sherborn, C. A. 1927. Index Animalium. H-L, 2885-3746 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Terreni, G. 1981. Molluschi conchiferi del mare antistante la Costa Toscana. 100 pp. Museo di Storia Naturale, Livorno, Italy. Turton & Kingston, 1830. Jn Carrington, Guide to the Watering Places. Vol. 2, The Natural History of the District. sig. F8 (no pagination). Van Aartsen, J. J., Menkhorst, H. & Gittenberger, E. 1984. Marine Mollusca from Algeciras. Basteria, Supplement, 2: 1-134. Vitturi, R., Catalano, E., Macaluso, M. & Parrinello, N. 1985. The chromosomes in certain species of the sub class Opisthobranchia. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 104 (6): 701—710. 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2591 Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoidea): proposed conservation JN: Caira Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, U-43, Room 312, 75 N. Eagleville Road, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the tapeworm generic name Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 by the suppression of the disused Discocephalum Linton, 1891, thereby eliminating the homonymy between the family group names DISCOCEPHALIDAE Pintner, 1928 (Cestoidea, Lecanicephalidea) and DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Hemiptera). 1. Homonymy exists between the family—group names DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Hemiptera) and DISCOCEPHALIDAE Pintner, 1928 (Cestoidea, Lecanicephalidea). Both names are correctly derived; the former by Fieber (1861, p. 77) from Discocephala La Porte, 1833, the latter by Pintner (1928, p. 87) from Discocephalum Linton, 1891. 2. Joyeux & Baer (1935, p. 499) recognized that DISCOCEPHALIDAE Pintner, 1928 was a junior homonym of DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861 and suggested that the new generic name Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 replace Discocephalum Linton, 1891, and the family name DISCULICIPITIDAE Joyeux & Baer, 1935 replace DISCOCEPHALIDAE Pintner, 1928. Wardle & McLeod (1952, p. 272) pointed out that the family name should be DISCULICEPITIDAE, not DISCULICIPITIDAE. However, the case was not referred to the Commission. 3. Although there are-no formal grounds for preferring conservation of one family group name over another, in view of the following facts it is requested that the hemip- teran names be conserved. Firstly, the hemipteran names antedate those of the cestode. Secondly, the cestode genus Discocephalum (as Disculiceps) is currently monotypic (Discocephalum pileatum Linton, 1891 (p. 781)), whereas the hemipteran genus Discocephala La Porte, 1833 currently contains 4 species (Froeschner, in Jit, Museum card files, U.S. National Museum). Thirdly and most importantly, the replacement name (Disculiceps) for the cestode genus has already been published by Joyeux & Baer (1935, p. 499) and has subsequently been used exclusively (e.g. Schmidt (1986, p. 120); Wardle & McLeod (1952, p. 270); Yamaguti (1959, p. 101)). In view of this third point it is requested that, to maintain stability, rather than changing the stem of the cestode name, the name Discocephalum Linton, 1891 be suppressed, so conserving Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Discocephalum Linton, 1891 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 169 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (gender: masculine), type species by indi- cation under Art. 67h Discocephalum pileatum Linton, 1891; (b) Discocephala La Porte, 1833 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Discocephala marmorea La Porte, 1833; (3) to place on the Official List of Family—Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) DISCULICEPITIDAE (correction of DISCULICIPITIDAE) Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (type genus Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935) (Cestoidea, Lecanicephalidea); (b) DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861 (type genus DISCOCEPHALA La Porte, 1833) (Insecta, Hemiptera); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Discocephalum Linton, 1891 as suppressed in (1) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name DISCOCEPHALIDAE Pinter, 1928 (a junior homonym of DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861). Acknowledgement I wish to thank Drs J. A. Slater, C. W. Schaefer, and J. E. O'Donnell (all of the University of Connecticut, U.S.A.) for their assistance in researching the background of the hemipteran names for this application. In addition, I would like to thank Dr Shirley Butler of the University of Queensland, Australia, for bringing the case to my attention. References Fieber, T. 1861. Die Europdischen Hemiptera Halbflugler (Rhynchota Heteroptera). 444 pp. Gerold vi, Vienna. (Introductory generic key published 1860). Joyeux, C. & Baer, J. G. 1935. Notices Helminthologiques. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 60: 482-501. La Porte, F. L. 1833. Essai d’une classification systematique de l’ordre des Hemiptéres (Hémip- teres—Heétéropteéres Latr.). Magazine de Zoologie, 1, (52—55): 88 pp. Linton, E. 1891. Notes on entozoa of marine fishes of New England, with descriptions of several new species. II. Report United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1887, 15: 719-889. Pintner, T. 1928. Die Sogenannte Gamobothriidae Linton, 1899. Zoologische Jahrbuecher. Abteilung fuer Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere, 50: 55—116. Schmidt, G. D. 1986. Handbook of Tapeworm Identification. 675 pp. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton. Wardle, R. A. & McLeod, J. A. 1952. The Zoology of Tapeworms. 780 pp. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Yamaguti, S. 1959. Systema Helminthum. Il. The Cestodes of Vertebrates. 860 pp. Interscience Publications, New York. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2423 Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed confirmation of type species H. Malz Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberganlage 25, D-6000, Frankfurt am Main 1, W. Germany A. J. Ketj Klarinetstraat 30, 2287 BN, Ryswyk, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is the confirmation of Loxoconcha honolu- liensis Brady, 1880 (a Hawaiian species that has been misidentified with a similar Australian species), as the type species of Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954. 1. The genus Loxoconchella was proposed by Triebel (1954, p. 17) on the basis of an Australian species which occurs off Adelaide and Melbourne. Triebel misidentified the species as Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880 (p. 117). 2. McKenzie (1967, p. 88) described another Loxoconchella species from Ricketts Point, Australia, naming it L. pulchra. He compared it with L. honoluluensis (a mis- spelling of honoluliensis), but omitted to point out the synonymy between his new species and Triebel’s specimens of ‘L. honoluliensis’. 3. Keij (1978, p. 227) was the first to recognise that Triebel’s specimens had been misidentified, and he included Loxoconchella honoluliensis sensu Triebel, 1954 as a synonym of Loxoconchella pulchra McKenzie, 1967. Accordingly the genus Loxocon- chella Triebel, 1954 is based on a misidentified type species. 4. Since Loxoconchella is based taxonomically on Triebel’s specimens, it could be argued that L. pulchra McKenzie, 1967 (including L. honoluliensis sensu Triebel, 1954) should be designated as the type species of the genus. However, L. honoluliensis sensu Triebel, 1954 is a subjective synonym of L. pulchra McKenzie, 1967 and as such it is an unsatisfactory taxon to be cited as type species of Loxoconchella. 5. Puri & Hulings (1976, p. 297) redescribed Brady’s syntypes of the Challenger Expedition, designated a lectotype of Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880, and referred to it as the type species of Loxoconchella; L. honoluliensis is thus taxonomically secure. 6. As regards the difference between Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880 and ‘Loxoconchella honoluliensis’ sensu Triebel, 1954 it will most certainly remain at the specific level, as the two are clearly congeneric. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to confirm that Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880 is the type species of Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 171 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Loxocon- chella Triebel, 1954 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name honoluliensis Brady, 1880, as published in the binomen Loxoconcha honoluliensis and as inter- preted by the lectotype designated by Puri & Hulings (1976) (specific name of the type species of Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954). References Brady, G. S. 1880. Report on the Ostracoda dredged by HMS Challenger during the years 1873-76. Report on the Scientific Results of the voyage of HMS Challenger during the years 1873-76, 1 (3): 1-184. Keij, A. J. 1978. Remarks on the Indo-Pacific ostracod genus Loxoconchella. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, ser. B, 81 (2): 215-229. McKenzie, K. G. 1967. Recent Ostracoda from Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 80 (1): 61-106. Puri, H. S. & Hulings, N. C. 1976. Designation of lectotypes of some ostracods from the Challenger Expedition. Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History). Zoology, 29 (5): 249-315. Triebel, E. 1954. Loxoconchella n.g. (Crust., Ostr.). Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 35: 17-21. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2336 Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) and Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation C. van Achterberg Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Chelonus Panzer, 1806 for a braconid wasp. It is threatened by a junior subjective synonym, Anomala von Block, 1799, unused since its proposal, which is also a senior homonym of a large coleopteran genus, Anomala Samouelle, 1819. Conservation of the latter is also requested. 1. In 1799 von Block (p. 119) proposed the genus Anomala (with a single new species, Anomala integra) for a Braconid wasp. The name has never been used again; no type specimen exists, but the figure and description correspond to Chelonus oculator sensu Herrich-Schaffer (1838), nec Fabricius (1775) and Panzer (1799). 2. The generic name Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (p. 99, type species by designation by Curtis (1837, p. 672) Ichneumon oculator Fabricius, 1775 (p. 338)) is now used for a cosmopolitan group of more than 400 described species parasitic on the caterpillars of many families of moths, often of economic importance. Chelonus is the basis of the family-group name CHELONINAE Foerster, 1862, included in the BRACONIDAE. A representative list of publications referring to Chelonus has been given to the Commission Secretariat. 3. Anomala von Block, 1799 is a senior homonym of Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (p. 191) (Coleoptera), a name used for about 1000 described species, some well-known, in the SCARABAEIDAE. The type species of Anomala Samouelle is Melolontha frischii Fabricius, 1775 (p. 37) by monotypy. 4. A possible difficulty with Anomala Samouelle, 1819 arises from subjective syn- onymy with Euchlora Macleay, 1819 (type species Melolontha viridis Fabricius, p. 34). Anomala Samouelle can definitely be dated from June 1819, as recorded in the lists published in the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12: 592. Macleay’s Euchlorawas published in the Appendix (p. 147) to the first part of his Horae Entomolo- gicae, dated 1819 on the frontispiece. In the volume before the Appendix, and also in the Appendix itself, are references (with page numbers) to a paper by Kirby (1818); Mr R. D. Pope (British Museum (Natural History) ) has pointed out to me that this indi- cates a publication date for Euchlora after June 1819, making it junior to Anomala Samouelle. 5. A revived usage of Anomala von Block, 1799, would lead to abandonment of its junior synonym Chelonus Panzer, 1806 and of its homonym Anomala Samouelle, 1819, thereby destabilizing the names of large and well-known genera in both Hymenoptera and Coleoptera. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 173 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Anomala von Block, 1799 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Melolontha frischii Fabricius, 1775; (b) Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Curtis (1837), Ichneumon oculator Fabricius, 1775; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) frischii Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Melolontha frischii (specific name of the type species of Anomala Samouelle, 1819); (b) oculator Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen /chneumon oculator (specific name of the type species of Chelonus Panzer, 1806); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Anomala von Block, 1799, as suppressed in (1) above. References Block, L. H. yon 1799. Verzeichnis der merkwiirdigsten Insekten. Pp. 95—120 in Becker, W. G. ‘Der Plauische Grund bei Dresden, mit Hinsicht auf Naturgeschichte und schone Gartenkunst. Nurnberg. Curtis, J. 1837. British Entomology, vol. 14, 47 plates. London. Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae . . . xxx+ 832 pp. Flensburgi & Lipsiae. Kirby, W. F. 1818. A description of several new species of insects collected in New Holland by Robert Brown, Esq., F.R.S. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12: 454—482. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae. Ed. 12, vol. 1 (2). 533-1327 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. Macleay, W. S. 1819. Horae Entomologicae, or essays on the Annulose Animals. Vol. I, part I, Appendix. xxx+ 160 pp. London. Panzer, G. W. L. 1806. Kritische Revision der Insektenfaune Deutschlands, nach dem System bearbeitet ... vol. 2.271 pp. Felssecker, Nurnberg. Samouelle, G. 1819. The Entomologist’s Useful Compendium . . .496 pp. London. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2593 Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (currently Ceutorhynchus assimilis; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Hans Silfverberg Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Entomologiska Avdelningen, N. Jarnsvdgsgatan 13, SF-00100, Helsingfors 10, Finland Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the weevil name Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792, a junior homonym of Curculio assimilis Fabricius, 1775 (unused since 1840). The former has long been considered the type species of Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824 and the present author has requested in a previous application that it be formally designated as such (see BZN 36: 252-256). 1. Fabricius (1775, p. 134) described the species Curculio assimilis. The species was then mentioned only occasionally, but not at all after 1840 (cf. Kuschel, 1970), except by Zimsen (1964, p. 221) in her list of Fabrician types. Kuschel (1970, p. 194) gives the name as a junior subjective synonym of Lasiorhynchites barbicornis (Fabricius, 1775) in the BRENTHIDAE. 2. Paykull (1792, p. 69) described another Curculio assimilis. This species was later included in Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824 (p. 214). It is well known and economically important, and has for a long time been considered the type species of Ceutorhynchus. References to the use of assimilis Paykull as a valid name, in addition to those listed by Silfverberg (1980), are held in the office of the Secretariat. 3. Ceutorhynchus assimilis (Paykull) is a junior primary homonym and normally should be replaced. However, such an action is definitely not in the interest of stability, and suppression of its unused senior homonym is now requested as an addition to the proposals listed in BZN 36: 253-255 [note: a ruling on that case has not yet been made because of the present Curculio assimilis homonymy, which was not realised previously]. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name assimilis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Curculio assimilis, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name assimilis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Curculio assimilis and as suppressed in (1) above. References Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. 832 pp. Flensburgi & Lipsiae. Germar, E. F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae. 624 pp. Halae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 175 Kuschel, G. 1970. New Zealand Curculionoidea from Captain Cook’s voyages (Coleoptera). New Zealand Journal of Sciences, 13: 191-205. Paykull, G. 1792. Monographia Curculionum Sueciae. 151 pp. Upsaliae. Silfverberg, H. 1980. Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824 and Rhinoncus Schénherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation and designation of type species by use of the plenary powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 36: 252-256. Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I. C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2602 Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Graphoderus cinereus; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed replacement of neotype A. N. Nilsson Department of Animal Ecology, University of Umeda, S-901 87, Umea, Sweden G.N. Foster 20 Angus Avenue, Prestwick, Ayrshire KA9 2HZ, Scotland Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate a suitable neotype for Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, a common water diving beetle. The previous specimen designated as neotype is actually a specimen of Graphoderus bilineatus (De Geer, 1774). 1. Balfour—Browne (1960, p. 246) argued in favour of the use of the Commission’s plenary powers to designate a neotype for Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, not taken from the mixture of specimens standing under that name in Linnaeus’ collection. 2. The Commission (Opinion 618; BZN 18: 365-368) accepted the argument in favour of selection of such a neotype. This proposal is not in dispute. 3. Prior to the ruling it was suggested (BZN 18: 366) that the specimen originally intended for designation as a neotype was unsuitable because its locality could not be defined except by inference. Consequently an alternative specimen was deposited in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History), labelled ‘Catfield 9. VIII.1905’ and collected by F. Balfour—Browne. Its photograph was published by the Commission (BZN 18: pl. 5, opposite p. 367) and it was formally designated as neotype. 4. Angus (1976, p. 2) discovered that three species had been previously confused in the British list under the name cinereus. These were bilineatus De Geer, zonatus Hoppe and the true cinereus Linnaeus. The neotype of ‘cinereus’ was identified as a specimen of Graphoderus bilineatus (De Geer, 1774, p. 400) (E. J. van Nieukerken, pers. comm.). 5. If the neotype is retained and the Code is strictly applied Dytiscus bilineatus De Geer becomes a junior objective synonym of D. cinereus Linnaeus, leaving the species currently known as cinereus without a name. 6. A specimen of the species currently known as Graphoderus cinereus (Linnaeus, 1758) has been deposited in Lund Museum, Sweden. Its identity as that species has been confirmed by R. B. Angus, G. N. Foster and A. N. Nilsson and it bears their identifica- tion labels plus the locality data ‘S: NA, Kvismaren 11/6 1982 Leg. Fagelstn’ [Sweden, Province Narke, Lake Kvismaren] and red labels ‘Neotypus’and‘Neotype 3 Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 des. A. Nilsson 1986’. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside the previous designation of a neotype for Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 177 (b) to designate the specimen referred to in paragraph 6 above and deposited in Lund Museum as neotype for Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758. References Angus, R. B. 1976. A preliminary note on the British species of Graphoderus Sturm, with the additions of G. bilineatus De Geer and G. zonatus Hoppe to the British List. Balfour—-Browne Club Newsletter, 1: 1-3. Balfour—Browne, J. 1960. Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a neotype for Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Graphoderus Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 17: 246-249. De Geer, C. 1774. Mémoires pour servir a histoire des Insectes, vol. 4. Stockholm. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2586 Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 (currently I/ybius ater) and Dytiscus planus Fabricius, 1781 (currently Hydroporus planus; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names Anders N. Nilsson Department of Animal Ecology, University of Umea, S-901 87 Umea, Sweden Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 for a species of water diving beetle. It is threatened by Dytiscus ater Forster, 1771, an unused senior homonym of the De Geer name which is also an unused senior synonym of another commonly used beetle name, Dytiscus planus Fabricius, 1781 (currently Hydroporus planus). 1. Forster (1771, p. 54) established the name Dytiscus ater for an aquatic beetle from ‘Anglia’. However, in spite of its priority, Schonherr (1808, p. 35) listed this name only as a synonym of Hyphydrus planus (Fabricius, 1781, p. 501). 2. Stephens (1828, p. 61) described a species, Hydroporus ater, which he clearly thought might be Forster’s Dytiscus ater. Schaum (1847, p. 1892) concluded that both Dytiscus ater Forster and Hydroporus ater Stephens were synonyms of Hydroporus planus (Fabricius). Later, both Gemminger & Harold (1868, p. 439) and Zimmermann (1920, p. 99) confirmed this synonymy. 3. Zaitsev (1908, p. 120) noted that ater Forster had priority, but in his later works (e.g. Zaitsev, 1953, p. 164) continued to use planus Fabricius as the valid name with no reference to Forster. Zimmermann (1931, p. 132) noted Zaitsev’s action but also found it unnecessary to change the name. All subsequent authors have accepted this opinion and used Hydroporus planus as the valid name. A list of 10 representative references is held by the Commission’s Secretariat. 4. De Geer (1774, p. 401) also established the name Dytiscus ater for an aquatic beetle. Erichson (1832, p. 34) included this species (erroneously attributing it to Fabricius) in his new genus //ybius. 5. The name J/ybius ater (De Geer) has since been in continuous use (a list of representative references is held by the Commission’s Secretariat). Only Zaitsev (1908, p. 121) noted the homonymy with Dytiscus ater Forster, 1771 and suggested that Ilybius ater (De Geer) should be replaced by I. guadrinotatus (Stephens, 1828, p. 83). However, Zaitsev in his later works (e.g. 1953, p. 278) still used J. ater (De Geer) as the valid name. 6. The identity of Stephens’ Colymbetes quadrinotatus is in doubt and Schaum’s statement (1847, p. 1895) that it was described from a specimen of J. ater is contradicted by, amongst others, Zimmermann & Gschwendtner (1935, p. 86) who list quadrinotatus as a synonym of J/ybius guttiger (Gyllenhal). As Stephens’ type material cannot be identified from his collection and the original description does not fit J/ybius ater (De Geer), this would not be a suitable replacement name. As far as I can ascertain Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 179 there are no other names available for replacement and a nomen novum would also upset stability. Since Forster’s senior homonym is unused it would seem preferable, for stability of nomenclature, to suppress that name thereby retaining the more familiar ater De Geer and at the same time conserving planus Fabricius. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name afer Forster, 1771, as published in the binomen Dytiscus ater, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) ater De Geer, 1774, as published in the binomen Dytiscus ater; (b) planus Fabricius, 1781 as published in the binomen Dytiscus planus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name ater Forster, 1771, as published in the binomen Dytiscus ater and as suppressed in (1) above. References De Geer, C. 1774. Mémoires pour servir a histoire des insectes. Vol. 4. 456 pp. Stockholm. Erichson, G. F. 1832. Genera Dytiscorum. 48 pp. Berolini. Fabricius, J. C. 1781. Species Insectorum. Vol. 2. 517 pp. Hamburgi et Kilonii. Forster, J. R. 1771. Novae species Insectorum 1. 100 pp. Londini. Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. de 1868. Catalogus Coleopterorum. Vol. 2. 425-752. Monachii. Schaum, H. 1847. Revision of British Hydrocantharidae. The Zoologist 5, no. 58: 1887-1897. Schonherr, C. J. 1808. Synonymia Insectorum I (2). 424 pp. Stockholm. Stephens, J. F. 1828. I/lustrations of British Entomology. Mandibulata II. 200 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. Zaitsey, F. A. 1908 (1907). Berichtigungen und Zusatze zu den Haliplidae, Dytiscidae und Gyrinidae in den neusten Katalogen der Coleopteren. Russkoe Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 7: 114-124. Zaitsev, F. A. 1953. Coleoptera: Amphizoidae, Hygrobiidae, Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae. Fauna SSSR New Series 58: 1-376. Zimmermann, A. 1920. Dytiscidae. Coleopterorum Catalogus. W. Junk. 4(71) 296 pp. Zimmermann, A. 1931. Monographie der palaarktischen Dytiscidae. II. Hydroporinae (2. Teil) Koleopterologische Rundschau 17: 97-159. Zimmermann, A. & Gschwendtner, L. 1935. Monographie der paldarktischen Dytiscidae. VI. Colymbetinae (2. Teil.) Koleopterologische Rundschau 21: 61-92. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2584 Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation of Platygaster arcticus Zetterstadt, 1838, as type species Neal L. Evenhuis J. Linsley Gressitt Center, Department of Entomology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838, as the type species of Glabellula, a genus of minute flies (family BOMBYLIIDAE), and to confirm that this generic name is a replacement name for Platygaster Zetterstedt, 1838. 1. The genus Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 consists of minute flies in the family BOMBYLIIDAE, which have an almost worldwide distribution (Schliiter, 1976, p. 355). Twenty species (including one in amber) have been described, and many more await description. Immatures are rarely found, though they have been recorded as inquilines in the nests of Formica spp. (de Meijere, 1924, p. xxxv and Andersson, 1974, p. 29). 2. The genus was originally described as Platygaster by Zetterstedt (1838, p. 574) with the type species Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838, by monotypy. Zetterstedt (1842, p. 233), noting that his generic name was a junior homonym of Platygaster Latreille, 1809, in the Hymenoptera, proposed the replacement name Sphaerogaster. 3. Contemporary workers and subsequent catalogues have listed Sphaerogaster Zetterstedt, 1842 as a junior homonym of Sphaerogaster Dejean, 1821 (p. 95) in the Coleoptera. Sherborn (1930, p. 6060) and Neave (1940, p. 240), however, list Dejean’s Sphaerogaster as a nomen nudum and record Sturm (1826, p. 34) as a secondary reference for the name. Sturm’s use of Sphaerogaster makes it available because it was listed in his key to genera (p. 197) and so Sphaerogaster Sturm, 1826 is a senior homonym of Sphaerogaster Zetterstedt, 1842. S 4. Loew (1873, p. 208) described a new genus, Glabella, for his new species femorata from Turkestan. In Loew’s remarks concerning Glabella (1873, p. 210) he indicated that this genus was possibly similar to Zetterstedt’s Sphaerogaster but he could not be sure because of the vagueness of Zetterstedt’s description. Loew also noted that Sphaerogaster Zetterstedt, 1842, was preoccupied and that ifthe two genera were found to be the same Glabella could be used in place of Sphaerogaster. However, Glabella Loew, 1873 cannot be used as a replacement name for two reasons: it was erected as a separate genus with its own type species and it is a junior homonym of Glabella Swainson, 1840 in the Mollusca. 5. Bezzi (1902, p. 191) proposed a replacement name Glabellula with the statement ‘Glabellula, nom. nov. fiir Platygaster Zett. 1838 nec Latr. 1809 (Hym.), und Sphaerogaster Zett. 1842 nec Dej. 1831 [sic] (Col.), und Glabella Loew 1873 nec Swains. (Moll.)’. Because the type species of Platygaster (P. arcticus) and Glabella(G. femorata) are different, confusion exists over which becomes the type species for the nominal genus Glabellula. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 181 6. The earliest indirect designation of a type species is found in Sharp (1903, p. 257) in the Zoological Record for the year 1902, in which he states that Glabellula (erroneously listed under Stratiomyidae) is a replacement name for Platygaster Zetterstedt, 1838. Sharp’s interpretation was followed in subsequent catalogs, e.g. Painter & Painter (1965, p. 415), Painter et al. (1978, p. 13). However, Bowden (1975, p. 166 & 1980, p. 384) treats Glabellula as a replacement name for Glabella Loew, 1873. 7. The name Glabellula has been most commonly used for this genus since Bezzi’s (1902) paper, and is listed as such in all major Diptera catalogs since Bezzi (1903). Platygaster arcticus is the most widely known species and it is morphologically typical of the species in the genus. Glabella femorata is the least known (apparently only from two papers other than the original description), and is morphologically atypical of the genus. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to set aside all previous designations of type species for Glabellula Bezzi, 1902, and to designate Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838, as the type species; (2) to confirm that Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 is a replacement name for Platygaster Zetterstedt 1838; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above, Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name arcticus, as published in the binomen Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838 (specific name of the type species of Glabellula Bezzi, 1902); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Platygaster Zetterstedt, 1838 (a junior homonym of Platygaster Latreille, 1809); (b) Glabella Loew, 1873 (a junior homonym of Glabella Swainson, 1840); (c) Sphaerogaster Zetterstedt, 1842 (a junior homonym of Sphaerogaster Sturm, 1826). References Andersson, H. 1974. Studies of the myrmecophilous fly, Glabellula arctica (Zett.) (Diptera, Bombyliidae). Entomologica Scandinavia, 5(1): 29-38. Bezzi, M. 1902. Neue Namen fiir einige Dipteren-Gattungen. Zeitschrift fiir Systematische Hymenopterologie und Dipterologie, 2: 190-192. Bezzi, M. 1903. Orthorrhapha Brachycera. Pp. 1-396, in Becker, T., M. Bezzi, J. Bischof, K. Kertész & P. Stein, Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren, vol. 2, 396 pp. Bowden, J. 1975. Family Bombyliidae. Pp. 165-184, in Delfinado, M. D. & Hardy, D. E. (eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. 11. Suborder Brachycera through Division Aschiza, suborder Cyclorrhapha, 459 pp. University Press, Hawaii. Bowden, J. 1980. Family Bombyliidae. Pp. 381-430, in Crosskey, R. W. (ed.), Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region, 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Dejean, J. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, 136 pp. Chevot, Paris. De Meijere, J. C. H. 1924. [Note: Glabellula arctica Zett. fn. n. sp. in nest van Formica exsecta Nyl.] Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 67: xxxiv—XxxVvi. Loew, H. 1873. Beschreibung europdischer Dipteren. Band III. 320 pp. Halle. 44. 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Neave, S. A. 1940. Nomenclator zoologicus. Vol. 1V, Q-Z and supplement. 758 pp. Zoological Society of London. Painter, R. H. & Painter, E. M. 1965. Family Bombyliidae. Pp. 407-446, in Stone, A., C. W. Sabrosky, W. W. Wirth, R. H. Foote & J. R. Coulson (eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico, 1696 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, Dic. Painter, R. H., Painter, E. M. & Hall, J. C. 1978. Family Bombyliidae. Pp. 1-92, in A catalog of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States, vol. 38, 92 pp. Museo de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo. Schliiter, T. 1976. The genus Glabellula (Diptera: Bombyliidae) from the Oligocene fossiliferous resin of the Dominican Republic. Entomologica Germanica 2(4): 355-363. [In German]. Sharp, J. 1903. XIII. Insecta. Pp. 1-313, in Sharp, J. (ed.), The Zoological Record, vol. 39. Zoological Society, London. Sherborn, C. D. 1930. Index Animalium . . . 1801-1850 Part XXIV. Index serratus-squamosus. Pp. 5911-6118. British Museum (Natural History), London. Sturm, J. 1826. Catalog meiner Insecten-Sammlung. 207 pp. Nurnberg. Zetterstedt, J. W. 1838. Insecta Lapponica descripta. Section 3, Diptera, pp. 477-868. Lipsae. Zetterstedt, J. W. 1842. Diptera Scandinaviae. Disposita et descripta. Vol. 1, 440 pp. Lundae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 183 Case 2578 Pararatus Ricardo, 1913 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation of Pararatus ricardoae Daniels, 1987 as type species G. Daniels Department of Entomology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia 4067 Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate a type species for the robber fly genus Pararatus Ricardo, 1913 (family ASILIDAE) which, at present, has the mis- identified type species Blepharotes macrostylus Loew, 1874. It is proposed that the new species P. ricardoae Daniels, 1987 be designated type species of Pararatus. 1. Ricardo (1913, p. 429) erected Pararatus for the single nominal species Blepharotes macrostylus Loew, 1874 (p. 75) and designated it the type species. 2. Comparison of the holotype of B. macrostylus in the Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt Universitat, Berlin, with the three recognisable specimens of ‘P. macro- stylus’ used by Ricardo in the British Museum (Natural History), London, shows that the two are neither conspecific nor congeneric. It is clear that Ricardo mis- identified the specimens before her when she designated B. macrostylus as the type species of Pararatus. However, Pararatus is accepted for the species macrostylus sensu Ricardo. 3. To preserve the usage of Pararatus I here propose that ‘P. macrostylus’ as under- stood by Ricardo be referred to a new species, Pararatus ricardoae. There is no pre- viously available name for this taxon, and to preserve the concept of Pararatus intended by Ricardo it is requested that P. ricardoae be designated as the type species of Pararatus. Of the six specimens that Ricardo had before her when she described Pararatus only three could be recognised with certainty in the British Museum (Natural History) in 1983. The male specimen with damaged genitalia and labelled “Mallee district, Victoria, Mr French’s Collection’ and referred to by Ricardo (1913 p. 429) is here chosen as the holotype of Pararatus ricardoae. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species made for the nominal genus Pararatus Ricardo, 1913 and to designate Pararatus ricardoae Daniels, 1987 as type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Pararatus Ricardo, 1913 (gender: masculine), type species Pararatus ricardoae Daniels, 1987, by designation in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ricardoae Daniels, 1987, as published in the binomen Pararatus ricardoae (specific name of the type species of Pararatus Ricardo, 1913). 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 References Loew, H. 1874. Ueber die Arten der Gattung Blepharotes Westw. Zeitschrift fiir die Gesammten Naturwissenschaften, 44: 71—75. Ricardo, G. 1913. A review of the Asilidae of Australasia. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 8, 11: 429-451. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 185 Case 2550 ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence over AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 J. A. Powell Department of Entomological Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the long established and widely used moth family name ETHMMDAE Busck, 1909. The older name AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906, intended for some species now considered to be congeneric with the type genus of ETHMIIDAE, has not been used since its original publication. 1. Ethmia was proposed by Hubner ([1819] p. 163, as ‘Ethmiae’) as a monotypic genus for Phalaena pyrausta Hiibner, [1819] (p. 163) (=aurifluella Hubner, 1825), a European species. During the late 19th century the species now assigned to Ethmia were associated with the YPONOMEUTIDAE (=HYPONOMEUTIDAE) on the basis of superficial resemblances. 2. Azinis was proposed by Walker (1863, p. 541) as a monotypic genus for his new species Azinis hilarella Walker, 1863 from Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and was assigned to the family HYPONOMEUTIDAE. 3. Fundamental differences that,are reflected in the present superfamily separation of Yponomeutoidea and Gelechioidea were recognised by von Heinemann (1870, p. 137), who placed Ethmia (as Psecadia) in the GELECHTIDAE, but this concept was not followed generally until the turn of the century. Within the Gelechioidea ethmiids were assigned to the OECOPHORIDAE (e.g. Meyrick, 1895, p. 630; Dyar, 1902, p. 523). 4. The name AZINIDAE was established by Walsingham (1906, p. 177) when it was mentioned in a critique of a discussion by Busck (1906, p. 728) of Tamarrha Walker, 1864 and Babaiaxa Busck, 1902, which include West Indian and Central American species now assigned to Ethmia. Lord Walsingham stated, ‘I would now rather incline to placing Tamarrha with the AZINIDAE, founded on an Asiatic genus and characterised by the continuation of the discoidal vein direct to vein 8.’ This seems to imply that AZINIDAE, With Azinis Walker as its type genus, had been established elsewhere, but no such reference is known. Walsingham did not further characterize the family or distinguish it from the OECOPHORIDAE or mention other included genera. 5. Busck (1909, p. 91) formally proposed ETHMMDAE as a new family and dis- tinguished it from OECOPHORIDAE, claiming that such treatment had been inadvertently omitted from a taxonomic revision of North American oecophorid genera which he had published a year earlier (Busck, 1908, p. 187). He did not mention AZINIDAE, but stated that Azinis and Tamarrha differ from Ethmia only in secondary sexual characters and therefore must be included in Ethmia. Curiously, Walsingham (1912, p. 143) in the next major faunal-taxonomic treatment, the Biologia—Centrali Americana, followed 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Busck’s rather than his own earlier family proposal, using the spelling ETHMIADAE. Here he gave a formal synonymy under Ethmia, listing Anesychia, Azinis, Psecadia, Babaiaxa, Tamarrha and others but he did not mention AZINIDAE. Presumably he had either forgotten his informal mention of the family, issued in the haste of the moment of a critical rebuttal, or he may have considered ETHMMIDAE to be more appropriate because Azinis was considered a synonym and/or ETHMIIDAE had been formally proposed and described. 6. Subsequent authors, excepting those who continued to list Ethmia without a subfamilial category in either the OECOPHORIDAE Or HYPONOMEUTIDAE, have all used ETHMIIDAE Or ETHMIINAE for the family-group designation. A list of 21 comprehensive references, representing most of the major biogeographic regions of the world, which have used ETHMIIDAE rather than AZINIDAE is held by the Commission Secretariat. The Zoological Record began using ETHMIIDAE in 1950 as a separate family in its systematic index; prior to that, Ethmia and the other genera discussed here were listed under TINEIDAE (s.l.). I have seen no examples in which AZINIDAE was substituted for ETHMIDAE after the latter was established. 7. Both Sattler (1967, p. 9) and Powell (1973, p. 54), in the major taxonomic re- visions of Palearctic and New World ethmiids, listed AZINIDAE in the synonymy of ETHMIIDAE. Because AZINIDAE had not been used as the valid name during the preced- ing 50 years, I considered it to be a nomen oblitum that could be rejected by the Commission (1961 Code, Art. 23b) although I did not formally request such action. If we knew that Walsingham (1912, p. 143) had replaced AZINIDAE with ETHMIIDAE because of the synonymy of Azinis with Ethmia, Art. 40b would apply, because ETHMIIDAE has won general acceptance and no action by the Commission would be necessary. However, Walsingham (1912) did not mention AZINIDAE, and it seems best to clarify the matter by use of the plenary powers. Zimmerman (1978, p. 921) also discussed the situation and noted that ‘it would appear less confusing and a contri- bution to stability if we continue to use Ethmiinae and suppress Azinidae’. 8. The advantages of conserving ETHMIIDAE as a family-group name are (a) to enhance stability and universality — this name has been used continuously for 80 years and has been applied in essentially all biogeographic regions, and (b) to retain Ethmia as the type genus of the family-group — this genus is worldwide in distribution and contains most of the species considered to comprise this family-group. 9. AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 cannot be suppressed as a family-group name without suppressing its type genus Azinis Walker, 1863. About 47 groups of species have been defined to accommodate the 200+ species of Palearctic, New World and Australian Ethmia (Powell, 1973, 1985;Sattler, 1967). Ethmia hilarella, the type species of Azinis, is a member of the Nigroapicella group (Sattler, 1967) and Azinis is the earliest available generic name in that group. Considering the morphological diversity displayed in Ethmia, it is realistic to suppose that eventually it will be subdivided, and it is possible that ‘taxonomic inflation’ will dictate tribal or even subfamilial groupings among the resultant genera. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group name ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909, is to be given precedence over the name AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906, whenever the two are considered synonyms; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 187 (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ethmia Hubner, [1819], (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Phalaena pyrausta Hubner [1819]; (b) Azinis Walker, 1863, (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Azinis hilarella Walker, 1863; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pyrausta Hubner, [1819], as published in the binomen Phalaena pyrausta, specific name of the type species of Ethmia Hubner, 1819; (b) hilarella Walker, 1863, as published in the binomen Azinis hilarella, specific name of the type species of Azinis Walker, 1863; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ETHMUDAE Busck, 1909 (type genus Ethmia Hubner, 1819) with the endorse- ment that it is to be given precedence over AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 (type genus Azinis Walker, 1819) whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (b) AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 (type genus Azinis Walker, 1863) with the endorsement that it is not to be given precedence over ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909 (type genus Ethmia Hubner, 1819) whenever the two names are considered synonyms. References Busck, A. 1906. Tineid moths from southern Texas, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 32: 721-736. Busck, A. 1908. A generic revision of American moths of the family Oecophoridae, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 35: 187-207. Busck, A. 1909. Notes on microlepidoptera, with descriptions of new North American species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 11: 87-103. Dyar, A. 1902. A list of North American Lepidoptera. U.S. National Museum Bulletin, no. 52, 723 pp. Washington. Heinemann, H. yon 1870. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Zweite Abtheilung. Kleinschmetterlinge. Bd. 2. Heft 1. 388 pp. C. A. Schwetschke & Sohn, Braunschweig. Hiibner, J. 1816-1826. Verzeichnis bekannter Schmetterlinge. 431 pp. Verlasser, Augsburg. Meyrick, E. 1895. 4 handbook of British Lepidoptera. vi+ 843 pp. Macmillan, London. Powell, J. A. 1973. A systematic monograph of New World ethmiid moths (Lepidoptera: Gelechioidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 120. 302 pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Powell, J. A. 1985. Taxonomy and geographical relationships of Australian ethmiid moths (Lepidoptera: Gelechioidea). Australian Journal of Zoology, Supplementary series, no. 112, 1-58. Sattler, K. 1967. Ethmiidae. Microlepidoptera Paleartica, vol. 2. Fromme, Vienna. Walker, F. 1863. List of the specimens of lepidopterous Insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part 28, Tortricites and Tineites. pp. 287-561. British Museum, London. Walsingham, T. 1906. Notes on the genus Tamarrha Wkr. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 7, 18: 175-178. Walsingham, T. 1912 (1909-1915). Biologia Centrali-Americana, Insecta, Lepidoptera—Hetero- cera. Vol. 4. Tineina, Pterophorina, Orneodina and Pyralidina and Hepialidina (part) [Ethmiidae, pp. 113-118, 1912]. Zimmermann, E. C. 1978. Insects of Hawaii, vol. 9(2). 883-1903 pp. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2478 Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed conservation M.S. Harvey (Environmental Records Section, Museum of Victoria, 71 Victoria Crescent, Abbotsford, 3067, Victoria, Australia) Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name of the pseudoscorpion genus Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762. Although a common name it is at present unavailable because the work in which it was published did not adhere to the principle of binominal nomenclature. 1. Geoffroy’s 1762 Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris did not adhere to the principles of binominal nomenclature, and for this reason it was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology in 1954 (Opinion 228). However, the Commission invited applications for the conservation of any name published in the Histoire of which the rejection would lead to nomencla- tural instability or confusion. One such name is Chelifer, the type genus of the pseudoscorpion family CHELIFERIDAE. 2. Geoffroy (1762, p. 617) proposed the generic name Chelifer for two species: ‘1. CHELIFER fuscus, abdomine lineis transversis’ and ‘2. CHELIFER totus ruber, antennis extremo bisetis’. Both of these names clearly refer to Linnaean species since these are cited under each name. The first refers to Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 616) which was designated the type species of Chelifer by Latreille (1810, p. 424). The second refers to Acarus longicornis Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 618), which is the type species of Bdella Latreille, 1795 (Acari, BDELLIDAE) by subsequent monotypy of Latreille (1796, p. 180). Latreille’s (1795, p. 18) original description of Bdella did not include a valid species name but simply ‘La pince rouge de Geoffroi’, which is Geoffroy’s vernacular name for Acarus longicornis Linnaeus, 1758. 3. The genus Chelifer is well established in the literature and even though it was once a repository for many pseudoscorpion species currently includes only Chelifer cancroides (Linnaeus, 1758). It isa much studied and well known synanthropic species apparently native to Europe but now distributed in most parts of the world. Rejection of this name would cause undue confusion and instability of nomenclature. The next available name is Obisium Illiger, 1798 (type species Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation (Chamberlin 1930, p. 12)). 4. Schiddte (1849, p. 23) proposed the family name OBISIIDAE (as ‘Familia Obisia’, an incorrect original spelling) and Stecker (1874, p. 231) proposed CHELIFERIDAE (as a subfamily), based on Obisium Illiger, 1798, and Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762, respectively. CHELIFERIDAE has been universally accepted by arachnologists for many years and its retention is preferred over OBISHDAE which has not been mentioned in the literature for over 50 years. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 189 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to conserve the generic name Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation of Latreille (1810), Scorpio cancroides Fabricius, 1775 (a junior objective synonym of Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cancroides Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758 (specific name for the type species of Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name CHELIFERIDAE Stecker, 1874; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Obisium Illiger, 1798 (a junior objective synonym of Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762); (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name OBISMDAE (correction of OBISIA) Schiddte, 1849. References Chamberlin, J. C. 1930. A synoptic classification of the false scorpions or chela-spinners, with a report on a cosmopolitan collection of the same. Part II. The Diplosphyronida (Arachnida— Chelonethida). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10) 5: 148, 585-620. Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. 832 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae. Geoffroy, (E. L.) 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris. Vol. 2, 690 pp. Durand, Paris. Illiger, J. K. W. 1798. In Kugelaan, J. G. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. Entworfen von Johann Gottlieb Kugelann. Ausgearbeitet von Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger i-xlii, 510 pp. J. J. Gebauer, Halle. Latreille, P. A. 1795. Observations sur la variété des organes de la bouche des tiques, et distri- bution méthodique des insectes de cette famille d’aprés caractéres établis sur la conforma- tion de ces organes. Revue Encyclopédique, 4: 15—20. Latreille, P. A. 1796. Précis des caractéres génériques des insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel, i-xiii, 208 pp. Brive, Bordeaux. Latreille, P. A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des Animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes. 444 pp. Schoell, Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Edition 10, Vol. 1, 824 pp. Holmiae, Salvii. Schiédte, J. C. 1849. Bidrag til den underjordiske Fauna. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, ser. 5, 2: 1-39. Stecker, A. 1874. Zur Kenntnis der Chernetidenfauna Bohmens. Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen Béhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Prag. 8: 227-241. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2594 Sarotherodon melanotheron Riippell, 1852 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name E. Trewavas British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the cichlid specific name melanotheron Ruppell, 1852, the name of the type species of Sarotherodon Ruppell, 1852, by the suppression of the senior subjective synonym Labrus melagaster Bloch, 1792 1. Labrus melagaster Bloch, 1792 (p. 27, pl. 296, fig. 1) was described from two specimens. The types were stated to be from Surinam, but Giinther (1862, p. 267) doubted this attribution and placed the name (with ‘corrected’ spelling, melanogaster) in the synonymy of the African cichlid Chromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758). Pellegrin (1904, p. 310) also considered it to be African, but not what was by then called Tilapia nilotica. Thys (1969) and Trewavas (1983) ignored it. 2. Dr Sven Kullander, in the course of his studies on South American CICHLIDAE, examined one of Bloch’s specimens, ZMB 2807, now labelled ‘holotype’, from the Berlin Museum (ZMB) and wrote to me that he considered it to be African. On examining the specimen I confirmed it to be Sarotherodon melanotheron Rippell, 1852. Although Bloch mentioned two specimens, only this one is now in the ZMB and should be designated lectotype. It agrees very well with Bloch’s description and figure. 3. Satotherodon melanotheron is a taxon comprising a chain of populations from the Senegal to the Zaire in brackish waters of lagoons and estuaries. Excluding melagaster, eleven names of the species group have been given to parts of this series. Of these, six have been placed in synonymy by Thys (1971) and Trewavas (1983). Four of the other five were treated by Thys as species. Trewavas considered them to be subspecies of S. melanotheron and added the fifth subspecies S. m. paludinosus. It is not certain from which of these populations L. melagaster was derived. There seems no reason why L. melagaster should not be a synonym of either S. m. melanotheron or S. m. leonensis. 4. The conservation of the specific name melanotheron is requested because it is the name of the type species of Sarotherodon Ruppell, 1852. Fishes of this genus and related genera are objects of world-wide fish culture with a very extensive literature and unnecessary changes in nomenclature are to be avoided. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name melagaster Bloch, 1792 as published in the binomen Labrus melagaster, 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 name Sarotherodon Ruppell, 1852 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Sarotherodon melanotheron Ruppell, 1852; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 191 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name melanotheron Riippell, 1852, as published in the binomen Sarotherodon melanotheron (specific name of the type species of Sarotherodon Riippell, 1852); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name melagaster Bloch, 1792, as published in the binomen Labrus melagaster and as suppressed in (1) above. References Bloch, M. E. 1792. Naturgeschichte der auslandischen Fische. Part 6, 126 pp. Giinther, A. C. L. G. 1862. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, IV. London. Pellegrin, J. 1904. Contribution a l'étude anatomique, biologique et taxonomique des poissons de la famille des Cichlides. Mémoires de la Société Zoologique de France, 16: 41-401. Riippell, W. P. E. S. 1852. Verzeichniss der in dem Museum der Senkenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft aufgestellten Sammlungen. IV. 40 pp. Frankfurt-am—Main. Thys van den Audenaerde, D. F. E. 1969. An annotated bibliography of Tilapia (Pisces, Cichlidae). Documentation Zoologique. Musée Royal de |’ Afrique Centrale, 14: 1-406. Thys van den Audenaerde, D. F. E. 1971. Some new data concerning the Tilapia species of the subgenus Sarotherodon (Pisces, Cichlidae). Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 84(3—4): 203-216. Trewavas E. 1983. Tilapiine fishes of the genera Sarotherodon, Oreochromis and Danakilia. 583 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Case 2595 Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 (currently Ctenopoma oxyrhynchum; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name Steven M. Norris Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name of the African climbing perch Ctenopoma oxyrhynchum (Boulenger, 1902) by the suppression of the senior synonym C. weeksii Boulenger, 1896 1. In 1896 Boulenger (p. 310) described Ctenopoma weeksii, based on a single speci- men from the ‘upper Congo’ (Zaire) River. I have found that this holotype of C. weeksii is a specimen of what has been known as Ctenopoma oxyrhynchum (Boulenger, 1902, p. 52), thus making the former name the senior synonym. 2. Subsequent to the description of C. weeksii various authors applied the name to specimens of at least five species of Ctenopoma whose identities have been verified by me: C. acutirostre and C. ocellatum (by Boulenger, 1901, p. 337; 1902, p. 51); C. acutirostre (by Pellegrin, 1903, p. 220); C. oxyrhynchum (by Boulenger, 1901, p. 337); C. petherici (by Pellegrin, 1904, p. 311). Boulenger (1916, p. 65) synonymised C. weeksii to C. maculatum Thominot, 1886 without making comment. 3. C. oxyrhynchum has been widely and correctly used (a list of 10 representative works is held by the Commission Secretariat) whereas C. weeksii was frequently incor- rectly used and has not to my knowledge been used in any meaningful context since it was synonymised with the wrong species in 1916. No benefit would be gained by resurrecting C. weeksii over C. oxyrhynchum, and in this case the adherence to the Principle of Priority would result in confusion. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name weeksii Boulenger, 1896, as published in the binomen Ctenopoma weeksii, 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 Specific Names in Zoology the name oxyrhynchum Boulenger, 1902, as published in the binomen Anabas oxyrhynchum; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name weeksii Boulenger, 1896, as published in the binomen Ctenopoma weeksii and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements Iam grateful to D. M. Armitage (MAFF, Pest Infestation Control Laboratory, U.K.) for re-examining the holotype of C. weeksii and for providing me with photographs of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 193 the specimen, and to Rudolph J. Miller (Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University) for assistance in this study. References Boulenger, G. A. 1896. Descriptions of new fishes from the Upper Congo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 6, 17: 309-311. Boulenger, G. A. 1901. Les Poissons du bassin du Congo. 532 pp. Publication de l’ Etat Indepen- dant, Bruxelles. Boulenger, G. A. 1902. Additions a la faune ichthyologique du bassin du Congo. Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge (Zoologie), ser. 1, 2 (2): 19-57. Boulenger, G. A. 1916. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of Africa in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 4, 392 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Pellegrin, J. 1903. Cichlidé nouveau de lOubanghi appartenant au genre Lamprologus. Bulletin du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle ( Paris), 9: 220-221. Pellegrin, J. 1904. Poissons du Chari et du lac Tchad récoltés par la mission Chevalier-Decorse. Bulletin du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 10: 309-313. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Comment on the proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca, Coleoidea) and the conservation of BELEMNITIDAE (Case 2571: see BZN 43: 355-359 and 44: 48) D. T. Donovan Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, U.K. I support the application by Peter Doyle and Wolfgang Riegraf for the suppression of both generic and specific names in this case. At present there is confusion because, as noted by Doyle & Riegraf (BZN 43: 355-359), some authors use Belemnites and others Passaloteuthis for a common early Jurassic fossil. Species of this genus are frequently cited in the geological literature and a decision by the Commission is necessary. There is a close parallel in the case of the genus Ammonites. Once used as a compre- hensive genus for most of the numerous species now contained in the order Ammonoi- dea, this generic name fell out of use as Ammonites was subdivided in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In 1945 an attempt was made to revive a restricted genus Ammonites and to provide it with a type species (Spath, 1945). However, this was not in accordance with contemporary practice, and the revived Ammonites would have dis- placed a more familiar generic name. An application to suppress Ammonites (Arkell, 1951; BZN 2: 200-203) was successful (Opinion 305). The present case is not exactly parallel because the genus Belemnites is still used by some authors. It is similar, however, insofar as a formerly comprehensive genus has been replaced by a number of generic names of more restricted scope, leaving the connotation of the original genus uncertain; insofar as the type species is indetermin- able according to its original definition; and in that both names are still used in the vernacular (‘ammonites’ and ‘belemnites’). Doyle & Riegraf (BZN 43: 355-359) have shown that a satisfactory interpretation of Belemnites paxillosa Lamarck according to the original definition is not possible. The only way to define the genus would be to select a neotype for the type species. This has not been done and there is no guarantee that, ifit were, the arbitrary choice that would have to be made would command agreement. I therefore support the alternative course of suppressing the generic name Belemnites. In the case of Ammonites it was directed that the family name AMMONITIDAE was invalid because the name of the type genus had been suppressed (Direction 14, published 27 June 1955). The family name BELEMNITIDAE is still widely used but will become invalid if Belemnites is suppressed. Doyle & Riegraf (BZN 43: 355-359) made no reference to this matter, but have since (BZN 44: 48) requested the conservation of BELEMNITIDAE by the designation of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 as the type genus. I support this action also. Reference Spath, L. F. 1945. The type of the genus Ammonites. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 11, 12: 490-497. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 195 Comment on the proposed conservation of Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Insecta: Coleoptera). (Case 2555; see BZN 44: 15-16) (1) Donald E. Bright Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6, Canada I feel strongly that the provisions in the Code should be allowed to operate freely unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. The present request is a clear contravention of the Principle of Priority, a fact the authors themselves concede. If the insects involved were of moderate or more economic importance and had a significant amount of published literature available under the ‘wrong’ name (wrong as interpreted by the Code), I would agree that the Principle of Priority could (or should) be over- ridden. However, in this case, the insects involved are not recognised as economic pests, and the number of publications in which Nanophyes is used cannot be great. A return to the use of Nanodes would not cause any significant hardship or confusion. I feel the authors have not made a convincing case and I see no reason to overturn priority in this instance. (2) M. G. Morris Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Natural Environment Research Council, Wareham, Dorset BH20 5AS, U.K. I write to support the application made by Dr M. A. Alonso—Zarazaga and Herr L. Dieckmann in applying to the Commission for the conservation of the generic name Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (APIONIDAE, NANOPHYINAE), for the reasons which they give in paragraph 3 of their application. Nanophyes has been in constant use since the early 19th century and the name Nanodes is quite unfamiliar to modern workers in the Curculionoidea. I wish to give my support to all four requests made in paragraph 6 of the application. Comment on the proposed designation of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 as type species of Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea) (Case 2579: see BZN 44: 27-30) Jean Roman Institut de Paléontologie, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 8 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France Je pense que la confirmation d’ Hyboclypus elatus comme l’espéce-type de Desorella entraine le moins de bouleversement dans la nomenclature zoologique et est en accord avec l’usage constant depuis 1873. Dans ces conditions j’appuie pleinement la demande d’E. P. F. Rose et de J. B.S. Olver. Editor’s note: Support for this application has also come from Dr. J. Thierry (Institut des Sciences de la Terre, Université de Dijon, France). 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Comment on the proposed conservation of Pyralis (currently Cydia or Laspeyresia) nigricana Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case 2468; see BZN 43: 93-95) (1) Gaden S. Robinson Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5BD, U.K. Ebbe S. Nielsen Division of Entomology, CSIRO, PO Box 1700, Canberra, Australia 1. We oppose Seymour’s proposed suppression of the specific name rusticella Clerck, 1759, on three counts. More importantly, we use this case to highlight the practice, that seems to be becoming routine in Lepidoptera systematics, of requesting the suppression of any senior synonym that comes to light. We believe that acceptances of such requests devalue nomenclature, encourage poor scholarship and ultimately weaken the authority of the Code and of the Commission. 2. It is now very late to suppress rusticella. Four years have elapsed since our publication of the junior synonymy of nigricana Fabricius, 1794 (Robinson & Nielsen, 1983, p. 229). In that period the name rusticella has been introduced into revisions of two national checklists — Danish (Schnack, 1985, pp. 33 and 75) and British (1984; see Antenna, 8: 162) — and was accepted by Horak (1984, p. 11). 3. Although, as Seymour states (BZN 43: 93), Clerck gave no written description or account of Phalaena rusticella, his figure is far less ambiguous, in our opinion, than Fabricius’ brief and typically eighteenth-century description of Pyralis nigricana. Furthermore, although no type material of nigricana seems to have survived, there is an extant original specimen of rusticella which we have designated as lectotype (Robinson & Nielsen, 1983, p. 229). We therefore argue that rusticellais an inherently better-based name than nigricana and that our action in synonymising the latter is in the interests of long-term nomenclatural stability. 4. We find the principle involved in the proposal for suppression of rusticella most disturbing. This case, like many others referred to the Commission, has come about because of inadequate research by earlier workers. Failure to establish the identities of the taxa described by early authors is commonplace in many groups, and is an inherent source of nomenclatural instability. We (see Karsholt & Nielsen, 1983) have attempted to improve, and encouraged others to improve, the nomenclatural foundations of Lepidoptera systematics by re-examining the publications and surviving collections of the earliest authors (e.g. of C. P. Thunberg (1743—1828)). We consider that the criteria for the use of plenary powers for the suppression of senior synonyms (Article 79c) are inappropriate in the context of the present state of the art of Lepidoptera nomenclature and systematics. In this group the taxa described by many of the earlier authors have not yet been reviewed, and nomenclature within the group will remain in a state of flux until this task has been completed. 5. Suppression of senior synonyms under these circumstances gives, we believe, an erroneous message to the zoological community — that its representatives (the Com- mission) give their tacit approval to the regular overturning of the Principle of Priority and, in effect, a licence to ignore ‘difficult’ authors and their collections. Our unease is Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 197 clearly shared by others (e.g. Campbell & Phillips (BZN 43: 10-12). We endorse and support the plea by Olson, Rea & Brodkorb (BZN 43: 13) that sound nomenclatural rules should not give way to poor scholarship. The latter is only too easily encouraged. We go further, believing that it should not be the function of the Commission to regularly subvert its own rules. Applications for suppression of little-used or unused senior synonyms, and acceptances of those applications, have become almost routine for Lepidoptera at least (e.g. Opinions 1361 and 1362 (BZN 42: 349, 351)). This places a short-term burden of time and money on the zoological community in having to support the quasi-legal procedures involved in suppression. It places a further, long- term burden on the community in the repetitive citation of the suppressed senior name (and chapter and verse of its suppression). 6. Weconcede that the scientific names of a small number of animals (some domestic animals, laboratory stock animals and ‘public-consciousness’ animals), names with thousands of usages a year, should be safeguarded, particularly if the names are used by non-biologists. We do not admit Cydia nigricana, with apparently (BZN 43: 94) fewer than 10 citations per year, into this category, despite compliance with Article 79c. The more widespread and widely-cited pest Plutella maculipennis Curtis, 1832 (Lepid- optera: YPONOMEUTIDAE) was synonymised twenty years ago. An application to the Commission supporting the continued usage of maculipennis (BZN 27: 60) was unsuc- cessful (Opinion 1002: BZN 30: 86), and the moth is now known throughout the world as Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus, 1758). This change occurred without dreadful consequence. It was a change, we think, in favour of stability. We ask the Commission to reject the application for suppression of the specific name rusticella. (2) Reply by P. R. Seymour Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Harpenden Laboratory, Harpenden ALS 2BD, U.K. 1. The above objection by Robinson and Nielsen to the proposed conservation of nigricana is unexpected, being at variance with their original (1983, p. 229) remarks:*. . . It may be considered that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be asked to suppress the name rusticella. Cydia nigricana is an economically important species with a wide literature, and the case for the conservation of the name nigricana is a strong one.’ I have already quoted this in my application (BZN 43: 93). Despite this, Robinson & Nielsen did not propose the suppression of rusticella ‘as we recall the case of Plutella xylostella (L.), the Diamond-Backed Moth, the Linnean name for which was adopted only recently and with little opposition or confusion’ (Opinion 1002). 2. The case for the conservation of nigricana is soundly based on the Code Articles 23b and 79c, which deal with the problem of unused senior synonyms, and I reiterate my original application. 3. The name nigricana has been in use since 1794, aad from 1901 has been con- sistently applied as the valid specific name for the Pea Moth. As a common, widely distributed pest, C. nigricana is cited extensively in the literature, and throughout the Palaearctic and parts of the Nearctic regions its caterpillar is known to most people 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 who have shelled peas. The familiar name nigricana prevails in the current literature (in my application I mentioned (BZN 43: 94) over 97 references in the period 1973-1983, and that list was far from exhaustive). The species is described as Cydia nigricana in the keywork by Carter (1984, p. 156) and in the 1983 Check List of the Lepidoptera North of Mexico. The only national checklist in which nigricana has been replaced by rusticella is the Danish one (Schnack, 1985) of which Dr Nielsen was a co-author and which explicitly adopted priority as an invariable policy (see p. 22). The anonymous British reference (1984, Antenna, 8: 162) placing nigricana as a junior synonym of rusticella has not been followed in the recent Indexed List of British Butterflies and Moths (Bradley & Fletcher, 1986, p. 27) nor has it been adopted in the internationally read Review of Applied Entomology. The name nigricana has been used in combination with Cydia or Laspeyresia for more than 100 years, and is well known in both combinations. The problem of whether to adopt Cydia Hiibner, [1825] or Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] as the valid generic name for the genus containing nigricana has been submitted to the Commission by Kuznetsov & Kerzhner (Case 2421; BZN 41: 110-113; 42: 8-10; 43: 8-9). A ruling by the Commission that will stabilise the usage of the generic name is awaited, but the outcome does not affect the present case. 4. The case of nigricana versus rusticella is a straightforward one, not involving other specific names, and therefore is not directly comparable with that of the Diamond-back Moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus). 5. Robinson & Nielsen are continuing the endless argument of stability versus pri- ority. The Principle of Priority is an ideal striven for by taxonomists but, as emphasized by the Code (Article 23b), it is occasionally necessary to depart from it for the sake of stability, and the present case is an appropriate one. The basis of the name rusticella is not at issue following the review of Clerck’s collection of microlepidoptera and the subsequent designation of a lectotype by Robinson & Nielsen. What is at issue is simply the introduction of the unused senior synonym rusticella to replace nigricana, which has for nearly 200 years been indisputably established throughout the world as the scientific name for this important species. 6. It may be pertinent to conclude with the broader issue raised in Robinson & Nielsen’s first paragraph, where they consider it important to use the present case to highlight the practice of suppressing the name of any rediscovered senior synonym. According to them this practice is becoming routine in Lepidoptera systematics. Their assertion is dubious. Although the instinctive reaction to a change — when it concerns a much cherished name — is to seek the retention of the familiar name, relatively few requests for suppression actually materialise. This may partly be due to the fact that, contrary to their views, such requests require good scholarship. 7. I contend that stability is best safeguarded by the conservation of nigricana Fabricius, 1794 and the suppression of rusticella Clerck, 1759, and I ask the Commission to adopt my original proposals. In this Iam supported by the colleagues mentioned previously (see BZN 43: 94). References Bradley, J. D. & Fletcher, D. S. 1986. An indexed list of British butterflies and moths. 119 pp. Kedleston Press, Orpington, U.K. Carter, D. J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe. 431 pp. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 199 Horak, M. 1984. Assessment of taxonomically significant structures in Tortricinae (Lep., Tortricidae). Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 57: 3-64. Karsholt, O. & Nielsen, E. S. 1985. The Lepidoptera described by C. P. Thunberg. Entomologica Scandinavica, 16: 433-463. Robinson, G. S. & Nielsen, E. S. 1983. The Microlepidoptera described by Linnaeus and Clerck. Systematic Entomology, 8: 191-242. Schnack, K. 1985. (Ed.) Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Denmark. Entomologiske Meddelelser, 52 (2-3): 1-163. Comment on the suggested introduction into the Code of the term ‘nomenclaturally valid’ (Case 2513; see BZN 43: 308-309; 44: 131) Hobart M. Smith EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0334, U.S.A. The proposal that the term ‘nomenclaturally valid’ be introduced into the Code clarifies a distinction that has long been needed between names acceptable in purely nomenclatural terms (available names) and names that can be taxonomically valid, being neither junior homonyms nor junior (objective) synonyms. Indeed, that distinction, with a different terminology, was suggested by meas early as 1947 and expanded in 1962, although not in channels that would evoke action by the Commission. It is the distinction, not its terminology, that is important. Since the Code’s definition of ‘availability’ is now firmly entrenched, the term ‘nomencliaturally valid’ should unquestionably be adopted in the proposed contexts. References Smith, H. M. 1947. Occupancy, availability and validity. Science, 106: 11. Smith, H. M. 1962. The hierarchy of nomenclatural status of generic and specific names in zoological taxonomy. Systematic Zoology, 11: 139-142. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Comments on the proposed designation of type species for Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Arachnida, Acarina) (Case 2044; see BZN 44: 41-43) (1) H. A. Denmark Division of Plant Industry. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, P.O. Box 1269, Gainesville 32602, Florida, U.S.A.) I support the application by Lindquist & Manson to designate the type species for the eriophyid mite genera Eriophyes and Phytoptus which accord with the long established understanding of these economically important taxa. These generic names have been used for many years internationally in hundreds of reports. Although the actions of Newkirk & Keifer (1971) were in formal agreement with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, I oppose them because of the confusion those changes cause. I urge the Commission to use its plenary powers to designate type species so as to preserve the long established usage of Phytoptus and Eriophyes, and of Aceria. There is an increased interest in the eriophyid mites and a decision is needed as promptly as possible to avoid further complicating the problem. (2) Gerald T. Baker College of Agriculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi 39762, U.S.A. The proposals by Lindquist & Manson would eliminate the confusion which has existed since 1971 in the nomenclature of eriophyid mites which are economically important on a world wide basis. I hope that the Commission will publish an Opinion in favour, so that stability in this genera can be achieved. (3) Subsequent comments in support of the proposals in BZN 44: 41-43 have been received from Xin Jie—Liu, Dong Huiquin and Zhang Zhi—Qiang (People’s Republic of China), G. A. Schruft (W. Germany), M. Mohanasundaram (India), M. K. P. Smith Meyer (South Africa), U. Gerson and M. Sternlicht (Israel), H. M. A. Thistlewood (Canada), A. Chandrapatya (Thailand), M. Castagnoli (/taly), J. Boczek (Poland), H. A. Barké and R. Davis (U.S.A.). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 201 OPINION 1447 Trichomonas Donné, 1836 (Protista, Mastigophora): spelling confirmed Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the correct spelling of the name Tricomonas Donné, 1836 is deemed to be Trichomonas. (2) The name Trichomonas Donné, 1836 (gender: feminine), type species by mono- typy, Trichomonas vaginalis Donné, 1836, spelling emended in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name vaginalis Donné, 1836, as published in the binomen Tricomonas vaginale (specific name of the type species of Trichomonas Donné, 1836) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name TRICHOMONADIDAE Grassi, 1882 (type genus Trichomonas Donné, 1836) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group names in Zoology. History of case 245 An application on the spelling of Trichomonas, together with four other important protistan genera, was first received in 1926. Unfortunately, consideration of this name was deferred at that time. A draft application was received in 1947 from the late Professor H. Kirby (University of California). However the case did not proceed until it was rewritten and published in BZN 43: 218—220 (July 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and two specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 218-220. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—24: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was returned by Bernardi. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on the Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: TRICHOMONADIDAE Grassi, 1882, Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, 24: 141. Trichomonas Donné, 1836, Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de |’ Académie des Sciences, Paris, 3: 386. vaginalis, Trichomonas, Donné, 1836, Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de |’Académie des Sciences, Paris, 3: 386. 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 OPINION 1448 Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Bulbifer Dejean, 1821 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy, Curculio lymexylon Fabricius, 1792, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name corticalis Paykull, 1792, as published in the binomen Curculio corti- calis (valid name at the time of this ruling for the type species of Dryophthorus Germar, 1824), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Bulbifer Dejean, 1821, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of case 2486 An application for the conservation of Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 was received from Dr. C. W. O’Brien (Florida A & M University, Florida, U.S.A.) and Dr G. Osella (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona, Italy) on 28 August 1984. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 43: 58-61 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr. M. A. Alonzo—Zarazaga (Malaga, Spain). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 59. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. 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: Bulbifer Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 99. corticalis, Curculio, Paykull, 1792, Monographia curculionum sueciae, p. 41. Dryophthorus Germar, 1824, Insectorum, species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae, vol. 1, Coleoptera, p. 302. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 203 OPINION 1449 Cholus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Archarias Dejean, 1821 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Cholus Germar, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Schoenherr (1826) Cholus-albicinctus, 1824, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name albicinctus Germar, 1824, as published in the binomen Cholus albicinc- tus (specific name of the type species of Cholus Germar, 1824), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Archarias Dejean, 1821, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of case 2485 An application for the conservation of Cholus Germar, 1824 was received from Dr C. W. O’Brien & Dr G. J. Wibmer (Florida A & M University, Florida, U.S.A.) on 28 August 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 55—57 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr M. A. Alonzo—Zarazaga (Malaga, Spain). Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 56. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Hahn. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. 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: albicinctus, Cholus, Germar, 1824, Insectorum, species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae, vol. 1, Coleoptera, p. 214. Archarias Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 86. Cholus Germar, 1824, Insectorum, species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae, vol. 1, Coleoptera, p. 212. The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation of a type species for the nominal genus Cholus Germar, 1824: of Cholus albicinctus Germar, 1824 by Schoenherr, 1826, Curculionidum dispositio methodica, p. 20. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 OPINION 1450 Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Eccoptus Dejean, 1821 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Poecilma wiedii Germar, 1824, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name wiedii Germar, 1824, as published i in the binomen Poecilma wiedii (specific name of the type species of Zygops Schoenherr, 1825), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Eccoptus Dejean, 1821, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of case 2489 An application for the conservation of Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 was received from Dr C. W. O’Brien & Dr. G. J. Wibmer (Florida A & M University, Florida, U.S.A.) on 28 August 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 69-71 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr M. A. Alonzo—Zarazaga (Malaga, Spain). Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 69-70. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Hahn and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. Hahn and Starobogatov considered that both Eccoptus and Zygops should be placed on the Official List, with the latter having precedence. 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: Eccoptus Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 86. wiedii, Poecilma, Germar, 1824, Insectorum, species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae, vol. 1, Coleoptera, p. 259. Zygops Schoenherr, 1825, [sis Jena, 5: col. 586. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 205 OPINION 1451 Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 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) Menoetius Dejean, 1821; (b) Ptilopus Schoenherr, 1823. (2) The name Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Curculio aurifer Drury, 1773, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name aurifer Drury, 1773, as published in the binomen Curculio aurifer (specific name of the type species of Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as suppressed in (1) above: (a) Menoetius Dejean, 1821; (b) Ptilopus Schoenherr, 1823. History of case 2487 An application for the conservation of Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 was received from Dr C. W. O’Brien & Dr G. J. Wibmer (Florida A & M University, Florida, U.S.A.) on 28 August 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 62—65 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. Dr M. A. Alonso—Zarazaga (Malaga, Spain) favoured the adoption of Menoetius Dejean, 1821 on the grounds of priority. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 63. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn (in part), Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov (in part), Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Cogger. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. Hahn and Starobogatov both agreed to the suppression of Prilopus, but considered that Menoetius, as a subjective synonym of Lachnopus, should be placed on the Official List (although with Lachnopus having precedence). Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by ruling given in the present Opinion: aurifer, Curculio, Drury, 1773, Illustrations of natural history, vol. 1, p. 380. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840, Genera et species curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus familiae, p. 380. Menoetius Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 94. Ptilopus Schoenherr, 1823, Isis Jena, 10, col. 1140. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 207 OPINION 1452 Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved and Geoderces incomptus Horn, 1876 designated as type species. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous designations of the type species for the nominal genus Geoderces Horn, 1876 and Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 are hereby set aside and Trachyph- loeus melanothrix Kirby, 1837 is hereby designated as type species of Geoderces Horn, 1876; (b) Goederces incomptus Horn, 1876 is hereby designated as type species of Nemo- cestes Van Dyke, 1936. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) (b) above Goederces incomptus Horn, 1876; (b) Goederces Horn, 1876 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, Trachyphloeus melanothrix Kirby, 1837. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) incomptus Horn, 1876, as published in the binomen Geoderces incomptus (specific name of the type species of Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936); (b) melanothrix Kirby, 1837, as published in the binomen Trachyphloeus melanoth- rix (specific name of the type species of Geoderces Horn, 1876). History of case 2488 An application for the conservation of Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 was received from Dr C. W. O’Brien (Florida A & M University, Florida, U.S.A.) on 31 August 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 66-68 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr M. A. Alonzo—Zarazaga (Malaga, Spain). Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 66-67. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. Thompson commented: ‘While I have voted for this proposal, it was really an un- necessary one. A careful reading of Van Dyke (1936) clearly indicates that while Van Dyke used “‘new name” he was using it in the sense of a new genus for Geoderces sensu 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 Horn’s misidentified type species. After discussing the misidentified type species, Van Dyke wrote “Much as] dislike to increase the synonymy [sic], I feel that there is nothing else to do but to erect a new genus to replace Geoderces Horn and to give a specific name to Horn’s (not Kirby’s) melanotrix.”” Van Dyke then described his new genus and designated a type species for it. Hence no action by the Commission was needed.’ Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Geoderces Horn, 1876, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 15(96): 70. incomptus, Geoderces, Horn, 1876, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 15(96): 72. melanothrix, Trachyphloeus, Kirby, 1837, Fauna Boreali-Americana, 4: 202. Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1840, Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 12(1) p. 22. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 209 OPINION 1453 Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936 and Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Cassida atripes LeConte, 1859 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genera Strong ylaspis Spaeth, 1936 and its replacement Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950 are hereby set aside and Cassida atripes LeConte, 1859 is designated as type species of both. (2) The name Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950 (gender: feminine; replacement name for Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936, type species by designation in (1) above, Cassida atripes LeConte, 1859), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name atripes LeConte, 1859, as published in the binomen Cassida atripes (specific name of the type species of Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950, replacement for Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2492 An application for the conservation of Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950 was received from E. G. Riley (Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, U.S.A) on 18 September 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 100—101 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 101. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. 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: atripes, Cassida, LeConte, 1859, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 11 (6): 28. Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 12, 3: 511. After submitting the application, Dr E. G. Riley has designated Coptocycla bisignata Boheman, 1855 as the type species of his new genus Opacinota Riley, 1986 (Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 94: 98-114). Note: in BZN 43: 100, para. 1, line 9, the author of the ‘valid Strongylaspis’ should read ‘Thompson, 1860’. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 OPINION 1454 Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923, (Insecta, Orthoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the first reviser action of Jago (1981), whereby the the name Patanga Uvarov, 1923 was given precedence over the name Nomadacris is hereby set aside; (b) it is hereby ruled that the name Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 has precedence over Patanga Uvarov, 1923 whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The name Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Acridium septemfasciatum Audinet-Serville, [1838], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the endorsement that it has precedence over Patanga Uvarov, 1923 whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (3) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the name Patanga Uvarov, 1923, is to record that this name is not to be given precedence over Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (4) The name septemfasciatum Audinet-Serville, [1838], as published in the binomen Acridium septemfasciatum (specific name of the type species of Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2525 An application for the conservation of Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 was received from Dr K. H. L. Key (CSIRO, Canberra, Australia) and N. D. Jago (Tropical Development and Research Institute, London, U.K.) on 12 June 1985. After correspondence a case was published in BZN 43: 102-104 (April 1986) with a supportive comment from Dr K. McE. Kevan (McGill University, Quebec, Canada). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr R. E. Blackith (Trinity College, Dublin) and published in BZN: 43: 227 with records of support from Prof. M. La Greca (Universita di Catania, Italy), Dr R. F. Chapman (University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.) and Dr V. R. Vickery (McGill University, Canada). Reference to other names published by Uvarov (1923) was withdrawn. Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 103 as modified by the comments above. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. 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: Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (9) 11: 143. septemfasciatum, Acridium, Audinet-Serville, [1838], Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Orthopteres., p. 661. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 211 OPINION 1455 Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Pupa rugosa Draparnaud, 1801 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 are hereby set aside and Pupa rugosa Draparnaud, 1801 is hereby designated as type species. (2) The name Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- nation in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) the name rugosa Draparnaud, 1801, as published in the binomen Pupa rugosa (specific name of the type species of Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 872 An application for the designation of Pupa rugosa Draparnaud, 1801 as the type species of Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 was formulated by the then Secretary, Mr R. V. Melville, in March 1985 as the result of an earlier review of pre-1936 entries on the Official Lists. The case was published in BZN 43: 78-79 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and six specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr E. Gittenberger (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 79. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — |: Lehtinen. No vote was returned by Bernardi. Lehtinen would have preferred the designation of Clausilia bidentata (Strom, 1765) as type species of Clausilia, since its distribution and ecology suggests its synonymy with Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805, Histoire naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France, p. 24. rugosa, Pupa, Draparnaud, 1801, Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France, p. 63. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 OPINION 1456 Ammonites (currently Euaspidoceras) perarmatus J. Sowerby, June 1822 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): conserved despite the senior primary homonym Ammonites (currently Peronoceras) perarmatus Young & Bird, [May] 1822 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby declared that Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, June 1822 is not rendered invalid by the prior use of Ammonites perarmatus Young & Bird, [May] 1822. (2) The name Euaspidoceras Spath, 1931 (type species, by original designation Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name perarmatus J. Sowerby, June 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites perarmatus, and as conserved in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name perarmatus Young & Bird, [May 1822], as published in the binomen Ammonites perarmatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2479 An application for a ruling on the homonymy between Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822 and Ammonites perarmatus Young & Bird, 1822 was received from Dr M. K. Howarth (British Museum ( Natural History), London) on 5 June 1984. The case was published in BZN 43: 75-77 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and four specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr D. T. Donovan (University College, London). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 76. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—19: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 4: Cogger, Kabata, Lehtinen, Thompson. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. Kabata and Thompson considered that the replacement of junior primary hom- onyms was an important matter of principle which should not be set aside in this instance. Cogger commented that perarmatus J. Sowerby could have been given precedence over perarmatus Young & Bird, the latter being then replaced. Ride wished to emphasize that perarmatus Young & Bird is not in any way invalidated by the present vote, and this name has been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 213 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Euaspidoceras Spath, 1931, Palaeontographica indica, 9(2): 326. perarmatus, Ammonites, J. Sowerby, June 1822, The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, vol. 4, jos 1 perarmatus, Ammonites, Young & Bird, [May] 1822, A geological survey of the Yorkshire coast, p. 249. 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 OPINION 1457 Astacilla falclandica Ohiin, 1901 (Crustacea, Isopoda): confirmed as type species of Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 Ruling (1) The name Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1901, is hereby confirmed as that of the type species of Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 by original designation. (2) The name Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 (gender; feminine), type species by original designation, Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1901, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name falclandica Ohlin, 1901 as published in the binomen Astacilla falclan- dica (specific name of the type species of Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2509 An application for the confirmation of Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1901 as type species for Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 was received from H. M. Lew Ton & G. C. B. Poore (Museum of Victoria, Victoria, Australia) on 4 March 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 99 (April 1986). No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 99. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No notes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. Ride recommended that it would be prudent, for the sake of stability, for a neotype of Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1901 to be designated. Holthuis pointed out that this species was first described by Ohlin in 1901, not in 1907 as given in the application. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: falclandica, Astacilla, Ohlin, 1901, Svenska Expeditionen till Magellanslanderna, vol. 2(11): 266. Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921, British Antarctic Terra Nova Expedition 1910, 3(38): 243. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 215 OPINION 1458 Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea): Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883, are hereby set aside and Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822 is designated as type species. (2) The name Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers, Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name clavigera Mantell, 1822, as published in the binomen Cidaris claviger (specific name of the type species of Tylocidaris), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2505 An application for the designation of Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822 as type species for Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 was received from Dr C. W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) and Dr A. B. Smith (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 16 January 1985. After correspondence a case was published in BZN 43: 72-74 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and eleven specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 72-73. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. Thompson considered that the case for setting aside the first designation of type species was insufficiently strong. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: claviger, Cidaris, Mantell, 1822, The fossils of the South Downs; or illustrations of the geology of Sussex, p. 194. Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883, Classification méthodique et générale des Echinides vivants et fossiles, p. 109. 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 OPINION 1459 Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (Chondrichthyes, Lamniformes): conserved Ruling Under the plenary powers those parts of Opinion 723 (BZN 22: 32-36) relating to the nominal genus Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (given there as 1809’) are repealed, to the following effects: (1) The name Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 is hereby removed from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (2) The name Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy (see Opinion 47) Carcharias taurus Rafinesque, 1810, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the endorsement that it is not to be given precedence over Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838 whenever the two are considered synonyms; (3) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838 is to be endorsed to prescribe that this name is to be given precedence over Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810, whenever the two are considered synonyms; (4) The name taurus Rafinesque, 1810, as published in the binomen Carcharias taurus (specific name of the type species of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (5) The name CARCHARIIDAE (correction of CARCHARIAE) Muller & Henle, [1839], type genus Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology, with the endorsement that it is not to be given precedence Over ODONTASPIDIDAE Muller & Henle, [1839] whenever the two are considered synonyms; (6) The entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology for ODONTASPIDIDAE Muller & Henle, [1839], is to be endorsed to prescribe that this name is to be given precedence over CARCHARIIDAE Muller & Henle, [1839] whenever the two are considered synonyms. History of case 2414 An application for the conservation of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 was received from Dr L. J. V. Compagno (Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, California, U.S.A.) and Dr W. I. Follet (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 5 July 1982. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 89-92 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and eight specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 91. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 PANG! Negative votes — 1: Savage. Kabata abstained. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. While supporting the application, Ride commented that it was incorrect to say (BZN 43: 90, paras. 7-8) that Opinion 723 has ‘forbidden’ taxonomic freedom. That Opinion had (perhaps misguidedly) rendered the name Carcharias Rafinesque unavailable, but the present applicants had not been precluded from taxonomic comparisons; having made them, they sought to resurrect Carcharias Rafinesque rather than to introduce a new name. Savage did not consider it desirable to repeal (in part) Opinion 723, which had been in force for 22 years. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and removed from an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: CARCHARIDAE Muller & Henle, [1839], Systematische Beschreibung Plagiostomen, p. xvii. Carcharias, Rafinesque, 1810, Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di Animali e Piante della Sicilia con varie osservazioni sopra i medesimi, p. 10. ODONTASPIDIDAE Muller & Henle, [1839], Systematische Beschreibung Plagiostomen, xvii. Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838, Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles, vol. 3, p. 87. taurus, Carcharias, Rafinesque, 1810, Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di Animali e Piante della Sicilia con varie osservazioni sopra i medesimi, p. 10. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 OPINION 1460 Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842 (Mammalia, Marsupialia): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name quo// Zimmermann, 1783, as published in the binomen Mustela quoll, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name hallucatus Gould, 1842, as published in the binomen Dasyurus hallucatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) the name quo// Zimmermann, 1783, as published in the binomen Mustela quoll and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of case 2472 An application for the conservation of Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842 was recdived from Dr J. A. Mahoney (University of Sydney, Australia) and Dr W. D. L. Ride (Canberra College of Advanced Education, Australia) on 16 April 1984. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 43: 50—54 (April 1986). Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to twelve general and five specialist serials. No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 52. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. 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: hallucatus, Dasyurus, Gould, 1842, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1842: p. 41 quoll, Mustela, Zimmermann, 1783, Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, vol. 3, p. 181. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 219 OPINION 1461 A ruling on the authorship and dates of the text volumes of the Histoire naturelle section of Savigny’s Description de l’Egypte Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the authors and dates of publi- cation of the zoological portions of the text volumes of the Histoire naturelle section of Marie Jules—César Lelorgne de Savigny’s Description de l’Egypte are to be taken as set out by Sherborn (1897), and as reproduced in the Appendix below. (2) The zoological portions of the text volumes of the Histoire naturelle section of Marie Jules—César Lelorgne de Savigny’s Description de l’Egypte are hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature. History of case 2151 An application for a ruling on the authorship and dates of publication of certain parts of Savigny’s Description de l’Egypte was formulated by M. E. Tollitt UCZN Secretariat) on 26 April 1985. The case was published in BZN 43: 107-111 (April 1986). No comment was received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 110. At the close of the voting period on | June 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Dupuis abstained because he did not consider this case appropriate for action by the Commission. No vote was returned by Bernardi. Reference Sherborn, C. D. 1897. On the Dates of the Natural History portions of Savigny’s ‘Description de l Egypte’. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1897, pp. 285-288. For Appendix see page 220 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44(3) September 1987 APPENDIX (to Opinion 1461) SUMMARY OF AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION DATES OF THE ZOOLOGICAL PORTIONS OF THE TEXT VOLUMES OF THE HISTOIRE NATURELLE SECTION OF DESCRIPTION DE L’EGYPTE Based on Sherborn, 1897 Volume Part Pages Author(s) Date 1 1 1-52__ E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1809 1 1 63-114 M.J.C. L. de Savigny 1809 1 1 115-120 E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827 1 1 121-160 Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827 1 1 161-184 J. V. Audouin 1827 1 1 185-264 E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827 1 1 265-310 I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827 1 1 311-343 I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827 1 2 1-58 M.J.C.L. de Savigny Not given 1 3 1-128 M.J.C. L. de Savigny 1822 1 4 1-318 J. V. Audouin 1826 2 -- 99-144 E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1818 2, — 733-743 E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire & J. V. Audouin 1829 2 — 744-750 J. V. Audouin 1829 N.B._ There is a misprint on p. 286 of Sherborn’s paper, four lines from the bottom of the page. For Vol. II read Vol. I. Contents—continued Opinion 1449. Cholus Germar, 1824(Insecta, Coleoptera) . . . ...... 203 Opinion 1450. Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 (Insecta,Coleoptera) . . . . .... 204 Opinion 1451. Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . . . . . . . 205 Opinion 1452. Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . . 207 Opinion 1453. Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936 and Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950 (Insecta, Coleoptera). . Sten) eae 209 Opinion 1454. Nomadaeris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera) . TF eA hee 210 Opinion 1455. Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) . . 211 Opinion 1456. Ammonites (currently Euaspidoceras) perarmatus J. = j une 1822 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea). . ne oe tae 212 Opinion 1457. Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1901 (Crustacea, Isopoda) . Aimar ie 214 Opinion 1458. Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea). . . . . . 215 Opinion 1459. Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (Chondrichthyes, Lamniformes) . . . 216 Opinion 1460. Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) . . . 218 Opinion 1461. A ruling on the authorship and dates of the text volumes of the Histoire naturelle section of Savigny’s Descriptiondel’Egypte . . .. ...... 219 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Parts of the Bulletin since 44 (1) should be consulted as examples. Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current binomen in parentheses. Author’s name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission Secretariat. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described ...’. References. These should be given for all authors cited. The titles of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages, the publisher and the place of publication. Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to the address on the inside front cover. The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in the preparation of manuscripts. CONTENTS Notices . Call for nominations for new v members of the International Commission on n Zoological Nomenclature . Publication of Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology General articles On the introduction of the term ‘pragmatype’ and some comments on the role of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. R. H. L. Disney & Y.Z. Erzinclioglu . Reply. P. K. Tubbs Applications Sorites Ehrenberg, 1839 (Foraminiferida). A. R. Loeblich, Jr & H. Tappan . Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870 (Foraminiferida). A. R. Loeblich, Jr & H. Tappan . Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 (Mollusca, Bivalvia).G.Lee . . : Haminoea Turton & Kingston, 1830 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. Giannuzzi-Savelli . Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoidea).J.N.Caira. . . eee Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). H. Malz & A. Ph Keij ese Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) and Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C. van Achterberg Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (currently Ceutorhyncus assimilis; Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Silfverberg . : ae ih: Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Graphoderus cinereus; Insecta, Coleoptera). A. N. Nilsson & G. N. Foster . Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 (currently I/ybius ater) and Dytiscus planus F abaiciGi, 1781 (currently Hydroporus planus; Insecta, Coleoptera). A. N. Nilsson . gag Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (Insecta, Diptera). N. L. Evenhuis . : Pararatus Ricardo, 1913 (Insecta, Diptera). G. Daniels _-ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). J. A. Powell. : Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida). M.S. Harvey . f 4 Sarotherodon melanotheron Riuppell, 1852 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). E. Trewavas : Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 (currently Ctenopoma oxyrhyncus; Osteichthyes, Perciformes). S. M. Norris . Sig spin meas ras are eT ei Mimrad aN ; Comments On the proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca, Coleoidea).D.T. Donovan . . On the proposed conservation of Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (nsecta, Coleoptera). D.E. Bright; M.G. Morris. . On the proposed designation of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 | as type species of ek, Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea). J. Roman p